OT: Interview with Bugliosi
marki...@yahoo.com
Chuck Schuyler
> http://www.opednews.com/articles/Murder-Trumps-Torture-Says-by-Michae...
>
> ~Mark
I read the interview.
If Bugliosi is correct and Bush is guilty of murder, it logically follows
that the Obama administration is complicit in these crimes, too. No
excuses. The Obamessiah is The World's Smartest Human, and together with
his advisors and trusty teleprompter, Team Hope 'n Change must know the
terrible truth about the Bush crimes leading to the genocidal war to
exterminate Islam and dethrone the popular and benevolent Saddam Hussein.
Obama's teleprompter could give him the word and *POOF*, just like that,
no more war. Alas, offensive operations continue in Iraq. Civilians are
sometimes caught in terrible circumstances and die inadvertently. Yes, war
sucks.
Obama is just as guilty now.
If Bush is a war criminal, so is Obama.
If you order someone to commit mass murder, and hand over the reins of
authority to someone else who knows the "truth" but continues the exact
same behavior, I'd say that the blood stains are now under someone else's
fingernails.
Barack Obama. War Criminal.
Hope 'n Change.
David Von Pein
>>> "If Bush is a war criminal, so is Obama." <<<
Bullshit.
Bush is a murderer (via the strict legal sense of that word).
But Obama didn't lead the nation into war on a lie. Bush did that.
>>> "Barack Obama. War Criminal." <<<
Oh, good Lord. Give it a rest, Chuck. You're talking silly here.
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> "If Bush is a war criminal, so is Obama." <<<
>
>Bullshit.
>
>Bush is a murderer (via the strict legal sense of that word).
>
>But Obama didn't lead the nation into war on a lie. Bush did that.
>
Dave, if you want to claim that Bush lied, you have to believe that he
was the most brilliant person in the world.
Everybody *else,* including intelligence agancies of the U.K.,
France, Russia, etc., top Congressional Democrats on the intelligence
committees, Hillary Clinton, the CIA, etc. believed that Saddam had
WMDs.
It's amazing the amount of sheer hate that Bush attackers show.
Ordinary policy disagreements can't account for it. It's basically
cultural. Bush is a conservative, a Christian and a Texan. That
pushes all the buttons of the secular cultural left.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "Bush is a conservative, a Christian and a Texan. That pushes all the
buttons of the secular cultural left." <<<
I'm not "left" or "right"....and I can't stand those labels. Such stupid
labels are meaningless.
Bottom Line -- Evidence is evidence....whether it be in the JFK-
assassination case or when looking into the facts concerning the Iraq War
and how that war got started.
"THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER" (BOOK REVIEW):
www.amazon.com/review/R29B7NYHLKV3SH
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>>>> "Bush is a conservative, a Christian and a Texan. That pushes all the
>buttons of the secular cultural left." <<<
>
>I'm not "left" or "right"....and I can't stand those labels. Such stupid
>labels are meaningless.
>
>Bottom Line -- Evidence is evidence....whether it be in the JFK-
>assassination case or when looking into the facts concerning the Iraq War
>and how that war got started.
>
Anybody on this newsgroup should know that "evidence is evidence" is
not *nearly* so simple.
People view the "evidence" through very biased lenses.
The simple fact is that, before the Iraq War started, virtually nobody
who was anybody disputed that Saddam had WMDs. The debate was how to
deal with that, with the "doves" wanting sanctions (and more UN
resolutions) and the "hawks" wanting to depose Saddam.
So I stand by my statement: only cultural bias can explain the claim
that "Bush lied."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "Anybody on this newsgroup should know that "evidence is evidence" is
not *nearly* so simple." <<<
The above statement is certainly true when it comes to virtually all JFK
conspiracists, I'll grant you that. For most JFK CTers, the "evidence" is
supposed to be flushed down the nearest toilet bowl (along with Mr. Occam
as well).
Chuck Schuyler
> >>> "If Bush is a war criminal, so is Obama." <<<
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Bush is a murderer (via the strict legal sense of that word).
Who did he murder? Many of our Presidents have ordered men into battle,
and very few of these decisions were ratified by the traditional WW2 style
Declaration of War Roosevelt obtained. Think Korean War. Think Vietnam
War. Dust off a history book and look at the countless times American
citizens and interests have been directly attacked or threatened by other
countries or terrorist groups that resulted in America taking military
action to protect its citizens and itself, usually without the
Congressional support Bush received. I would dare say that using
Bugliosi's definition of murder, a flimsy case could be made that most of
our Presidents are guilty of murder, which is, of course, silly.
> But Obama didn't lead the nation into war on a lie. Bush did that.
Sorry. that doesn't cut the mustard. Period. Congress had access to the
same intelligence the President looked at. No more passing the buck. Obama
has the power to snap his fingers and bring the troops home. It's his war
now, like it or not.
>
> >>> "Barack Obama. War Criminal." <<<
>
> Oh, good Lord. Give it a rest, Chuck. You're talking silly here.
I understand you are a big fan of Vincent Bugliosi (okay...understatement
of the young century) and I happen to be a big fan of his writings--and
your writings for that matter--about the Kennedy assassination.
But Bugs is off the rails on this Bush Derangement Syndrome thing. He
exhibits the same unhinged craziness he accuses the off the rails CTs of
when it comes to the JFK assassination.
George Bush is not a murderer. Neither is Barack Obama, by the way. The
decision to go to war in Iraq, like it or not, was granted to Bush by
Congress. A summary from Wikipedia states:
"With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed
the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush Administration with
the legal basis for the U.S. invasion under US law. The resolution asserts
the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United
States Congress for the President to fight anti-United States violence.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it
should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and
promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and
"encouraged" diplomatic efforts by US President George W. Bush to
"strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action
by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of
delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with
all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution
authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as
he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed
by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
Resolutions regarding Iraq."
To put the above paragraph in JFK parlance, ignoring this resolution and
claiming Bush is a murderer is the equivalent of CT''s ignoring the
autopsy report, claiming shooters in the sewers, switched coffins,
Connally was shot in the front of his chest, the Z film is fake, etc.
The Congressional resolution is the mandate that allowed Bush to deal with
the fluid Iraqi situation as he saw fit. Bush handled the run up to
hostilities properly. The war was debated. The debate was contentious at
times, and many voted against it, but the resolution was passed. He got
Congressional permission to pre-emptively attack Iraq, if needed.
