I don't think so.

Even though they are among the worst tyrannies in the world, Bush
won't go after *them*...or Pakistan, or Indonesia. He's a bullying
hypocrite of the worst sort. Seriously, there are too many parallels
to ignore.

65 years ago it was Austria, then Czechoslavakia, then Poland, now
it's Iraq, Iran,...and ?

--
Tarla
****
"Do moral values say when Jesus fed the poor,drove
the moneychangers from the temple,walked with lepers,
defended the harlot,and healed the sick, that he was
practicing wanton immoral liberalism?"
--John Cory

From:	WeeWillyWonka
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:59:19 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Tarla wrote:
>65 years ago it was Austria, then Czechoslavakia, then Poland, now
>it's Iraq, Iran,...and ?

The true point of Tarla's demented post was just to demonstrate that
she can type out "Uzbekistan".

willy

From:	JohnO
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:12:43 +1300

"Tarla" wrote in message
news:tm75v05rq9apm6u23rrm6dmfbsocdvjigu@4ax.com...
>I don't think so.
>
> Even though they are among the worst tyrannies in the world, Bush
> won't go after *them*...or Pakistan, or Indonesia. He's a bullying
> hypocrite of the worst sort. Seriously, there are too many parallels
> to ignore.
>
> 65 years ago it was Austria, then Czechoslavakia, then Poland, now
> it's Iraq, Iran,...and ?
>
> --
> Tarla
> ****

Russia and Uzbekistan are democracies so are clearly exempt from the stated
Bush objectives. Saudi is one of the USA's few friends in the Middle East so
you'd have to be thicker than pigshit to think they'd invade there.

From:	JohnO
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:22 +1300

"JohnO" wrote in message
news:P7IId.10639$mo2.808206@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Tarla" wrote in message
> news:tm75v05rq9apm6u23rrm6dmfbsocdvjigu@4ax.com...
>>I don't think so.
>>
>> Even though they are among the worst tyrannies in the world, Bush
>> won't go after *them*...or Pakistan, or Indonesia. He's a bullying
>> hypocrite of the worst sort. Seriously, there are too many parallels
>> to ignore.
>>
>> 65 years ago it was Austria, then Czechoslavakia, then Poland, now
>> it's Iraq, Iran,...and ?
>>
>> --
>> Tarla
>> ****
>
>
> Russia and Uzbekistan are democracies so are clearly exempt from the
> stated Bush objectives. Saudi is one of the USA's few friends in the
> Middle East so you'd have to be thicker than pigshit to think they'd
> invade there.
>
>

I take that back about Uzbek - it's totalitarian!

From:	Tarla
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:33:34 +1300

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:22 +1300, "JohnO" wrote:

>
>"JohnO" wrote in message
>news:P7IId.10639$mo2.808206@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>
>> "Tarla" wrote in message
>> news:tm75v05rq9apm6u23rrm6dmfbsocdvjigu@4ax.com...
>>>I don't think so.
>>>
>>> Even though they are among the worst tyrannies in the world, Bush
>>> won't go after *them*...or Pakistan, or Indonesia. He's a bullying
>>> hypocrite of the worst sort. Seriously, there are too many parallels
>>> to ignore.
>>>
>>> 65 years ago it was Austria, then Czechoslavakia, then Poland, now
>>> it's Iraq, Iran,...and ?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tarla
>>> ****
>>
>>
>> Russia and Uzbekistan are democracies so are clearly exempt from the
>> stated Bush objectives. Saudi is one of the USA's few friends in the
>> Middle East so you'd have to be thicker than pigshit to think they'd
>> invade there.
>>
>>
>
>I take that back about Uzbek - it's totalitarian!

And Putin is doing his damnest to re-assemble the scraps of the Soviet
Union, no matter how many people he has to kill to do so.
--
Tarla
****
"Do moral values say when Jesus fed the poor,drove
the moneychangers from the temple,walked with lepers,
defended the harlot,and healed the sick, that he was
practicing wanton immoral liberalism?"
--John Cory

From:	JohnO
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:52:45 +1300

"Tarla" wrote in message
news:ftn7v095l3k9h9v69su7k3q5nq1uc2ihb4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:22 +1300, "JohnO" wrote:
>
> >
> >"JohnO" wrote in message
> >news:P7IId.10639$mo2.808206@news.xtra.co.nz...
> >>
> >> "Tarla" wrote in message
> >> news:tm75v05rq9apm6u23rrm6dmfbsocdvjigu@4ax.com...
> >>>I don't think so.
> >>>
> >>> Even though they are among the worst tyrannies in the world, Bush
> >>> won't go after *them*...or Pakistan, or Indonesia. He's a bullying
> >>> hypocrite of the worst sort. Seriously, there are too many parallels
> >>> to ignore.
> >>>
> >>> 65 years ago it was Austria, then Czechoslavakia, then Poland, now
> >>> it's Iraq, Iran,...and ?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Tarla
> >>> ****
> >>
> >>
> >> Russia and Uzbekistan are democracies so are clearly exempt from the
> >> stated Bush objectives. Saudi is one of the USA's few friends in the
> >> Middle East so you'd have to be thicker than pigshit to think they'd
> >> invade there.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I take that back about Uzbek - it's totalitarian!
>
> And Putin is doing his damnest to re-assemble the scraps of the Soviet
> Union, no matter how many people he has to kill to do so.
> --

