#Iraqi resistance ambushes, kills six Spaniards
zepp
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 29, 2003
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
READERS' OPINIONS
Forum: Join a Discussion on The Struggle for Iraq
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
Alerts
Iraq
United States Armament and Defense
Violence
Spain
Filed at 1:10 p.m. ET
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Attackers ambushed a convoy of Spanish military
intelligence officers on a highway south of Baghdad on Saturday,
killing at least six agents and wounding one, a Spanish defense
ministry official said.
The official, reached by telephone in Madrid, said a coalition
helicopter that reached the scene of the attack, 30 miles south of
Baghdad, evacuated six bodies and one wounded person to a medical
center. The official spoke on customary condition of anonymity.
Spanish officials earlier had said eight agents were in the convoy.
The ministry official said he had no information about the whereabouts
of the possible eighth person.
The convoy of two civilian four-wheel-drive vehicles was traveling
south from Baghdad to the city of Hillah, according to Capt. Ivan
Morgan, a spokesman for a multinational division in southern Iraq. He
described the men as Spanish soldiers attached to an intelligence
unit.
A television cameraman who drove by the scene at 5:15 p.m., shortly
after the attack, said he saw two destroyed vehicles -- one still
burning -- and four bodies on the road.
The cameraman for Sky News, Adam Murch, described a jubilant crowd
kicking the bodies. He said some in the crowd said the bodies belonged
to CIA agents. He said the crowd appeared hostile and the journalists
were forced to leave.
The Defense Ministry said three helicopters of Spain's Plus Ultra
Brigade went to the area to evacuate survivors.
Spain was one of the staunchest supporters of the U.S.-led invasion to
oust Saddam Hussein earlier this year and sent 1,300 soldiers to help
maintain order.
In previous attacks, a Spanish diplomat attached to Spain's
intelligence agency was assassinated near his residence in Baghdad on
Oct. 9, and a Spanish navy captain was killed in the truck bombing of
the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad on Aug. 19.
Other partners in the U.S.-led coalition have also been targeted. On
Nov. 12, a truck bomb outside the Italian barracks in Nasiriyah killed
19 Italians and 14 others in an apparent attempt to weaken the resolve
of Washington's allies.
On Thursday, insurgents fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the
Italian mission in Baghdad, causing damage but no injuries.
-
"...too many whites are getting away with drug use."
-- Rush Limbaugh, on his short lived TV show
October 5, 1995
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
zepp wrote:
>
> Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
>
Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
Stuart Grey
Note also how he calls it "Iraqi resistance",
which was NOT in the article. It just shows
Zepps contempt for America, that he dignifies
these terrorist as "resistance". What this
"resistance" wants to do is reinstall Saddam
and his government by torture and murder.
Zepp seems down with that, he's going to bat
for Saddam.
Johnny Asia
<Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>
>Note also how he calls it "Iraqi resistance",
>which was NOT in the article.
photo:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031129/481/bag10311291841
Iraqi's celebrate over the bodies of killed members of a Spanish
military intelligence team on a street, south of Baghdad, Saturday,
Nov 29, 2003. At least six people where killed and one injured in the
attack on the Spanish military intelligence team in Iraq, Spanish
official said. (AP Photo/Sky News)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&e=1&u=/ap/20031129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Television footage showed a small group of youths gathered after the
attack, chanting slogans in support of Saddam Hussein and kicking the
bodies.
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
The First Church of Common Sense
Want to know what's REALLY going on in Iraq?
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/wakeup.html
Cowboys and Idiots: The Reagan Administration
Ronnies' "Brave freedom fighters" are now Bushs'
"evildoers" who "hate our freedoms".
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/reagan.html
The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roller Empire
The God-Awful Truth about Christian Zionism
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/armageddon.html
zepp
Still secretly embarrassed that you supported Putsch and got a whole
bunch of people killed?
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
zepp wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:03:51 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
> in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >zepp wrote:
> >>
> >> Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
> >>
> >Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
>
> Still secretly embarrassed that you supported Putsch and got a whole
> bunch of people killed?
>
What are you talking about? I support actively removing Saddam from
power and pushing for a Middle East with democracy and not totalitarian
regimes. You seem to like the dictatorships.
zepp
(Johnny Asia) wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:19:35 GMT, Stuart Grey
><Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Note also how he calls it "Iraqi resistance",
>>which was NOT in the article.
If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
then I call it a duck.
>
>photo:
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031129/481/bag10311291841
>
>Iraqi's celebrate over the bodies of killed members of a Spanish
>military intelligence team on a street, south of Baghdad, Saturday,
>Nov 29, 2003. At least six people where killed and one injured in the
>attack on the Spanish military intelligence team in Iraq, Spanish
>official said. (AP Photo/Sky News)
>
>
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&e=1&u=/ap/20031129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
>
>Television footage showed a small group of youths gathered after the
>attack, chanting slogans in support of Saddam Hussein and kicking the
>bodies.
>+
>
>"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
>by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
>
>
>The First Church of Common Sense
>
>Want to know what's REALLY going on in Iraq?
>http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/wakeup.html
>
> Cowboys and Idiots: The Reagan Administration
>Ronnies' "Brave freedom fighters" are now Bushs'
>"evildoers" who "hate our freedoms".
>http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/reagan.html
>
>The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roller Empire
>The God-Awful Truth about Christian Zionism
>http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/armageddon.html
>
>
>
-
zepp
<Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
Well, gosh, chuckles. What would YOU do if your homeland was invaded
by foreigners speaking an alien tongue, worshipping a strange god, and
harassing your women, humiliating your men, and killing 30 or 40 of
your countrymen each day?
Would you form a resistance?
Oh, I forgot. You're a right winger. You would be calling them up
and letting them know where the Jews are hiding.
David Hartung
"zepp" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:125isvkf94edo8069...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:08:53 GMT, pope_about_town at Xyahoo.com
> (Johnny Asia) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:19:35 GMT, Stuart Grey
> ><Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Note also how he calls it "Iraqi resistance",
> >>which was NOT in the article.
>
> If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
> then I call it a duck.
You are obviously a Baath sympathizer.
zepp
And you are obviously a weak and brittle crackpot.
So tell me, chuckles, if an invader took over your home, speaking a
different language, worshipping an alien god, abusing your women and
humiliating your men, what would you do?
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you wouldn't just
collaborate. You would join an underground organization to harrass
and drive off the invaders. And you would call this movement The
_______________? Fill in the blank.
Peacenik
news:3FC8FBA7...@backpacker.com...