It's no secret that the war went poorly, and it's no secret that war
sucks. It would've been great if Saddam could've been enticed at the last
minute to flee to Jordan with his sons and riches, and somehow have turned
the country over peacefully to US/multinational forces. But that didn't
happen.
George Bush isn't a murderer.
And Barack Obama isn't a murderer, either.
Anthony Marsh
> On 11 Apr 2009 23:42:09 -0400, David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> "If Bush is a war criminal, so is Obama."<<<
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Bush is a murderer (via the strict legal sense of that word).
>>
>> But Obama didn't lead the nation into war on a lie. Bush did that.
>>
>
> Dave, if you want to claim that Bush lied, you have to believe that he
> was the most brilliant person in the world.
>
Not at all. Just that he was/is dishonest and was serving the neocon
agenda. That's why the neocons selected him. NOT because he was the most
brilliant person in the world. He had lost about half of his brains to
drugs and alcohol. But he would go along with whatever evil they wanted to
perpetrate and they would get very very rich.
> Everybody *else,* including intelligence agancies of the U.K.,
> France, Russia, etc., top Congressional Democrats on the intelligence
> committees, Hillary Clinton, the CIA, etc. believed that Saddam had
> WMDs.
>
Wrong. The ones you cited believed that ONLY because Bush and Cheney
ordered the CIA to lie.
> It's amazing the amount of sheer hate that Bush attackers show.
>
Jeez, you'd criticize Jews for hating Hitler.
> Ordinary policy disagreements can't account for it. It's basically
> cultural. Bush is a conservative, a Christian and a Texan. That
> pushes all the buttons of the secular cultural left.
>
Not really. In private Bush would joke about how stupid the Evangelic
right-wing Christians were. At Yale Bush took an oath in the Skull and
Bones to worship Satan.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Chuck Schuyler
So Bush was a brain dead, Satan worshipping Christian basher?
Have you called "Bush Lied and Kids Died" CTer Bugliosi up and offered
this well documented, hard-hitting information to him?
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 11, 10:42 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "If Bush is a war criminal, so is Obama."<<<
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Bush is a murderer (via the strict legal sense of that word).
>
> Who did he murder? Many of our Presidents have ordered men into battle,
Whom did he murder? Well, ignore any Skull and Bones initiation or drunk
driving homicides, or his acts as Governor, as this is just about his
actions as President. So yes his actions as President are war crimes, not
just simple cases of murder.
> and very few of these decisions were ratified by the traditional WW2 style
Do you really think that WWII was the ONLY time the US formally declared
war? Everyone knows how the US has avoided the responsibility of declaring
war after WWII.
> Declaration of War Roosevelt obtained. Think Korean War. Think Vietnam
Think Police Action. This International Intervention. Apologists have
often dreamed up euphemisms to avoid having to call them wars.
> War. Dust off a history book and look at the countless times American
> citizens and interests have been directly attacked or threatened by other
> countries or terrorist groups that resulted in America taking military
> action to protect its citizens and itself, usually without the
Think of the countless times that US vessels have been attacked and the US
found it convenient to NOT do a damn thing about it. USS Stark. USS
Liberty.
> Congressional support Bush received. I would dare say that using
> Bugliosi's definition of murder, a flimsy case could be made that most of
> our Presidents are guilty of murder, which is, of course, silly.
>
Not silly to those who oppose Imperialism.
>> But Obama didn't lead the nation into war on a lie. Bush did that.
>
> Sorry. that doesn't cut the mustard. Period. Congress had access to the
> same intelligence the President looked at. No more passing the buck. Obama
No, it did not. I did not have access to the real intelligence. It was
fed a lie.
> has the power to snap his fingers and bring the troops home. It's his war
> now, like it or not.
>
You know nothing about the military if you think all he has to do is snap
his fingers and the troops would be home tomorrow. Even JFK had a time
frame of 3 years to bring the troops home.
Hey, that's disloyal talk. Don't you know we already won the Iraq War?
> sucks. It would've been great if Saddam could've been enticed at the last
> minute to flee to Jordan with his sons and riches, and somehow have turned
> the country over peacefully to US/multinational forces. But that didn't
> happen.
>
So in your mind it was all over when Saddam was captured? No more
fighting?
marki...@yahoo.com
> Dave, if you want to claim that Bush lied, you have to believe that he
> was the most brilliant person in the world.
We can quickly rule that out.
> Everybody *else,* including intelligence agancies of the U.K.,
> France, Russia, etc., top Congressional Democrats on the intelligence
> committees, Hillary Clinton, the CIA, etc. believed that Saddam had
> WMDs.
Paul Wellstone voted against authorizing the Iraq war. It's only
speculation now as to what Wellstone believed. Also, I recall Hans Blix
almost begging for more time to search. I'm not saying that Blix believed
he had WMD's, or that additional time would lead to discovery. Blix
clearly sensed the need for international verification prior to an
invasion, otherwise the consequences would be dire.
> It's amazing the amount of sheer hate that Bush attackers show.
Respectfully, I find it amazing the amount of denial that Bush
supporters show.
> Ordinary policy disagreements can't account for it.
Correct. It's much more than political idealogies clashing. If it was,
then the '06 and '08 elections would not have been lopsided.
> Bush is a conservative, a Christian and a Texan.
These traits about Bush are not why the majority of americans and the
world population have their current opinion of him. It was his deeds and
misdeeds.
Respectfully,
~Mark
marki...@yahoo.com
> So Bush was a brain dead, Satan worshipping Christian basher?
Bush had no need to worship Satan. Surely his weekly meetings with Ted
Haggard gave him proper spiritual guidance.
> Have you called "Bush Lied and Kids Died" CTer Bugliosi up and offered
> this well documented, hard-hitting information to him?
Bugliosi is arguably one of the best lawyers there has ever been, with
attention to detail that is exhaustive and legally persuasive. There
is likely no doubt that Bugliosi is aware of Bush's history of Skull &
Bones, as well as the possible diminished mental faculties due to
prolonged cocaine and alcohol abuse.
~Mark
Coondog
Actually this whole Bush is a war criminal thing is silly. Very silly.
While I deplore the group of draft dodgers (Bush, Chenny, and Wolfowitz)
that sent our young men and women into combat this war criminal tag is a
bit much and makes Bugliosi look like one of the radical nuts.