I thought Putin was a creepy scary cold eyed motherfucker when he first got
the top job. He presided over the KGB in the commie days and no doubt back
then found the freedom to do whatever he damn well liked pretty useful.

From:	Brian Dooley
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:29:18 +1300

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:22 +1300, "JohnO" wrote:
>
>"JohnO" wrote in message
>news:P7IId.10639$mo2.808206@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>
>> "Tarla" wrote in message
>> news:tm75v05rq9apm6u23rrm6dmfbsocdvjigu@4ax.com...
>>>I don't think so.
>>>
>>> Even though they are among the worst tyrannies in the world, Bush
>>> won't go after *them*...or Pakistan, or Indonesia. He's a bullying
>>> hypocrite of the worst sort. Seriously, there are too many parallels
>>> to ignore.
>>>
>>> 65 years ago it was Austria, then Czechoslavakia, then Poland, now
>>> it's Iraq, Iran,...and ?
>>>
>> Russia and Uzbekistan are democracies so are clearly exempt from the
>> stated Bush objectives. Saudi is one of the USA's few friends in the
>> Middle East so you'd have to be thicker than pigshit to think they'd
>> invade there.
>>
>I take that back about Uzbek - it's totalitarian!
>
I know, and I knew then.
--

Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand

From:	Barry Phease
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:15:37 +1300

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:29:18 +1300, Brian Dooley wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:22 +1300, "JohnO" wrote:

>>> Russia and Uzbekistan are democracies so are clearly exempt from the
>>> stated Bush objectives. Saudi is one of the USA's few friends in the
>>> Middle East so you'd have to be thicker than pigshit to think they'd
>>> invade there.
>>>
>>I take that back about Uzbek - it's totalitarian!
>>
> I know, and I knew then.

The same goes for the other despotic regimes in Arabia (eg Kuwait and
Jordan)

And Uzbekistan is USA's best friend in the Caucasus, so is safe.

Turkey would have to be a potential target, but they are safe because they
have WMDs. Really it only leaves Iran, Cuba and Syria. They are
sufficiently hated by the American public, and don't have WMDs so cannot
retaliate effectively outside the region.

--
Barry Phease

mailto:barryp@es.co.nz
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp

From:	Peter Metcalfe
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:28:23 +1300

In article , barryp@es.co.nz
says...

> The same goes for the other despotic regimes in Arabia (eg Kuwait and
> Jordan)

You should have said Egypt and still retained some credibility.

> And Uzbekistan is USA's best friend in the Caucasus, so is safe.

Uzbekistan is not in the Caucasus.

> Turkey would have to be a potential target, but they are safe because they
> have WMDs.

Which would be? It's a member of NATO and its armed forces are
conventional.

> Really it only leaves Iran, Cuba and Syria. They are
> sufficiently hated by the American public, and don't have WMDs so cannot
> retaliate effectively outside the region.

Syria does have WMDs and legitimately so because a) it is not a signatory
to the Chemical Weapons Convention and b) it never used them.

--Peter Metcalfe

--Peter Metcalfe

From:	Newsman
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:44:44 GMT

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:15:37 +1300, Barry Phease
wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:29:18 +1300, Brian Dooley wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:22 +1300, "JohnO" wrote:
>
>>>> Russia and Uzbekistan are democracies so are clearly exempt from the
>>>> stated Bush objectives. Saudi is one of the USA's few friends in the
>>>> Middle East so you'd have to be thicker than pigshit to think they'd
>>>> invade there.

Of course they wouldn't because that's where most of the WTC hijackers
came from. Safe as houses, that corrupt ol' Saudi régime, eh? No
sweat.
>>>>
>>>I take that back about Uzbek - it's totalitarian!
>>>
>> I know, and I knew then.
>
>The same goes for the other despotic regimes in Arabia (eg Kuwait and
>Jordan)

Compared to some both are relatively benign. And you can walk the
streets at night with impunity as I and many others can confirm.
>
>And Uzbekistan is USA's best friend in the Caucasus, so is safe.
>
>Turkey would have to be a potential target, but they are safe because they
>have WMDs.

So, notwithstanding its possession of WMDs, a staunch member of NATO
would be a potential target for US aggression? Well, fuck my old
boots!