>
>
> zepp wrote:
> >
> > Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
> >
> Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
It's the right-wingers who are high-fiving and reveling in the deaths of
soldiers and civilians. After all, it is THEY who wanted this war and its
resulting death and destruction.
We liberals did NOT want this war. If we had our way, those six Spanish
soldiers and hundreds of American soldiers would be alive and well.
--
Peacenik
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Peacenik wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3FC8FBA7...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > zepp wrote:
> > >
> > > Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
> > >
> > Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
>
> It's the right-wingers who are high-fiving and reveling in the deaths of
> soldiers and civilians. After all, it is THEY who wanted this war and its
> resulting death and destruction.
>
Why are you so bothered by freeing 23 million Iraqis from Saddam?
> We liberals did NOT want this war. If we had our way, those six Spanish
> soldiers and hundreds of American soldiers would be alive and well.
>
And hundreds of thousands more Iraqis would be dead.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
zepp wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:19:35 GMT, Stuart Grey
> <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> zepp wrote:
> >>
> >>>Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
> >>>
> >>
> >> Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
> >
> >Note also how he calls it "Iraqi resistance",
> >which was NOT in the article. It just shows
> >Zepps contempt for America, that he dignifies
> >these terrorist as "resistance". What this
> >"resistance" wants to do is reinstall Saddam
> >and his government by torture and murder.
> >
> >Zepp seems down with that, he's going to bat
> >for Saddam.
>
> Well, gosh, chuckles. What would YOU do if your homeland was invaded
> by foreigners speaking an alien tongue,
>
You mean like the French?
> worshipping a strange god,
>
I thought it was the same god.
> and
> harassing your women, humiliating your men, and killing 30 or 40 of
> your countrymen each day?
>
> Would you form a resistance?
>
Would I form a resistance to fight the people who just freed me from a
Hitler who had murdered millions of my own people, a resistance to kill
the very people who told me that if security was restored then rule by
my countrymen could more quickly take place? Why would I want to delay
the restoration of democracy?
> Oh, I forgot. You're a right winger. You would be calling them up
> and letting them know where the Jews are hiding.
>
You mean the Marsh Arabs? They are almost all gone because Saddam killed
them, so no worries for you.
coondawg
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:58:32 GMT, "David Hartung"
> <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"zepp" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> >news:125isvkf94edo8069...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:08:53 GMT, pope_about_town at Xyahoo.com
> >> (Johnny Asia) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:19:35 GMT, Stuart Grey
> >> ><Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>Note also how he calls it "Iraqi resistance",
> >> >>which was NOT in the article.
> >>
> >> If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
> >> then I call it a duck.
> >
> >You are obviously a Baath sympathizer.
>
> And you are obviously a weak and brittle crackpot.
>
> So tell me, chuckles, if an invader took over your home, speaking a
> different language, worshipping an alien god, abusing your women and
> humiliating your men, what would you do?
since the occupying forces are not abusing the women or humiliating the
general populace male or otherwise it is a flawed premise. that those who
are "resisting" are doig so to bring back a monster whom they profited from
their motives are not so pure as your fictional freedom fighters.
>
> Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you wouldn't just
> collaborate. You would join an underground organization to harrass
> and drive off the invaders. And you would call this movement The
> _______________? Fill in the blank.
are they doing it to install a democracy or benign form of free government?
no, they are doing it to advance the cause of a tyrant. they are not
resistance, which is a favorable term, they are terrorists, they are
gangsters they are scum. your moral equivilance might be good in theory
zepp, but in the real world it makes you an apologist for thugs.
Peacenik
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Peacenik wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > news:3FC8FBA7...@backpacker.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > zepp wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
> > > >
> > > Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
> >
> > It's the right-wingers who are high-fiving and reveling in the deaths of
> > soldiers and civilians. After all, it is THEY who wanted this war and
its
> > resulting death and destruction.
> >
> Why are you so bothered by freeing 23 million Iraqis from Saddam?
I'm not bothered about Saddam being gone. I'm glad about that. However, I am
bothered about the WAY in which this war is conducted - Bush lying to the
American People about the need to invade Iraq, then going it alone like
cowboy yahoos without UN approval, and then being completely incompetent
while occupying Iraq. Why are American soldiers and innocent Iraqis dying?
Why are buildings and pipelines being demolished? It's because of the
incompetence of the Bush Administration and the right-wingers in charge of
the military. And don't get me started about the American energy companies
champing at the bit to get at Iraq's oil.
--
Peacenik
zepp
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>
>zepp wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:19:35 GMT, Stuart Grey
>> <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> zepp wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
>> >
>> >Note also how he calls it "Iraqi resistance",
>> >which was NOT in the article. It just shows
>> >Zepps contempt for America, that he dignifies
>> >these terrorist as "resistance". What this
>> >"resistance" wants to do is reinstall Saddam
>> >and his government by torture and murder.
>> >
>> >Zepp seems down with that, he's going to bat
>> >for Saddam.
>>
>> Well, gosh, chuckles. What would YOU do if your homeland was invaded
>> by foreigners speaking an alien tongue,
>>
>You mean like the French?
Yeah, like the French. Millions joined the resistance, even though
discovery meant certain death.
>
>
>> worshipping a strange god,
>>
>I thought it was the same god.
>
Doesn't matter. If anything, that just makes the fighting all the
bloodier.
>
>> and
>> harassing your women, humiliating your men, and killing 30 or 40 of
>> your countrymen each day?
>>
>> Would you form a resistance?
>>
>Would I form a resistance to fight the people who just freed me from a
>Hitler who had murdered millions of my own people, a resistance to kill
>the very people who told me that if security was restored then rule by
>my countrymen could more quickly take place? Why would I want to delay
>the restoration of democracy?
>
We didn't free them from Hitler. We invaded them. We are the Hitler
in this scenario. (Hitler claimed he was "liberating" the countries
he invaded and saving from from despotic rule, too).
>
>
>> Oh, I forgot. You're a right winger. You would be calling them up
>> and letting them know where the Jews are hiding.
>>
>You mean the Marsh Arabs? They are almost all gone because Saddam killed
>them, so no worries for you.
And the Americans are relocating the ones that are left.
Stuart Grey
making sacrifices for freedom are murdered.
But we knew that your kind is a contemptible,
disgusting folk.