If you want to charge them with a crime then charge them with the most
inadequate planning for a war in our recent history. You would then get
my vote for guilty.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
Well said.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 11, 8:42 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "If Bush is a war criminal, so is Obama."<<<
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Bush is a murderer (via the strict legal sense of that word).
>>
>> But Obama didn't lead the nation into war on a lie. Bush did that.
>>
>>>>> "Barack Obama. War Criminal."<<<
>>
>> Oh, good Lord. Give it a rest, Chuck. You're talking silly here.
>
> Actually this whole Bush is a war criminal thing is silly. Very silly.
>
> While I deplore the group of draft dodgers (Bush, Chenny, and Wolfowitz)
> that sent our young men and women into combat this war criminal tag is a
> bit much and makes Bugliosi look like one of the radical nuts.
>
It is not the sending men into battle which is the war crime. It is
waging aggressive war, invading another country, one of the charges at
the Nuremberg trials
Anthony Marsh
The purpose of war is not to win the war.
The purpose of war is to waste resources, impoverish the people and
enslave them. The Neocons were very successful.
Chuck Schuyler
> On 4/12/2009 8:58 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 10:42 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "If Bush is a war criminal, so is Obama."<<<
>
> >> Bullshit.
>
> >> Bush is a murderer (via the strict legal sense of that word).
>
> > Who did he murder? Many of our Presidents have ordered men into battle,
>
> Whom did he murder? Well, ignore any Skull and Bones initiation or drunk
> driving homicides, or his acts as Governor, as this is just about his
> actions as President. So yes his actions as President are war crimes, not
> just simple cases of murder.
Jibberish.
>
> > and very few of these decisions were ratified by the traditional WW2 style
>
> Do you really think that WWII was the ONLY time the US formally declared
> war? Everyone knows how the US has avoided the responsibility of declaring
> war after WWII.
No US war before or since WW2 has had the dramatic "...Yesterday, December
7th, 1941..." kickoff before a Congressional vote on war. Bush went to
Congress, as the constitution mandates, and received approval to act as he
saw fit. Don't pretend otherwise.
> > Declaration of War Roosevelt obtained. Think Korean War. Think Vietnam
>
> Think Police Action. This International Intervention. Apologists have
> often dreamed up euphemisms to avoid having to call them wars.
Um, I believe this one is called the Iraq WAR. Democrats Truman and
Kennedy/Johnson used euphemisms to call their wars something else.
>
> > War. Dust off a history book and look at the countless times American
> > citizens and interests have been directly attacked or threatened by other
> > countries or terrorist groups that resulted in America taking military
> > action to protect its citizens and itself, usually without the
>
> Think of the countless times that US vessels have been attacked and the US
> found it convenient to NOT do a damn thing about it. USS Stark. USS
> Liberty.
What's your point?
>
> > Congressional support Bush received. I would dare say that using
> > Bugliosi's definition of murder, a flimsy case could be made that most of
> > our Presidents are guilty of murder, which is, of course, silly.
>
> Not silly to those who oppose Imperialism.
The only land we've ever asked for is enough to bury our dead.
>
> >> But Obama didn't lead the nation into war on a lie. Bush did that.
>
> > Sorry. that doesn't cut the mustard. Period. Congress had access to the
> > same intelligence the President looked at. No more passing the buck. Obama
>
> No, it did not. I did not have access to the real intelligence. It was
> fed a lie.
Aww...poor babies. More conspiracy, eh? The conspiracies never end
with you intellectual midgets.
>
> > has the power to snap his fingers and bring the troops home. It's his war
> > now, like it or not.
>
> You know nothing about the military if you think all he has to do is snap
> his fingers and the troops would be home tomorrow. Even JFK had a time
> frame of 3 years to bring the troops home.
I didn't mean Obama can literally snap his fingers like something from
I Dream of Jeannie. Even the Obamessiah isn't that powerful.
But he could order the troops home--NOW. I'm not in favor of it, but
he could do so. And he hasn't. It's his war now.
Yes, the war is won--to the extent that it was winnable. We won inspite of
people like you, Cindy Sheehan and Ward Churchill. I know victory is a
word liberals hate to hear, but I think a victory can be declared in Iraq.
>
> > sucks. It would've been great if Saddam could've been enticed at the last
> > minute to flee to Jordan with his sons and riches, and somehow have turned
> > the country over peacefully to US/multinational forces. But that didn't
> > happen.
>
> So in your mind it was all over when Saddam was captured? No more
> fighting?
Of course not.
>
>
>
> > George Bush isn't a murderer.
>
> > And Barack Obama isn't a murderer, either.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Coondog
> On 4/12/2009 8:58 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
> > Who did he murder? Many of our Presidents have ordered men into battle,
>
> Whom did he murder? Well, ignore any Skull and Bones
I always do.
> > Declaration of War Roosevelt obtained. Think Korean War. ThinkVietnam
>
> Think Police Action. This International Intervention. Apologists have
> often dreamed up euphemisms to avoid having to call them wars.
You mean like calling a blockade a quarantine instead? Those pesky
apologist!
> > Congressional support Bush received. I would dare say that using
> > Bugliosi's definition of murder, a flimsy case could be made that most of
> > our Presidents are guilty of murder, which is, of course, silly.
>
> Not silly to those who oppose Imperialism.
You date yourself with the old 1960s anti-imperialism slogans. Do try
to keep up.
> > has the power to snap his fingers and bring the troops home. It's his war
> > now, like it or not.
>
> You know nothing about the military if you think all he has to do is snap
> his fingers and the troops would be home tomorrow.
Your arrogance at telling someone they “know nothing about the
military” continues to astonish me. Here you are with no experience
and no knowledge of the military yourself telling someone they know
nothing. I should be used to it by now but your condescension
continues to shock me.
Now, General, if Obama snaps his finger the movement begins. You
don’t move all those Abrams tanks overnight but the movement begins
immediately and in a matter of months we could be out of Iraq. If we
wanted to.
> Even JFK had a time frame of 3 years to bring the troops home.
You are being devious here and I doubt you have fooled anyone. JFK
had a time frame of 3 years to win the war and bring the troops home.
Can you read, “To win the war”? With the equivalent of a heavy
Division in Vietnam in 1963 JFK could have left our equipment to the
ARVN, loaded our troops on the planes and had them home within a
months time if he had wanted too. Evidently, General, he didn’t want
to do that!
Bill Clarke
Chuck Schuyler
> The purpose of war is not to win the war.
> The purpose of war is to waste resources, impoverish the people and
> enslave them. The Neocons were very successful.
