From: rxz1011@usl.edu (Zamora Rodrigo)
Subject: Re: U.N. Rehash
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 09:15:56 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: U.N. Rehash
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Keywords: 

In article <YfM2fjm00awYM2JmgZ@andrew.cmu.edu> Mark Beirne Lively <ml5a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>No the reason why Hussien was a Hitleresque person is that he was a
>genocidal maniac.  If you don't believe me ask the Kurds.  Castro is not
>even a real communist.  he is more of an opportunist, dictator, and is
>harmless. n Maybe we should call enemy dictators Zamora's?
>
First of all, the Kurds are trying to take over the government. The 
overthrowing of governments usually doesn't go too well with the 
government that is being overthrown.  Secondly, I am not too sure
that the gassing that the U.S. media claims, ever happened.  The
reason I remain doubtfull is because at the time those pictures 
were taken, I believe Iraq was still fighting with Iran.  Those
people could have been killed by almost anyone.  Furthermore, it
has come to be known after the war that accusations brought forth
to the U.N. were outright lies.  For example, there was a girl
that was suppose to be a peasant or something, that said that
she had seen the Iraqis taking incubators from Kuwait and that
they somehow were killing babies.  Bullshit!! The girl turned out
to be the daughter of some Kuwaiti politician, I believe that it
was the daughter of the ambassador to the U.S.  Also there are
other stories that have now been disproved.  Disproved may I add
by American journalists.  And finally I don't understand why
you say dictators should be called Zamora's.  Why, because I disagree
with you?  I don't recall calling anyone on this newsgroup anything
because I disagreed with them.  Keep your petty comments to
yourself.
>
>But we have not killed all that many people.  The soldiers in somalia
	I think i will quote that and use it for my .signature :)
>
>Situational ethics.  It was neccisarry at the time to put those people
>into power to maintain a strategic advantage.  You are right that we
>should have used a more permanent solution but russia would have gone
>ape if we actually annexed central america.

I NEVER SAID THAT!!! Please do not state things that I have not
written.  You and Mr. Buckner seem to do this.  I would never say
that there should have been a permanent solution by anexxing Central
America.  This is very insulting to Central America may I add. (not
that you care) 
If this is the way you really feel, then I must say to you that
you should not be surprised when terrorist try to kill innocent
people.  It is kindof like the L.A. riots, I certainly don't 
agree with them, but I can understand why it happened.  The
U.S. government is creating deep resentments all over the world.
Then you wonder why it is that everyone hates us. 

>You are confusing two issues the Ayatollah took power and our hostages. 
>I am unfamilar with what happened when the shah took over but that was
>in the early cold war period as I remember.
>
No, it is you who are confused.  The Shah was installed in Iran by 
the U.S. government (big surprise hunh?).  When his government was
overthrown the U.S. was harboring him.  This is the reason the hostages
were taken.  I don't agree with this, but like I said before it was
the U.S. government who created that situation. 

>> which is to negotiate.  Do you think Hitler ever agreed to negotiate?
>
>Yes he did negotiate.  With Chamberlin.  Right after he siezed

As soon as I wrote that sentence I knew Chamberlin's name would
be brought up.  I should have clairied the question because I meant
it to mean that if Hitler was in the situation that Hussein is now.
Like when Hitler was losing at the end of the WW II.  Did he compromise??
No, he did not.  Also Chamberlin was not the idiot the media makes him
out to be.  Chamberlin was buying time with Hitler so that he could
prepare his military.

>It was just a coincidence.  Besides Nostradamous is often a little to
>accurate to be treated entirely as coincidence.

*sigh*  If you believe in him that ok with me but I personally don't
consider him an important political figure.

HEY, I AM NOT MAKING THIS STUFF UP.  IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME GO TO
YOUR LIBRARY AND READ ABOUT IT YOURSELF.
Newsgroups: alt.overlords