Stuart Grey
zepp wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:19:35 GMT, Stuart Grey
> <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>zepp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
>>>>
>>>
>>>Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
>>
>>Note also how he calls it "Iraqi resistance",
>>which was NOT in the article. It just shows
>>Zepps contempt for America, that he dignifies
>>these terrorist as "resistance". What this
>>"resistance" wants to do is reinstall Saddam
>>and his government by torture and murder.
>>
>>Zepp seems down with that, he's going to bat
>>for Saddam.
>
>
> Well, gosh, chuckles. What would YOU do if your homeland was invaded
> by foreigners speaking an alien tongue, worshipping a strange god, and
> harassing your women, humiliating your men, and killing 30 or 40 of
> your countrymen each day?
>
> Would you form a resistance?
>
> Oh, I forgot. You're a right winger. You would be calling them up
> and letting them know where the Jews are hiding.
If they were after commiecrats dictators who had taken
over my nation, and oppressed the people; yeah, I'd
tell 'em where assholes like you that they are after
were hiding. You 'betcha.
Stuart Grey
Peacenik wrote:
I can't believe you commiecrats hate America so
much that you're prefer Saddam to a our free government.
You're a bunch of sick, cowardly craven bastards.
blac...@bellsouth.net
We're creating a democracy...............like this:
see http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
"Bush must be proud today- two more 'insurgents' were shot dead in
Ba'aquba: two terrorist sisters, one 12 years old and the other 15.
They were shot by troops while gathering wood from a fieldů but nobody
bothers to cover that. They are only two Iraqi girls in their teens
who were brutally killed by occupation troops- so what? Bush's covert
two-hour visit to Baghdad International Airport is infinitely more
importantů"
>> Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you wouldn't just
>> collaborate. You would join an underground organization to harrass
>> and drive off the invaders. And you would call this movement The
>> _______________? Fill in the blank.
>
>are they doing it to install a democracy or benign form of free government?
>no, they are doing it to advance the cause of a tyrant. they are not
>resistance, which is a favorable term, they are terrorists, they are
>gangsters they are scum. your moral equivilance might be good in theory
>zepp, but in the real world it makes you an apologist for thugs.
So you're an apologist for child killers............
blac...@bellsouth.net
<Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
>Well great. Commies like you cheer when good people
>making sacrifices for freedom are murdered.
And you cheer when we kill innocent Iraqis like these two children:
see http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
"Bush must be proud today- two more 'insurgents' were shot dead in
Ba'aquba: two terrorist sisters, one 12 years old and the other 15.
They were shot by troops while gathering wood from a fieldů but nobody
bothers to cover that. They are only two Iraqi girls in their teens
who were brutally killed by occupation troops- so what? Bush's covert
two-hour visit to Baghdad International Airport is infinitely more
importantů"
>
>But we knew that your kind is a contemptible,
>disgusting folk.
I don't think he's a Republican.........
zepp
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>
>Peacenik wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
>> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>> news:3FC8FBA7...@backpacker.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > zepp wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
>> > >
>> > Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
>>
>> It's the right-wingers who are high-fiving and reveling in the deaths of
>> soldiers and civilians. After all, it is THEY who wanted this war and its
>> resulting death and destruction.
>>
>Why are you so bothered by freeing 23 million Iraqis from Saddam?
Why do you keep calling rape "liberation"?
>
>
>
>> We liberals did NOT want this war. If we had our way, those six Spanish
>> soldiers and hundreds of American soldiers would be alive and well.
>>
>And hundreds of thousands more Iraqis would be dead.
-
zepp
<Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
Nah, I know your type. You would be offering lists of names to the
foreign troops in hopes of getting some extra ration tickets.
David Hartung
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:19:35 GMT, Stuart Grey
> Well, gosh, chuckles. What would YOU do if your homeland was invaded
> by foreigners speaking an alien tongue, worshipping a strange god, and
> harassing your women, humiliating your men, and killing 30 or 40 of
> your countrymen each day?
>
> Would you form a resistance?
You really do dislike our nation don't you? There are no indications that we
are mistreating the Iraqi people, in fact it seems that most of the Iraqis
are glad that we are there. The people who we are fighting are supporters of
the Hussein regime, and freedom is the last thing they want.
David Hartung
> Why do you keep calling rape "liberation"?
Are you being rapeed?
coondawg
<blac...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jhuisvs3tm53ikh71...@4ax.com...
> bothers to cover that. They are only two Iraqi girls in their teens
> who were brutally killed by occupation troops- so what? Bush's covert
> two-hour visit to Baghdad International Airport is infinitely more
since it is a blog and i cannot confirm the story independantly i will give
you the benifit of the doubt that it is true. it is also terribly one sided
account so difficult to say what happened. if it did occure i am sure it
asn't simply the cold blooded murder this fella paints.
in war people die, the goal is that few die as possible to insure even fewer
deaths then inaction would lead to. it's unfortunate but a reality. those
the coalition are fighting are trying to bring back a murderous regime that
filled mass graves, imprisoned children, sponsered terrorism and endorsed
horrific sensless torture. that's the truth. no amount of moral equivilance
will change that.
>
> >> Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you wouldn't just
> >> collaborate. You would join an underground organization to harrass
> >> and drive off the invaders. And you would call this movement The
> >> _______________? Fill in the blank.
> >
> >are they doing it to install a democracy or benign form of free
government?
> >no, they are doing it to advance the cause of a tyrant. they are not
> >resistance, which is a favorable term, they are terrorists, they are
> >gangsters they are scum. your moral equivilance might be good in theory
> >zepp, but in the real world it makes you an apologist for thugs.
>
> So you're an apologist for child killers............
dont you mean baby killers?
don't you have some soldiers to spit on or something?
zepp
If I disliked America, I would snort and deem Americans incapable of
forming a resistance if invaded.
However, I DO dislike right wingers, and your statement demonstrates
that you would be incapable of forming a resistance if America were to
be invaded.
You would have sold lists of Jews to the Gestapo, and claimed you were
fighting terrorism, would you?
Brain Death
<crisk...@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
>"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
><std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>news:3FC95ED9...@backpacker.com...
>>
>>
>> Peacenik wrote:
>> >
>> > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
>> > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3FC8FBA7...@backpacker.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > zepp wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
>> > > >
>> > > Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
>> >
>> > It's the right-wingers who are high-fiving and reveling in the deaths of
>> > soldiers and civilians. After all, it is THEY who wanted this war and
>its
>> > resulting death and destruction.
>> >
>> Why are you so bothered by freeing 23 million Iraqis from Saddam?
>
>I'm not bothered about Saddam being gone. I'm glad about that.