What a bunch of horse manure. Sounds like somebody still has his
Country Joe & the Fish blacklight poster hanging up in his room--right
next to the Mark Lane autographed copy of Rush to Judgement, and the
collection of McGovern for Prez in '72 campaign buttons.
Is everything a conspiracy with you?
Wow, I'll bet you're a blast at the company Christmas party.
Hey, pop a Joni Mitchell tape in the eight-track player of your VW bus
next time you make a shopping trip to the co-op for your tofu, goat
milk and granola.
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 14, 8:06 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The purpose of war is not to win the war.
>> The purpose of war is to waste resources, impoverish the people and
>> enslave them. The Neocons were very successful.
>
> What a bunch of horse manure. Sounds like somebody still has his
> next to the Mark Lane autographed copy of Rush to Judgement, and the
> collection of McGovern for Prez in '72 campaign buttons.
>
You have a vivid imagination, but some of your anti-Liberal ranting
references are a little too esoteric. I have a box of about 2 dozen Rush
to Judgment books which Mark Lane gave to me personally to hand out at our
CCI presentations. Of course I voted for McGovern. Our state was the only
state he won. You were proud to vote for that crook Nixon.
> Is everything a conspiracy with you?
>
Your lack of education explains why you don't get the literary allusions.
Anthony Marsh
Just plain stupid.
> > Even JFK had a time frame of 3 years to bring the troops home.
>
> You are being devious here and I doubt you have fooled anyone. JFK
> had a time frame of 3 years to win the war and bring the troops home.
> Can you read, “To win the war”? With the equivalent of a heavy
> Division in Vietnam in 1963 JFK could have left our equipment to the
> ARVN, loaded our troops on the planes and had them home within a
> months time if he had wanted too. Evidently, General, he didn’t want
> to do that!
>
Evidently JFK did not want to leave Vietnam as we actually did.
> Bill Clarke
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 13, 10:47 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/12/2009 8:58 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 10:42 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "If Bush is a war criminal, so is Obama."<<<
>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>
>>>> Bush is a murderer (via the strict legal sense of that word).
>>
>>> Who did he murder? Many of our Presidents have ordered men into battle,
>>
>> Whom did he murder? Well, ignore any Skull and Bones initiation or drunk
>> driving homicides, or his acts as Governor, as this is just about his
>> actions as President. So yes his actions as President are war crimes, not
>> just simple cases of murder.
>
> Jibberish.
>
>>
>>> and very few of these decisions were ratified by the traditional WW2 style
>>
>> Do you really think that WWII was the ONLY time the US formally declared
>> war? Everyone knows how the US has avoided the responsibility of declaring
>> war after WWII.
>
> No US war before or since WW2 has had the dramatic "...Yesterday, December
> 7th, 1941..." kickoff before a Congressional vote on war. Bush went to
> Congress, as the constitution mandates, and received approval to act as he
> saw fit. Don't pretend otherwise.
>
Well, that's the point. Roosevelt knew that he could not get a declaration
of war unless we were attacked. That is why they provoked Japan into
attacking us.
>>> Declaration of War Roosevelt obtained. Think Korean War. Think Vietnam
>>
>> Think Police Action. This International Intervention. Apologists have
>> often dreamed up euphemisms to avoid having to call them wars.
>
> Um, I believe this one is called the Iraq WAR. Democrats Truman and
> Kennedy/Johnson used euphemisms to call their wars something else.
>
Um, I think they called it the Vietnam WAR.
Some people will always us the correct term, war, regardless of what the
politicians call it.
>>
>>> War. Dust off a history book and look at the countless times American
>>> citizens and interests have been directly attacked or threatened by other
>>> countries or terrorist groups that resulted in America taking military
>>> action to protect its citizens and itself, usually without the
>>
>> Think of the countless times that US vessels have been attacked and the US
>> found it convenient to NOT do a damn thing about it. USS Stark. USS
>> Liberty.
>
> What's your point?
>
Just any attack does not qualify as a casus belli. We CHOOSE which one
to use as a pretext.
>>
>>> Congressional support Bush received. I would dare say that using
>>> Bugliosi's definition of murder, a flimsy case could be made that most of
>>> our Presidents are guilty of murder, which is, of course, silly.
>>
>> Not silly to those who oppose Imperialism.
>
> The only land we've ever asked for is enough to bury our dead.
>
>>
>>>> But Obama didn't lead the nation into war on a lie. Bush did that.
>>
>>> Sorry. that doesn't cut the mustard. Period. Congress had access to the
>>> same intelligence the President looked at. No more passing the buck. Obama
>>
>> No, it did not. I did not have access to the real intelligence. It was
>> fed a lie.
>
> Aww...poor babies. More conspiracy, eh? The conspiracies never end
> with you intellectual midgets.
>
>>
>>> has the power to snap his fingers and bring the troops home. It's his war
>>> now, like it or not.
>>
>> You know nothing about the military if you think all he has to do is snap
>> his fingers and the troops would be home tomorrow. Even JFK had a time
>> frame of 3 years to bring the troops home.
>
> I didn't mean Obama can literally snap his fingers like something from
> I Dream of Jeannie. Even the Obamessiah isn't that powerful.
>
I can just visualize you out there today at the rallies teabagging and
ranting about how Obama is not really a US citizen.
> But he could order the troops home--NOW. I'm not in favor of it, but
> he could do so. And he hasn't. It's his war now.
>
We know you are never in favor of it. You want US troops occupying all
countries all the time.
Good to know the killing is over. Very comforting to the widows of the
soldiers being killed every day.
Chuck Schuyler
> On Apr 12, 11:55 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > So Bush was a brain dead, Satan worshipping Christian basher?
>
> Bush had no need to worship Satan. Surely his weekly meetings with Ted
> Haggard gave him proper spiritual guidance.
Bush didn't meet "weekly" with Ted Haggard.
What was the nature of the spiritual guidance you claim Haggard gave Bush,
what is your cite, and what problem do you/did you have with it? I'll bet
you're just fine with Obama sitting in a racist church for twenty years
listening to "G-d d*mn America!" and "America's chickens have come home to
roost!" after 9/11.
>
> > Have you called "Bush Lied and Kids Died" CTer Bugliosi up and offered
> > this well documented, hard-hitting information to him?