>Really it only leaves Iran, Cuba and Syria. They are
>sufficiently hated by the American public, and don't have WMDs so cannot
>retaliate effectively outside the region.

Once the Shias are in control of an Iraqi administration Iran's dream
of Shia hegemony in the middle-east will be enhanced. Only
Saudi-Arabia left to topple and since its ruling family are more
disease-ridden and shaky than a barrel-load of pigshit it should be a
walkover.

As should Cuba, but for different reasons. No military strength worthy
of the name and a buggered economy. Just the ticket for another bout
of bullying and ransacking in conformity with the US's pathological
need.

Syria, however, would be an entirely different kettle of fish.

From:	JD
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:15:43 GMT

From:	John Cawston
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:19:47 +1300

Tarla wrote:
> I don't think so.
>
> Even though they are among the worst tyrannies in the world, Bush
> won't go after *them*...or Pakistan, or Indonesia. He's a bullying
> hypocrite of the worst sort. Seriously, there are too many parallels
> to ignore.
>
> 65 years ago it was Austria, then Czechoslavakia, then Poland, now
> it's Iraq, Iran,...and ?
>
Lebanon. That pushes Hezbollah, Iran's first strike
terrorist weapon back on Syria, gives the Lebanese their
country back, secures the Lebanon/Israel border, sends a
message to Syria and isolates Iran quite a bit more.

JC

From:	Kerry Ferrand
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:09:47 +1300

In article ,
tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
> I don't think so.
>
> Even though they are among the worst tyrannies in the world, Bush
> won't go after *them*...or Pakistan, or Indonesia. He's a bullying
> hypocrite of the worst sort. Seriously, there are too many parallels
> to ignore.
>
Indonesia? Suharto has been gone for years and they've had a couple of
elections since..sure the military still holds alot more power than it
should but it doesn't doesn't really compare with other 'tyrannies'

K

From:	Newsman
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:33:14 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:09:47 +1300, Kerry Ferrand
wrote:

>In article ,
>tarla@inspire.net.nz says...
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> Even though they are among the worst tyrannies in the world, Bush
>> won't go after *them*...or Pakistan, or Indonesia. He's a bullying
>> hypocrite of the worst sort. Seriously, there are too many parallels
>> to ignore.
>>
>Indonesia? Suharto has been gone for years and they've had a couple of
>elections since..sure the military still holds alot more power than it
>should but it doesn't doesn't really compare with other 'tyrannies'

You'll note that, to date, America has only ever attacked weak
countries, i.e. small, mediaeval Afghanistan and a wholly militarily
and economically crippled Iraq neither of which, as sovereign states,
had any show whatever of putting up any effective resistance to the US
military.

Nothing less than naked and unprovoked aggression - the ugly face of
"bullying" and entirely for US corporate pillage and gain.

If the total civilian casualty figures resultiing from both Gulf wars
and the sanctions are to be believed, there will be hardly an Iraqi
family that has not walked behind the coffin of a loved one.

And still a surpassingly dumbfuck American populace asks, "Why do they
hate us"?

Yet the answer is so simple and obvious that only a wholly
self-absorbed and ignorant nation would have asked the question in the
first place.

From:	Peter Metcalfe
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:46:38 +1300

In article <41f2ee04.1071718@news.actrix.co.nz>, slaybot@hotmail.com
says...

> You'll note that, to date, America has only ever attacked weak
> countries, i.e. small, mediaeval Afghanistan and a wholly militarily
> and economically crippled Iraq neither of which, as sovereign states,
> had any show whatever of putting up any effective resistance to the US
> military.

Which didn't stop some people from making fools of themselves by shouting
"quagmire" and "vietnam" during those campaigns.

> If the total civilian casualty figures resultiing from both Gulf wars
> and the sanctions are to be believed, there will be hardly an Iraqi
> family that has not walked behind the coffin of a loved one.

Is there a reason why you do not mention civilian casualties from
Saddam's repression? Or was it a case of:

Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up it was a
happy place. They had flowering meadows and rainbow skies and
rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed
and played with gumdrop smiles.

--Peter Metcalfe

From:	Bill Ewing
Subject:	Re: Next up...Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:47:41 GMT

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:46:38 +1300, Peter Metcalfe
wrote:

>In article <41f2ee04.1071718@news.actrix.co.nz>, slaybot@hotmail.com
>says...
>
>> You'll note that, to date, America has only ever attacked weak
>> countries, i.e. small, mediaeval Afghanistan and a wholly militarily
>> and economically crippled Iraq neither of which, as sovereign states,
>> had any show whatever of putting up any effective resistance to the US
>> military.
>
>Which didn't stop some people from making fools of themselves by shouting
>"quagmire" and "vietnam" during those campaigns.
>
>--Peter Metcalfe

Hang about, mate. The "adventure in Iraq" is not over yet. Perhaps it will turn
out that those "fools" were not so foolish after all.
Bill E....