Yes, but you would not have lifted a finger to see it done.
> However, I am
>bothered about the WAY in which this war is conducted - Bush lying to the
>American People about the need to invade Iraq,
You guys still have never shown one "lie" Bush told.
> then going it alone like
>cowboy yahoos without UN approval,
The UN was never going to approve anything. Waiting for them gives
Syria and France veto power over the use of the US military.
> and then being completely incompetent
>while occupying Iraq. Why are American soldiers and innocent Iraqis dying?
>Why are buildings and pipelines being demolished?
Because there are still lots of bad guys in Iraq.
> It's because of the
>incompetence of the Bush Administration and the right-wingers in charge of
>the military.
We're still far ahead of the casualties predicted by the left-wingers
in charge of nothing. Remember the tens of thousands of body bags we
were going to need?
>And don't get me started about the American energy companies
>champing at the bit to get at Iraq's oil.
Remember, it was the left who wanted Iraq to repay a portion of the
recently approved Iraq reconstruction money. How would they do that?
Oh, by giving us oil? IIRC you guys wanted $20 billion worth--IIRC
about 1/6th of their entire reserves.
BD
"Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic .... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind."
--Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee 1943
Hoover Duver
"David Hartung" <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote in message
news:wclyb.35457$oC5....@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com...
:
: "zepp" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
:
David you have to understand, this anti american scumbag is a cheerleader
for anything that will make america look bad.
That's his mission in life.Problem is he hasn't the balls to admit it like
most of the ones like him on this venue.
Hoover Duver
"Stuart Grey" <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote in message
news:oMeyb.359362$HS4.3005230@attbi_s01...
:
:
Yep and the sad pathetic part about it is they won't even admit it.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
We need more gasoline for our over six thousand pound, tax deducible
SUVs, and turning you into the fascist hunters who came to free us of
totalitarian evil, which you say you support, seems like a good and
moral way to do that.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Peacenik wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3FC95ED9...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > Peacenik wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3FC8FBA7...@backpacker.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > zepp wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
> > > > >
> > > > Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
> > >
> > > It's the right-wingers who are high-fiving and reveling in the deaths of
> > > soldiers and civilians. After all, it is THEY who wanted this war and
> its
> > > resulting death and destruction.
> > >
> > Why are you so bothered by freeing 23 million Iraqis from Saddam?
>
> I'm not bothered about Saddam being gone. I'm glad about that.
>
You don't sound very glad.
> However, I am
> bothered about the WAY in which this war is conducted
>
I'm bothered that we waited so long. Shouldn't we have done this in
1998? Wasn't that long enough to wait for Saddam to become compliant?
> - Bush lying to the
> American People about the need to invade Iraq, then going it alone like
> cowboy yahoos without UN approval,
>
You really need to learn to think a bit. The lack of UN approval was
basically due to the French having UN veto power. Is the US going to
agree to UN approval for all its missions if that means that France gets
a veto for everything that the US does? Let's look at previous missions
and see if the US waited until it go UN approval. Clinton: Balkans war,
No. Bush Sr: invasion of Panama, No. Reagan: invasion of Grenada, No. We
can go back from there in probably an unbroken list of our leaders to
the beginning of the United Nations.
> and then being completely incompetent
> while occupying Iraq.
>
So taking casualties is a definition of incompetence? I think our
problems in Iraq show that we lack technological remedies which would
protect our troops from many of these attacks. Nothing is prefect but to
have, for example, the almost identical navigation error that occurred
in the 1991 Gulf War occur in the 2003 Gulf War is disturbing.
> Why are American soldiers and innocent Iraqis dying?
>
Because suicide attacks and bombings are very difficult to defend
against. We've seen this repeatedly in the many years we've been dealing
with terrorism from at the attack on the Marines in Beirut. We see this
in Israel where even building a wall of separation has not had perfect
success.
> Why are buildings and pipelines being demolished? It's because of the
> incompetence of the Bush Administration and the right-wingers in charge of
> the military.
>
It's pretty easy to wander doing a hundreds of mile long pipeline in
search of a place that is poorly defended and then to place a bomb.
> And don't get me started about the American energy companies
> champing at the bit to get at Iraq's oil.
>
Don't get you started on your real křřkiness?
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
zepp wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:07:05 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
> in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Peacenik wrote:
> >>
> >> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> >> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3FC8FBA7...@backpacker.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > zepp wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
> >> > >
> >> > Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
> >>
> >> It's the right-wingers who are high-fiving and reveling in the deaths of
> >> soldiers and civilians. After all, it is THEY who wanted this war and its
> >> resulting death and destruction.
> >>
> >Why are you so bothered by freeing 23 million Iraqis from Saddam?
>
> Why do you keep calling rape "liberation"?
>
Count your lucky stars that no one takes you seriously, Zepp. American
soldiers have died to free the Iraqis. You referring to that as rape is
disgusting.
zepp
wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:15:14 GMT, "Peacenik"
><crisk...@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
>><std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>>news:3FC95ED9...@backpacker.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Peacenik wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
>>> > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:3FC8FBA7...@backpacker.com...
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > zepp wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
>>> > > >
>>> > > Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
>>> >
>>> > It's the right-wingers who are high-fiving and reveling in the deaths of
>>> > soldiers and civilians. After all, it is THEY who wanted this war and
>>its
>>> > resulting death and destruction.
>>> >
>>> Why are you so bothered by freeing 23 million Iraqis from Saddam?
>>
>>I'm not bothered about Saddam being gone. I'm glad about that.
>
>Yes, but you would not have lifted a finger to see it done.
>
>> However, I am
>>bothered about the WAY in which this war is conducted - Bush lying to the
>>American People about the need to invade Iraq,
>
>You guys still have never shown one "lie" Bush told.
Here's a case where he told 20 in just 15 minutes:
The twenty lies of George W. Bush
By Patrick Martin
20 March 2003
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
Monday night’s 15-minute speech by President Bush, setting a 48-hour
deadline for war against Iraq, went beyond the usual distortions,
half-truths, and appeals to fear and backwardness to include a
remarkable number of barefaced, easily refuted lies.
The enormous scale of the lying suggests two political conclusions:
the Bush administration is going to war against Iraq with utter
contempt for democracy and public opinion, and its war propaganda
counts heavily on the support of the American media, which not only
fails to challenge the lies, but repeats and reinforces them
endlessly.