>
> Bugliosi is arguably one of the best lawyers there has ever been, with
> attention to detail that is exhaustive and legally persuasive. There is likely no doubt
> that Bugliosi is aware of Bush's history of Skull &
> Bones, as well as the possible diminished mental faculties due to
> prolonged cocaine and alcohol abuse.
> ~Mark
A first year law student could successfully defend Bush against "war
crimes" and murder charges...provided you weren't on the jury to 'hang'
it.
My understanding is that Bush has been sober for over 20 years. Maybe he
purchased drugs from Barry Obama when the racial identity-confused,
Absent-Father/Napoleon complex suffering Obama was a pot smoking/coke
using drug dealer back in the eighties, but come to think of it, the media
seems remarkably uninterested in Obama's drug use--or his rumored
girlfriends. Hmmm...sorta makes you wonder if there isn't some media bias
out there.
And what's the big deal with the whole Skull & Bones thing? More
conspiracy moonbat stuff to frighten you at bed time?
Coondog
The image of Marsh tooling around in his VW bus with a “Hell no I
won’t go” bumper sticker has given me a great laugh. Thanks for the
laugh but you forgot to mention his Jane Fonda poster of her sitting on
the communist AA gun. Hey Marsh, you can take the bumper sticker off now!
I believe Mr. Marsh expressed thoughts on the purpose of war clearly show
his grasp of war and the military in general. Not much of a grip.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
> On 4/14/2009 9:09 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
>
> > No US war before or since WW2 has had the dramatic "...Yesterday, December
> > 7th, 1941..." kickoff before a Congressional vote on war. Bush went to
> > Congress, as the constitution mandates, and received approval to act as he
> > saw fit. Don't pretend otherwise.
>
> Well, that's the point. Roosevelt knew that he could not get a declaration
> of war unless we were attacked. That is why they provoked Japan into
> attacking us.
I hear the very Rev. Al Sharpton is claiming we murdered three Somalia
Coast Guard members in the recent pirate attack. You two make a fine
pair.
And just how, General, did we provoke Japan into attacking us? I know, I
know, we cut off their scrap metal and oil. But we did this because of
Japan atrocities in China (read the Rape of Nanking) and the Japanese
invasion of Vietnam. I assume you think we had an obligation to sell them
war materials while they chopped off fellow Asian heads.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
I’m not the one suggesting it would take three years to move 17,500
troops out of Vietnam in 1963 or that it would take years to move
100,000 plus troops out of Iraq. You are and that makes you the
stupid one. The draft dodger Paul Wolfowitz said the generals didn’t
know what they were talking about in estimating troop requirement for
Iraq. Well, guess who was stupid then? Another know-nothing no-
serving pseudo military expert.
I don’t know if you think the military still moves with horses and
mules but they could put a battalion in your front yard by close of
business tomorrow. They could remove them just as fast.
Bill Clarke
Chuck Schuyler
<snip>
>
> Well, that's the point. Roosevelt knew that he could not get a declaration
> of war unless we were attacked. That is why they provoked Japan into
> attacking us.
Great. Marsh just blamed America for "provoking" WW2 in the Pacific.
Can't resist taking shots at the country you detest, huh Marsh?
<snip>
> >> Think of the countless times that US vessels have been attacked and the US
> >> found it convenient to NOT do a damn thing about it. USS Stark. USS
> >> Liberty.
>
> > What's your point?
>
> Just any attack does not qualify as a casus belli. We CHOOSE which one
> to use as a pretext.
Your use of the word 'pretext' pejoratively insinuates that we--the United
States--are somehow behind the events that lead us into war. More
conspiracy moonbat stuff.
You're on a roll tonight with your bar stool musings, Cliff Clavin.
<snip>
> I can just visualize you out there today at the rallies teabagging and
> ranting about how Obama is not really a US citizen.
I wish I could've attended a rally. I was too busy working to support
those who don't.
Conservatives generally don't protest, and I'm no exception. When we do
protest, we can usually be seen raising the American flag and not burning
it. And for the record, like all sane people, I believe Obama is a
full-blooded, US citizen, born in Hawaii. I'll leave the nutty "Obama
isn't a citizen" stuff to the kooky Hillary Clinton operatives who dredged
it up and spread it around during the Dem primary season.
> > But he could order the troops home--NOW. I'm not in favor of it, but
> > he could do so. And he hasn't. It's his war now.
>
> We know you are never in favor of it. You want US troops occupying all
> countries all the time.
I want the world to be full of America-like countries to ensure there
aren't any wars. War is terrible. My family knows this from personal
experience, and I have relatives that have served this country from the
rank of General right down to PFC.
I have a nephew headed over to Afghanistan this year. Try not to spit on
him and call him a baby killer when he passes through Boston.
<snip>
>Good to know the killing is over. Very comforting to the widows of the
>soldiers being killed every day.
I think we're sort of back where we started. Take it up with President
Teleprompter. It's his war now.
Chuck Schuyler
<snip>
> Your lack of education explains why you don't get the literary allusions.
Keep your degree in *music*.
I'll keep the degree in common sense.
Chuck Schuyler
> The image of Marsh tooling around in his VW bus with a “Hell no I
> won’t go” bumper sticker has given me a great laugh. Thanks for the
> laugh but you forgot to mention his Jane Fonda poster of her sitting on
> the communist AA gun. Hey Marsh, you can take the bumper sticker off now!
>
> I believe Mr. Marsh expressed thoughts on the purpose of war clearly show
> his grasp of war and the military in general. Not much of a grip.
>
> Bill Clarke
Well put.
Heck, I know we're not a perfect country, but to blame America for the
ills of the world is flat out kooky.
tomnln
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:0ec1e259-b8aa-426f...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 10:51 pm, markina...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 12, 11:55 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > So Bush was a brain dead, Satan worshipping Christian basher?
>
> Bush had no need to worship Satan. Surely his weekly meetings with Ted
> Haggard gave him proper spiritual guidance.
Bush didn't meet "weekly" with Ted Haggard.
What was the nature of the spiritual guidance you claim Haggard gave Bush,
what is your cite, and what problem do you/did you have with it? I'll bet
you're just fine with Obama sitting in a racist church for twenty years
listening to "G-d d*mn America!" and "America's chickens have come home to
roost!" after 9/11.
>
> > Have you called "Bush Lied and Kids Died" CTer Bugliosi up and offered
> > this well documented, hard-hitting information to him?
>
> Bugliosi is arguably one of the best lawyers there has ever been, with
> attention to detail that is exhaustive and legally persuasive. There is
> likely no doubt
> that Bugliosi is aware of Bush's history of Skull &
> Bones, as well as the possible diminished mental faculties due to
> prolonged cocaine and alcohol abuse.
> ~Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
chuck wrote;
A first year law student could successfully defend Bush against "war
crimes" and murder charges...provided you weren't on the jury to 'hang'
it.
I write;
What would it take to defend Bush against Bugloisi prosecuting him?
Wasn't it your Idol Bugloisi who suggested Bush be charged with War
Crimes?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Schuyler
<snip>
> I write;
>
> What would it take to defend Bush against Bugloisi prosecuting him?
Just the truth--and a jury of non-moonbats. Belief in a JFK murder
conspiracy would definitely get you thrown out of the jury pool.
>
> Wasn't it your Idol Bugloisi who suggested Bush be charged with War
> Crimes?
I don't idolize Vincent Bugliosi.
I know this might be a stretch for you to understand, as you apparently
believe John Connally was shot in the FRONT of the chest with the bullet
exiting his back, but it's possible to agree with somebody on one subject
and disagree with them on another subject.
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 15, 9:25 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Well, that's the point. Roosevelt knew that he could not get a declaration
>> of war unless we were attacked. That is why they provoked Japan into
>> attacking us.
>
> Great. Marsh just blamed America for "provoking" WW2 in the Pacific.
> Can't resist taking shots at the country you detest, huh Marsh?
>
I cited the document which proves it. The document explains that war in
the Pacific is inevitable, but the US is not quite ready and needs a
pretext to justify going to war. We needed Japan to attack us.
> <snip>
>
>>>> Think of the countless times that US vessels have been attacked and the US
>>>> found it convenient to NOT do a damn thing about it. USS Stark. USS
>>>> Liberty.
>>
>>> What's your point?
>>
>> Just any attack does not qualify as a casus belli. We CHOOSE which one
>> to use as a pretext.
>
> Your use of the word 'pretext' pejoratively insinuates that we--the United
> States--are somehow behind the events that lead us into war. More
> conspiracy moonbat stuff.
>
Ah, in case you didn't realize it, there was already a war going on. The
President promised the American people that we would stay out of it unless
we ourselves were attacked. Guess you never saw his speech.
http://www.mhric.org/fdr/chat14.html
September 3, 1939
MY FELLOW AMERICANS AND MY FRIENDS:
Tonight my single duty is to speak to the whole of America.
Until four-thirty this morning I had hoped against hope that some miracle
would prevent a devastating war in Europe and bring to an end the invasion
of Poland by Germany.
For four long years a succession of actual wars and constant crises have
shaken the entire world and have threatened in each case to bring on the
gigantic conflict which is today unhappily a fact.
It is right that I should recall to your minds the consistent and at time
successful efforts of your Government in these crises to throw the full
weight of the United States into the cause of peace. In spite of spreading
wars I think that we have every right and every reason to maintain as a
national policy the fundamental moralities, the teachings of religion
(and) the continuation of efforts to restore peace -- (for) because some
day, though the time may be distant, we can be of even greater help to a
crippled humanity.
It is right, too, to point out that the unfortunate events of these recent
years have, without question, been based on the use of force (or) and the
threat of force. And it seems to me clear, even at the outbreak of this
great war, that the influence of America should be consistent in seeking
for humanity a final peace which will eliminate, as far as it is possible
to do so, the continued use of force between nations.
It is, of course, impossible to predict the future. I have my constant
stream of information from American representatives and other sources
throughout the world. You, the people of this country, are receiving news
through your radios and your newspapers at every hour of the day.
You are, I believe, the most enlightened and the best informed people in
all the world at this moment. You are subjected to no censorship of news,
and I want to add that your Government has no information which it
(hesitates to) withholds (from you) or which it has any thought of
withholding from you.
At the same time, as I told my Press Conference on Friday, it is of the
highest importance that the press and the radio use the utmost caution to
discriminate between actual verified fact on the one hand, and mere rumor
on the other.
I can add to that by saying that I hope the people of this country will
also discriminate most carefully between news and rumor. Do not believe of
necessity everything you hear or read. Check up on it first.
You must master at the outset a simple but unalterable fact in modern
foreign relations between nations. When peace has been broken anywhere,
the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.
It is easy for you and for me to shrug our shoulders and to say that
conflicts taking place thousands of miles from the continental United
States, and, indeed, thousands of miles from the whole American
Hemisphere, do not seriously affect the Americas -- and that all the
United States has to do is to ignore them and go about (our) its own
business. Passionately though we may desire detachment, we are forced to
realize that every word that comes through the air, every ship that sails
the sea, every battle that is fought does affect the American future.
Let no man or woman thoughtlessly or falsely talk of America sending its
armies to European fields. At this moment there is being prepared a
proclamation of American neutrality. This would have been done even if
there had been no neutrality statute on the books, for this proclamation
is in accordance with international law and in accordance with American
policy.
This will be followed by a Proclamation required by the existing
Neutrality Act. And I trust that in the days to come our neutrality can be
made a true neutrality.
It is of the utmost importance that the people of this country, with the
best information in the world, think things through. The most dangerous
enemies of American peace are those who, without well-rounded Information
on the whole broad subject of the past, the present and the future,
undertake to speak with assumed authority, to talk in terms of glittering
generalities, to give to the nation assurances or prophecies which are of
little present or future value.
I myself cannot and do not prophesy the course of events abroad -- and the
reason is that because I have of necessity such a complete picture of what
is going on in every part of the world, that I do not dare to do so. And
the other reason is that I think it is honest for me to be honest with the
people of the United States.
I cannot prophesy the immediate economic effect of this new war on our
nation but I do say that no American has the moral right to profiteer at
the expense either of his fellow citizens or of the men, the women and the
children who are living and dying in the midst of war in Europe.
Some things we do know. Most of us in the United States believe in
spiritual values. Most of us, regardless of what church we belong to,
believe in the spirit of the New Testament -- a great teaching which
opposes itself to the use of force, of armed force, of marching armies and
falling bombs. The overwhelming masses of our people seek peace -- peace
at home, and the kind of peace in other lands which will not jeopardize
our peace at home.
We have certain ideas and certain ideals of national safety and we must
act to preserve that safety today and to preserve the safety of our
children in future years.