Without attempting to be exhaustive, it is worthwhile listing some of
the most important lies and contrasting Bush’s assertions with the
public record. All of the false statements listed below are directly
quoted from the verbatim transcript of Bush’s remarks published on the
Internet.
Lie No. 1: “My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the
final days of decision.”
The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time
having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in
which US troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press
reports, most recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the
first National Security Council meetings of his presidency, months
before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon,
Bush expressed his determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his
willingness to commit US ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that
purpose. All that was required was the appropriate pretext—supplied by
September 11, 2001.
Lie No. 2: “For more than a decade, the United States and other
nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi
regime without war.”
The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined
with “no-fly” zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of
brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical
supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of
more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials
who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the
conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the
inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original
inspections program. The CIA’s aim was to spy on Iraq’s top officials
and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.
Lie No. 3: “The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time
and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions
demanding full disarmament...”
Iraq has never “defied” a Security Council resolution since the end of
the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the
dictates of the UN body, although frequently under protest or with
reservations, because many of the resolutions involve gross violations
of Iraqi sovereignty. From 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the
destruction of the vast bulk of the chemical and biological weapons,
as well as delivery systems, which Iraq accumulated (with the
assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and they also
destroyed all of Iraq’s facilities for making new weapons.
Lie No. 4: “Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed
again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.”
According to the Washington Post of March 16, referring to the
1991-1998 inspection period: “[U]nder UN supervision, Iraq destroyed
817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers
and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical
or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives.
UN inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and
unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk
chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980
pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons.”
Lie No. 5: “The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of
the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
The Washington Post article cited above noted that CIA officials were
concerned “about whether administration officials have exaggerated
intelligence in a desire to convince the American public and foreign
governments that Iraq is violating United Nations prohibitions against
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and long-range missile
systems.” The article quoted “a senior intelligence analyst” who said
the inspectors could not locate weapons caches “because there may not
be much of a stockpile.”
Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, who resigned from the
Blair government Monday in protest over the decision to go to war
without UN authorization, declared, “Iraq probably has no weapons of
mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term.” Even
if Iraq is concealing some remnants of its 1980s arsenal, these would
hardly deserve Bush’s lurid description, since they are primitive and
relatively ineffective. “Some of the most lethal weapons ever devised”
are those being unleashed by the United States on Iraq: cruise
missiles, smart bombs, fuel-air explosives, the 10,000-pound
“daisy-cutter” bomb, the 20,000-pound MOAB just tested in Florida. In
addition, the US has explicitly refused to rule out the use of nuclear
weapons.
Lie No. 6: “[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists,
including operatives of Al Qaeda.”
No one, not even US government, seriously believes there is a
significant connection between the Islamic fundamentalists and the
secular nationalist Ba’athist regime in Iraq, which have been mortal
enemies for decades. The continued assertion of an Al Qaeda-Iraq
alliance is a desperate attempt to link Saddam Hussein to the
September 11 attacks.
It also serves to cover up the responsibility of American imperialism
for sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The forces that now
comprise Al Qaeda were largely recruited, trained, armed and set in
motion by the CIA itself, as part of a long-term policy of using
Islamic fundamentalists as a weapon against left-wing movements in the
Muslim countries. This policy was pursued from the 1950s and was
escalated prior to and during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan,
which ended in 1989. Osama bin Laden himself was part of the
CIA-backed mujaheddin forces in Afghanistan before he turned against
Washington in the 1990s.
Lie No. 7: “America tried to work with the United Nations to address
this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.”
The Bush administration went to the United Nations because it wanted
UN sanction for military action and it wanted UN member states to
cough up funds for postwar operations, along the lines of its
financial shakedown operation for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Bush’s
most hawkish advisors, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
and Vice President Cheney, initially opposed going to the UN because
they did not want diplomacy to slow down the drive to war. They only
agreed after Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that the pace of
the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf gave enough time to get
the UN to rubber-stamp the war.
Lie No. 8: “These governments [the Security Council majority] share
our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.”
This is belied by virtually every statement on Iraq issued by the
governments of France, Russia, China, Germany and other countries
opposed to military action, which have repeatedly declared that they
see no imminent threat from Iraq. Bush brands his opponents on the
Security Council as cowards, as though they were afraid to take action
against Saddam Hussein. These countries were, in fact, increasingly
alarmed—by the United States, not Iraq. Insofar as they summoned up
resolve, to the shock of the Bush administration, it was to deny UN
support for the war that Washington had already decided to wage.
Lie No. 9: “Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude
to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now
gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.”
Only three nations are contributing military forces to the war:
250,000 from the US, 40,000 from Britain, and 2,000 from Australia.
The other members of the “broad coalition” are those which have been
bribed or browbeaten to allow the US to fly over their countries to
bomb Iraq, to station troops, ships or warplanes on their territory,
or provide technical assistance or other material aid to the war. None
will do any fighting. All are acting against the expressed desire of
their own population.
Lie No. 10: “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to
its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.”
Bush defines the UN body’s responsibility as serving as a rubber stamp
for whatever action the United States government demands. In relation
to the UN, however, the United States does have definite
responsibilities, including refraining from waging war without
Security Council authorization, except in the case of immediate
self-defense. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, it is for the
Security Council, not the US or Britain, to decide how Security
Council resolutions such as 1441 are to be enforced. The US decision
to “enforce” its interpretation of 1441 regardless of the will of the
Security Council is a violation of international law.
Lie No. 11: “If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed
against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.”
The widely reported US military strategy is to conduct an aerial
bombardment of Iraq so devastating that it will “shock and awe” the
Iraqi people and compel the Iraqi armed forces to surrender en masse.
According to one press preview, US and British forces “plan to launch
the deadliest first night of air strikes on a single country in the
history of air power. Hundreds of targets in every region of Iraq will
be hit simultaneously.” Estimates of likely Iraqi civilian casualties
from the immediate impact of bombs and missiles range from thousands
to hundreds of thousands, and even higher when the long-term effects
are included.
Lie No. 12: “As our coalition takes their power, we will deliver the
food and medicine you need.”
This is particularly cynical, since the immediate consequence of
Bush’s 48-hour ultimatum was the withdrawal of all UN humanitarian aid
workers and the shutdown of the oil-for-food program, which
underwrites the feeding of 60 percent of Iraq’s population. As for
medicine, the US has systematically deprived the Iraqi people of
needed medicine for the past 12 years, insisting that even the most
basic medical supplies, like antibiotics and syringes, be banned as
“dual-use” items that could be used in a program of biological
warfare.
Lie No. 13: “We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will
help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.”
The goal of the Bush administration is to install a US puppet regime
in Baghdad, initially taking the form of an American military
dictatorship. It is no exaggeration to say that the US government has
been the leading promoter of dictatorships around the world, from
Pinochet of Chile to Suharto of Indonesia to Saddam Hussein himself,
who, according to one recent report, got his political start as an
anti-communist hit-man working in a CIA-backed plot to assassinate
Iraq’s left-nationalist President Qasem in 1959.
A classified State Department report described by the Los Angeles
Times of March 14 not only concluded that a democratic Iraq was
unlikely to arise from the devastation of war, it suggested that this
was not even desirable from the standpoint of American interests,
because “anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the
short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments
hostile to the United States.”
Lie No. 14: “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American
people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and
every measure will be taken to win it.”
This combines a lie and a brutal truth. The Bush administration has
taken every possible measure to insure that war takes place, viewing
the resumption of UN weapons inspections with barely disguised
hostility and directing its venom against those countries that have
suggested a diplomatic settlement with Iraq is achievable. In
prosecuting the war, the Bush administration is indeed prepared to use
“every measure,” up to an including nuclear weapons, in order to win
it.
Lie No. 15: “War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice.”
There will be colossal sacrifices for the Iraqi people, and sacrifices
in blood and economic well-being for the American people as well. But
for Bush’s real constituency, the wealthiest layer at the top of
American society, there will be no sacrifices at all. Instead, the
administration is seeking a tax cut package of over $700 billion,
including the abolition of taxation on corporate dividends. Major US
corporations are in line to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in
profits from the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure shattered by the
coming US assault. These include the oil construction firm
Halliburton, which Vice President Cheney headed prior to joining the
Bush administration, and which continues to include Cheney on its
payroll.
Lie No. 16: “[T]he only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is
to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared
to do so.”
Every aggressor claims to deplore the suffering of war and seeks to
blame the victim for resisting, and thus prolonging the agony. Bush is
no different. His hypocritical statements of “concern” for the Iraqi
people cannot disguise the fact that, as many administration
apologists freely admit, this is “a war of choice”—deliberately sought
by the US government to pursue its strategic agenda in the Middle
East.
Lie No. 17: “The terrorist threat to America and the world will be
diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.”
No one, even in the American military-intelligence complex, seriously
believes this. US counter-terrorism officials have repeatedly said
that a US conquest and occupation of Iraq, by killing untold thousands
of Arabs and Muslims and inflaming public opinion in the Arab world
and beyond, will spark more terrorism, not less.
Lie No. 18: “We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be
far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict
harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.”
This is belied by the record of the past twelve years, which has seen
a steady decline in Iraqi military power. Saddam Hussein has never
been a threat to any “free nation,” if that term has any meaning, only
to the reactionary oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and to
neighboring Iran, all ruled by regimes that are as repressive as his.
Lie No. 19: “As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also
honor the deepest commitments of our country.”
The demands of the world were expressed by the millions who marched in
cities throughout the world on February 15 and March 15 to oppose a
unilateral US attack on Iraq. Bush seeks to have it both ways—claiming
to enforce previous Security Council resolutions against Iraq (“the
just demands of the world”), while flagrantly defying the will of the
majority of the Security Council, the majority of the world’s
governments, and the vast majority of the world’s people.
Lie No. 20: “Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are
deserving and capable of human liberty... The United States with other
countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region.”
For “the Iraqi people,” substitute “the Egyptian people,” “the people
of the Arabian peninsula,” “the Pakistani people” or those of other
US-backed dictatorships, not to mention the Palestinians who live
under a brutal Israeli occupation that is supported by Washington.
Does the US government believe that any of them are “deserving and
capable of human liberty?” When the parliament of Turkey, under the
pressure of popular opposition, voted to bar the US from using Turkish
territory to invade Iraq, the Bush administration appealed to the
Turkish military to pressure the government into overturning this
democratic decision.
>
>> then going it alone like
>>cowboy yahoos without UN approval,
>
>The UN was never going to approve anything. Waiting for them gives
>Syria and France veto power over the use of the US military.
>
>> and then being completely incompetent
>>while occupying Iraq. Why are American soldiers and innocent Iraqis dying?
>>Why are buildings and pipelines being demolished?
>
>Because there are still lots of bad guys in Iraq.
>
>> It's because of the
>>incompetence of the Bush Administration and the right-wingers in charge of
>>the military.
>
>We're still far ahead of the casualties predicted by the left-wingers
>in charge of nothing. Remember the tens of thousands of body bags we
>were going to need?
>
>>And don't get me started about the American energy companies
>>champing at the bit to get at Iraq's oil.
>
>Remember, it was the left who wanted Iraq to repay a portion of the
>recently approved Iraq reconstruction money. How would they do that?
>Oh, by giving us oil? IIRC you guys wanted $20 billion worth--IIRC
>about 1/6th of their entire reserves.
>
>BD
>
>"Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or anti-Semitic .... The association will, after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind."
>--Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee 1943
-
Peacenik
news:1e6ksv8m35n6kmp9s...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:15:14 GMT, "Peacenik"
> <crisk...@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
> >I'm not bothered about Saddam being gone. I'm glad about that.
>
> Yes, but you would not have lifted a finger to see it done.
Yes, I do lift my finger each time I vote for the good guys (liberals),
donate money to worthy causes, volunteer, and write letters to my elected
officials.
There are other ways of getting him than by killing innocent civilians. Ever
see the movie "Air Force One" with Harrison Ford? How the crack American
forces captured the Russian terrorist leader at the beginning?
> > However, I am
> >bothered about the WAY in which this war is conducted - Bush lying to the
> >American People about the need to invade Iraq,
>
> You guys still have never shown one "lie" Bush told.
Pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. But for an
example, there's the bit about "uranium from Africa".
> > then going it alone like
> >cowboy yahoos without UN approval,
>
> The UN was never going to approve anything. Waiting for them gives
> Syria and France veto power over the use of the US military.
All the more reason not to go to war.
> > and then being completely incompetent
> >while occupying Iraq. Why are American soldiers and innocent Iraqis
dying?
> >Why are buildings and pipelines being demolished?
>
> Because there are still lots of bad guys in Iraq.
And the US, with its supposed high technology equipment and the best-trained
military in the world, is showing its incompetence because it is unable to
stop these bad guys.