That safety is and will be bound up with the safety of the Western
Hemisphere and of the seas adjacent thereto. We seek to keep war from our
own firesides by keeping war from coming to the Americas. For that we have
historic precedent that goes back to the days of the Administration of
President George Washington. It is serious enough and tragic enough to
every American family in every state in the Union to live in a world that
is torn by wars on other Continents. And those wars today (they) affect
every American home. It is our national duty to use every effort to keep
(them) those wars out of the Americas.
And at this time let me make the simple plea that partisanship and
selfishness be adjourned; and that national unity be the thought that
underlies all others.
This nation will remain a neutral nation, but I cannot ask that every
American remain neutral in thought as well. Even a neutral has a right to
take account of facts. Even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or
close his conscience.
I have said not once but many times that I have seen war and that I hate
war. I say that again and again.
I hope the United States will keep out of this war. I believe that it
will. And I give you assurance(s) and reassurance that every effort of
your Government will be directed toward that end.
As long as it remains within my power to prevent, there will be no
blackout of peace in the United States.
> You're on a roll tonight with your bar stool musings, Cliff Clavin.
>
> <snip>
>
>> I can just visualize you out there today at the rallies teabagging and
>> ranting about how Obama is not really a US citizen.
>
> I wish I could've attended a rally. I was too busy working to support
> those who don't.
>
> Conservatives generally don't protest, and I'm no exception. When we do
> protest, we can usually be seen raising the American flag and not burning
> it. And for the record, like all sane people, I believe Obama is a
Those racists at the Teabagging rallies ARE conservatives.
> full-blooded, US citizen, born in Hawaii. I'll leave the nutty "Obama
> isn't a citizen" stuff to the kooky Hillary Clinton operatives who dredged
> it up and spread it around during the Dem primary season.
>
Clinton brought it up because she knew the Republicans would.
>
>>> But he could order the troops home--NOW. I'm not in favor of it, but
>>> he could do so. And he hasn't. It's his war now.
>>
>> We know you are never in favor of it. You want US troops occupying all
>> countries all the time.
>
> I want the world to be full of America-like countries to ensure there
> aren't any wars. War is terrible. My family knows this from personal
Ensure no wars? But it was the US which invaded Afghnistan and Iraq and
has waged war against almost every other country in the world. The US is
the aggressor in many cases.
> experience, and I have relatives that have served this country from the
> rank of General right down to PFC.
>
SO damn what? So do I.
> I have a nephew headed over to Afghanistan this year. Try not to spit on
> him and call him a baby killer when he passes through Boston.
>
I think the baby killers are assigned to Iraq instead.
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 15, 7:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/14/2009 9:11 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 13, 8:47 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2009 8:58 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>
>>>>> Who did he murder? Many of our Presidents have ordered men into battle,
>>
>>>> Whom did he murder? Well, ignore any Skull and Bones
>>
>>> I always do.
>>
>>>>> Declaration of War Roosevelt obtained. Think Korean War. ThinkVietnam
>>
>>>> Think Police Action. This International Intervention. Apologists have
>>>> often dreamed up euphemisms to avoid having to call them wars.
>>
>>> You mean like calling a blockade a quarantine instead? Those pesky
>>> apologist!
>>
>>>>> Congressional support Bush received. I would dare say that using
>>>>> Bugliosi's definition of murder, a flimsy case could be made that most of
>>>>> our Presidents are guilty of murder, which is, of course, silly.
>>
>>>> Not silly to those who oppose Imperialism.
>>
>>> You date yourself with the old 1960s anti-imperialism slogans. Do try
>>> to keep up.
>>
>>>>> has the power to snap his fingers and bring the troops home. It's his war
>>>>> now, like it or not.
>>
>>>> You know nothing about the military if you think all he has to do is snap
>>>> his fingers and the troops would be home tomorrow.
>>
>>> military? continues to astonish me. Here you are with no experience
>>> and no knowledge of the military yourself telling someone they know
>>> nothing. I should be used to it by now but your condescension
>>> continues to shock me.
>>
>>> Now, General, if Obama snaps his finger the movement begins. You
>>> immediately and in a matter of months we could be out of Iraq. If we
>>> wanted to.
>>
>> Just plain stupid.
>
> troops out of Vietnam in 1963 or that it would take years to move
> 100,000 plus troops out of Iraq. You are and that makes you the
> know what they were talking about in estimating troop requirement for
> Iraq. Well, guess who was stupid then? Another know-nothing no-
> serving pseudo military expert.
>
The mess in Iraq proves that they underestimated the number of troops
required in Iraq. That's why they needed a surge.
> I don?t know if you think the military still moves with horses and
> mules but they could put a battalion in your front yard by close of
> business tomorrow. They could remove them just as fast.
>
More nonsense from someone who was never there.
> Bill Clarke
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 15, 7:25 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/14/2009 9:09 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No US war before or since WW2 has had the dramatic "...Yesterday, December
>>> 7th, 1941..." kickoff before a Congressional vote on war. Bush went to
>>> Congress, as the constitution mandates, and received approval to act as he
>>> saw fit. Don't pretend otherwise.
>>
>> Well, that's the point. Roosevelt knew that he could not get a declaration
>> of war unless we were attacked. That is why they provoked Japan into
>> attacking us.
>
> I hear the very Rev. Al Sharpton is claiming we murdered three Somalia
> Coast Guard members in the recent pirate attack. You two make a fine
> pair.
>
I didn't hear that? Somalia Coast Guard? Non existent.
I am the one advocating shooting pirates on sight.
> And just how, General, did we provoke Japan into attacking us? I know, I
> know, we cut off their scrap metal and oil. But we did this because of
Read the damn memo.
> Japan atrocities in China (read the Rape of Nanking) and the Japanese
> invasion of Vietnam. I assume you think we had an obligation to sell them
> war materials while they chopped off fellow Asian heads.
>
We had been secretly supporting both the Communist Chinese and the
Nationalist Chinese in their attacks on the Japanese. The ONI memo makes
clear that war is inevitable, but the US needs a pretext to declare war.
You may not remember it, but I was the only person here advocating
military action against the Taliban for their human rights atrocities long
before 9/11. But as the neocons so eloquently said the US would need
another Pearl Harbor before it would take action.
> Bill Clarke
>
Chuck Schuyler
<snip>
Well, well, well...the gems just keep flowing from the keyboard of
Cliff Clavin-Marsh.
1.) The Roosevelt speech you posted:
I have no idea how one speech at the dawn of war in Europe, moderate in
tone and full of qualifying phrases like, "It is, of course, impossible to
predict the future," and "I hope the United States will keep out of this
war. I believe that it will. And I give you assurance (s) and reassurance
that every effort of your Government will be directed toward that end," is
twisted by you as the 'smoking gun' that 'provoked' Japan into killing
thousands of Americans on December 7th, 1941.
2.) Marsh: "Those racists at the Teabagging rallies ARE conservatives."
Where is your peace and love, Mr. Liberal? Most of those people looked
like ordinary Americans to me. I'll bet you're part of the crowd that
decried W's big deficits. Seems you have no problem with trillion dollar
deficits now that your guy is in office doing the spending. Perhaps you
can advise President Teleprompter on how to deny them their right to
protest. Just have his teleprompter declare them 'racists' and guilty of
'hate crimes' or some such thing. Better yet, claim they're all
"Dittoheads" recruiting right wing terrorists per the Department of
Homeland Securities recent memo, and use this as a pretext to enact the
Fairness Doctrine and shut down talk radio! Reichskristallnacht!
Can you feel the love?
Hope and Change, baby!
3.) Marsh: "Clinton brought it up [Obama non-citizen rumor nonsense]
because she knew the Republicans would."
Boy, that's a great one, Cliff. A real gem.
That would play out well in a courtroom.
"Your honor, the reason I murdered so-and-so, or the reason I robbed the
such-and-such bank is because I knew the other guy was going to do it in a
few months!"
Hope and Change!
4.) Marsh: "I think the baby killers are assigned to Iraq instead."
I'll let that one stand on its own. You've done enough to discredit
yourself already.
Coondog
> > 100,000 plus troops out of Iraq. You are and that makes you the
> > stupid one. The draft dodger Paul Wolfowitz said the generals didn?t
> > know what they were talking about in estimating troop requirement for
> > Iraq. Well, guess who was stupid then? Another know-nothing no-
> > serving pseudo military expert.
>
> The mess in Iraq proves that they underestimated the number of troops
> required in Iraq. That's why they needed a surge.
No, it proves Wolfowitz and his draft dodging buddies with no military
experience severely underestimated the troop force required. The 4
star general who disagreed with the fools was quietly shown the door.
> > I don?t know if you think the military still moves with horses and
> > mules but they could put a battalion in your front yard by close of
> > business tomorrow. They could remove them just as fast.
>
> More nonsense from someone who was never there.
No, I wasn’t there when we used horses and mules. You got one right for
a change. You are a self proclaimed expert on the Cuban Missile Crisis so
tell me what time estimates the military gave JFK for putting a couple of
divisions ashore in Cuba? Hint; it is a matter of days and not too many
of them. You know nothing of military movement requirements.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
> On 4/16/2009 9:41 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 7:25 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/14/2009 9:09 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
> >>> No US war before or since WW2 has had the dramatic "...Yesterday, December
> >>> 7th, 1941..." kickoff before a Congressional vote on war. Bush went to
> >>> Congress, as the constitution mandates, and received approval to act as he
> >>> saw fit. Don't pretend otherwise.
>
> >> Well, that's the point. Roosevelt knew that he could not get a declaration
> >> of war unless we were attacked. That is why they provoked Japan into
> >> attacking us.
>
> > I hear the very Rev. Al Sharpton is claiming we murdered three Somalia
> > Coast Guard members in the recent pirate attack. You two make a fine
> > pair.
>
> I didn't hear that? Somalia Coast Guard? Non existent.
> I am the one advocating shooting pirates on sight.
>
> > And just how, General, did we provoke Japan into attacking us? I know, I
> > know, we cut off their scrap metal and oil. But we did this because of
>
> Read the damn memo.
>
> > Japan atrocities in China (read the Rape of Nanking) and the Japanese
> > war materials while they chopped off fellow Asian heads.
>
> We had been secretly supporting both the Communist Chinese and the
> Nationalist Chinese in their attacks on the Japanese. The ONI memo makes
> clear that war is inevitable, but the US needs a pretext to declare war.
Their attacks on the Japanese? For god sake Marsh all this was
happening in China. China didn’t invade Japan, Japan invaded China.
If you are a victim of home invasion and you shoot the invader does
this mean you “attacked” the invader? I hope not.
> You may not remember it, but I was the only person here advocating
> military action against the Taliban for their human rights atrocities long
> before 9/11.
Salute Marsh! Good thinking.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
The Chinese attacked the Japanese invaders in Chinese territory. The US
covertly supported them.
> If you are a victim of home invasion and you shoot the invader does
> this mean you “attacked” the invader? I hope not.
>
Nothing wrong with counter attacking.
Anthony Marsh
Stupid. You say "no" and then you write EXACTLY what I was just saying.
>>> I don?t know if you think the military still moves with horses and
>>> mules but they could put a battalion in your front yard by close of
>>> business tomorrow. They could remove them just as fast.
>>
>> More nonsense from someone who was never there.
>
> No, I wasn’t there when we used horses and mules. You got one right for
> a change. You are a self proclaimed expert on the Cuban Missile Crisis so
> tell me what time estimates the military gave JFK for putting a couple of
> divisions ashore in Cuba? Hint; it is a matter of days and not too many
> of them. You know nothing of military movement requirements.
>
I happen to be the very person who got some of the Cuban Missile Crisis
documents declassified.
> Bill Clarke
>
Coondog
Okay, I’ll buy that but seems that “defend” and “defense” would be
better words to use.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
I salute you again but you still didn’t answer the question. How many
days did the military estimate it would take to put a couple of
divisions into Cuba?
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
>>> a change. You are a self proclaimed expert on the Cuban Missile Crisis so
>>> tell me what time estimates the military gave JFK for putting a couple of
>>> divisions ashore in Cuba? Hint; it is a matter of days and not too many
>>> of them. You know nothing of military movement requirements.
>>
>> I happen to be the very person who got some of the Cuban Missile Crisis
>> documents declassified.
>
> days did the military estimate it would take to put a couple of
> divisions into Cuba?
> Bill Clarke
>
d. Full-Scale Deliberate Assault Plan--employs simultaneous airborne and
amphibious assault with around 49,000 troops engaged on D-Day, building to
about 60,000 by D+5 days, and again to 80,000 by D+16 days.
But that plan does not go into effect if the US is bombing Cuba,
especially with nuclear weapons as some advocated. It's not nice to nuke
your own troops.
Coondog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good to see you realize that the military can move the troops without
taking a year to do it.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
You still don't get it. Going in is a different from getting out.