> > It's because of the
> >incompetence of the Bush Administration and the right-wingers in charge
of
> >the military.
>
> We're still far ahead of the casualties predicted by the left-wingers
> in charge of nothing. Remember the tens of thousands of body bags we
> were going to need?
At this rate, we are going to be there for years, and tens of thousands of
body bags will be necessary.
> >And don't get me started about the American energy companies
> >champing at the bit to get at Iraq's oil.
>
> Remember, it was the left who wanted Iraq to repay a portion of the
> recently approved Iraq reconstruction money. How would they do that?
> Oh, by giving us oil?
By SELLING us oil. The US oil companies want to steal it.
--
Peacenik
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
zepp wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:15:18 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
> in lieu of the frontal attack )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >zepp wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:19:35 GMT, Stuart Grey
> >> <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> zepp wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
> >> >
> >> >Note also how he calls it "Iraqi resistance",
> >> >which was NOT in the article. It just shows
> >> >Zepps contempt for America, that he dignifies
> >> >these terrorist as "resistance". What this
> >> >"resistance" wants to do is reinstall Saddam
> >> >and his government by torture and murder.
> >> >
> >> >Zepp seems down with that, he's going to bat
> >> >for Saddam.
> >>
> >> Well, gosh, chuckles. What would YOU do if your homeland was invaded
> >> by foreigners speaking an alien tongue,
> >>
> >You mean like the French?
>
> Yeah, like the French. Millions joined the resistance, even though
> discovery meant certain death.
>
Now you are comparing the French resistance to the Nazis, the people who
were oppressing the French, to the Americans, the people who freed the
Iraqis. It's offensive.
> >> worshipping a strange god,
> >>
> >I thought it was the same god.
> >
> Doesn't matter. If anything, that just makes the fighting all the
> bloodier.
>
That I doubt. The Muslims and Hindus have been killing each other in far
more bloody ways in the last decades than the Christians and the
Muslims.
> >> and
> >> harassing your women, humiliating your men, and killing 30 or 40 of
> >> your countrymen each day?
> >>
> >> Would you form a resistance?
> >>
> >Would I form a resistance to fight the people who just freed me from a
> >Hitler who had murdered millions of my own people, a resistance to kill
> >the very people who told me that if security was restored then rule by
> >my countrymen could more quickly take place? Why would I want to delay
> >the restoration of democracy?
> >
> We didn't free them from Hitler. We invaded them. We are the Hitler
> in this scenario. (Hitler claimed he was "liberating" the countries
> he invaded and saving from from despotic rule, too).
>
You are sick. Hitler might've claimed he was liberating people but he
wasn't. Certainly you know that. Hitler was exterminating people by the
millions. To compare our freeing of Iraq to Hitler is just too bizarre.
>
> >
> >> Oh, I forgot. You're a right winger. You would be calling them up
> >> and letting them know where the Jews are hiding.
> >>
> >You mean the Marsh Arabs? They are almost all gone because Saddam killed
> >them, so no worries for you.
>
> And the Americans are relocating the ones that are left.
>
They were displaced and the marshes drained. What do you want done with
them?
coondawg
"Peacenik" <crisk...@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote in message
news:suryb.173032$Dw6.671937@attbi_s02...
> "Brain Death" <jgl...@valhalla.com> wrote in message
> news:1e6ksv8m35n6kmp9s...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:15:14 GMT, "Peacenik"
> > <crisk...@com999cast.removeallnines.net> wrote:
> > >I'm not bothered about Saddam being gone. I'm glad about that.
> >
> > Yes, but you would not have lifted a finger to see it done.
>
> Yes, I do lift my finger each time I vote for the good guys (liberals),
LOL!! you mean the agents of appeasment, who worship at the alter of killing
babies, enslaving the wage earners, making serfs of the poor, and
perpetuating racism? those good guys?
> donate money to worthy causes, volunteer, and write letters to my elected
> officials.
which i am sure would get rid of saddam. . .if only we stayed that course!
>
> There are other ways of getting him than by killing innocent civilians.
Ever
> see the movie "Air Force One" with Harrison Ford? How the crack American
> forces captured the Russian terrorist leader at the beginning?
lol, hollywood is FICTION!
>
> > > However, I am
> > >bothered about the WAY in which this war is conducted - Bush lying to
the
> > >American People about the need to invade Iraq,
> >
> > You guys still have never shown one "lie" Bush told.
>
> Pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. But for an
> example, there's the bit about "uranium from Africa".
british intel, which still stands by it's sources (which came from other
euro-intel agencies) said that saddam attempted to buy yellow cake form
africa. there has been no proof that he didn't. wilson's pool side chats in
niger didn't even cover all the players in that one nation, and all he said
was that saddam didn't recieve yellowcake, not that he didn't try.
>
> > > then going it alone like
> > >cowboy yahoos without UN approval,
> >
> > The UN was never going to approve anything. Waiting for them gives
> > Syria and France veto power over the use of the US military.
>
> All the more reason not to go to war.
because caving to syria is worth what exactly?
>
> > > and then being completely incompetent
> > >while occupying Iraq. Why are American soldiers and innocent Iraqis
> dying?
> > >Why are buildings and pipelines being demolished?
> >
> > Because there are still lots of bad guys in Iraq.
>
> And the US, with its supposed high technology equipment and the
best-trained
> military in the world, is showing its incompetence because it is unable to
> stop these bad guys.
and so police departments should be disbanded across the nation because more
die from crime here in the states despite their being technologically
superior to the crooks and their supirior training. . .
>
> > > It's because of the
> > >incompetence of the Bush Administration and the right-wingers in charge
> of
> > >the military.
> >
> > We're still far ahead of the casualties predicted by the left-wingers
> > in charge of nothing. Remember the tens of thousands of body bags we
> > were going to need?
>
> At this rate, we are going to be there for years, and tens of thousands of
> body bags will be necessary.
uh huh, keep making the predictions ms cleo. . .
>
> > >And don't get me started about the American energy companies
> > >champing at the bit to get at Iraq's oil.
> >
> > Remember, it was the left who wanted Iraq to repay a portion of the
> > recently approved Iraq reconstruction money. How would they do that?
> > Oh, by giving us oil?
>
> By SELLING us oil. The US oil companies want to steal it.
have not seen any of that stolen oil yet . . .
>
> --
> Peacenik
>
>
Brian Carey
> Count your lucky stars that no one takes you seriously, Zepp. American
> soldiers have died to free the Iraqis. You referring to that as rape
> is disgusting.
I hope that Zepp manages to convince the Democrats to run their '04
campaigns on a platform of condemning the "rape" of Iraq.
B
> Well great. Commies like you cheer when good people
> making sacrifices for freedom are murdered.
>
> But we knew that your kind is a contemptible,
> disgusting folk.
Hey Stu... "Cheer" ... I don't see any "cheering" you wanna point it out
to me... I must have missed it.
>
>> photo:
>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031129/481/bag103112918
>> 41
>>
>> Iraqi's celebrate over the bodies of killed members of a Spanish
>> military intelligence team on a street, south of Baghdad, Saturday,
>> Nov 29, 2003. At least six people where killed and one injured in the
>> attack on the Spanish military intelligence team in Iraq, Spanish
>> official said. (AP Photo/Sky News)
>>
>>
>>
>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&e=1&u=/ap/20031129
>> /ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
>>
>> Television footage showed a small group of youths gathered after the
>> attack, chanting slogans in support of Saddam Hussein and kicking the
>> bodies.
>> +
>>
>
>
B.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
"The Iraqi people love the US it's the French they hate"
bval...@aol.com (BVallely)
--------------------------------------------------------
The "wisdom" of Bill Bonde: On Money Laundering.
If it is Osama's money, then he should be able to withdraw it.
If Osama has committed some crime, arrest him for the crime.
-----------------------------------------------------------
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
B
Yeah... thanks Stu... I assume you posted this on your way to the airport
on route to Baghdad?
No? ... oh dear... just another little armchair general being brave
behind a keyboard.
You are *almost* as retarded as arnold.
David Hartung
"Hoover Duver" <H.d...@hwucsf.com> wrote in message
news:Rjqyb.5600$zL1.6...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
I understand, but it is fun to set him off! <eg>
David Hartung
> The twenty lies of George W. Bush
> By Patrick Martin
> 20 March 2003
>
> Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
>
> Monday night's 15-minute speech by President Bush, setting a 48-hour
> deadline for war against Iraq, went beyond the usual distortions,
> half-truths, and appeals to fear and backwardness to include a
> remarkable number of barefaced, easily refuted lies.
>
> The enormous scale of the lying suggests two political conclusions:
> the Bush administration is going to war against Iraq with utter
> contempt for democracy and public opinion, and its war propaganda
> counts heavily on the support of the American media, which not only
> fails to challenge the lies, but repeats and reinforces them
> endlessly.
>
> Without attempting to be exhaustive, it is worthwhile listing some of
> the most important lies and contrasting Bush's assertions with the
> public record. All of the false statements listed below are directly
> quoted from the verbatim transcript of Bush's remarks published on the
> Internet.
>
> Lie No. 1: "My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the
> final days of decision."
Truth.
> The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time
> having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in
> which US troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press
> reports, most recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the
> first National Security Council meetings of his presidency, months
> before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon,
> Bush expressed his determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his
> willingness to commit US ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that
> purpose. All that was required was the appropriate pretext-supplied by
> September 11, 2001.
Offensive bile.
> Lie No. 2: "For more than a decade, the United States and other
> nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi
> regime without war."
Truth.
> The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined
> with "no-fly" zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of
> brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical
> supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of
> more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials
> who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the
> conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the
> inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original
> inspections program. The CIA's aim was to spy on Iraq's top officials
> and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.
Lie.
> Lie No. 3: "The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time
> and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions
> demanding full disarmament..."
Truth.
> Iraq has never "defied" a Security Council resolution since the end of
> the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the
> dictates of the UN body, although frequently under protest or with
> reservations, because many of the resolutions involve gross violations
> of Iraqi sovereignty. From 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the
> destruction of the vast bulk of the chemical and biological weapons,
> as well as delivery systems, which Iraq accumulated (with the
> assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and they also
> destroyed all of Iraq's facilities for making new weapons.
Lie.
> Lie No. 4: "Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed
> again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men."
Truth.
> According to the Washington Post of March 16, referring to the
> 1991-1998 inspection period: "[U]nder UN supervision, Iraq destroyed
> 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers
> and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical
> or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives.
> UN inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and
> unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk
> chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980
> pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons."
The burden of proof was on Husein, he refused to honor that burden.
> Lie No. 5: "The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of
> the most lethal weapons ever devised."
True, according to intelligence at the time.
> The Washington Post article cited above noted that CIA officials were
> concerned "about whether administration officials have exaggerated
> intelligence in a desire to convince the American public and foreign
> governments that Iraq is violating United Nations prohibitions against
> chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and long-range missile
> systems." The article quoted "a senior intelligence analyst" who said
> the inspectors could not locate weapons caches "because there may not
> be much of a stockpile."
Notice tha t the analyst was not named, therefore it's truth is suspect.
> Lie No. 6: "[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists,
> including operatives of Al Qaeda."
True.
> No one, not even US government, seriously believes there is a
> significant connection between the Islamic fundamentalists and the
> secular nationalist Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which have been mortal
> enemies for decades. The continued assertion of an Al Qaeda-Iraq
> alliance is a desperate attempt to link Saddam Hussein to the
> September 11 attacks.
Lie.
> It also serves to cover up the responsibility of American imperialism
> for sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The forces that now
> comprise Al Qaeda were largely recruited, trained, armed and set in
> motion by the CIA itself, as part of a long-term policy of using
> Islamic fundamentalists as a weapon against left-wing movements in the
> Muslim countries. This policy was pursued from the 1950s and was
> escalated prior to and during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan,
> which ended in 1989. Osama bin Laden himself was part of the
> CIA-backed mujaheddin forces in Afghanistan before he turned against
> Washington in the 1990s.
Lie.
> Lie No. 7: "America tried to work with the United Nations to address
> this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully."
True.
> The Bush administration went to the United Nations because it wanted
> UN sanction for military action and it wanted UN member states to
> cough up funds for postwar operations, along the lines of its
> financial shakedown operation for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Bush's
> most hawkish advisors, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
> and Vice President Cheney, initially opposed going to the UN because
> they did not want diplomacy to slow down the drive to war. They only
> agreed after Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that the pace of
> the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf gave enough time to get
> the UN to rubber-stamp the war.
Lie.
> Lie No. 8: "These governments [the Security Council majority] share
> our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it."
True, at the time.
> This is belied by virtually every statement on Iraq issued by the
> governments of France, Russia, China, Germany and other countries
> opposed to military action, which have repeatedly declared that they
> see no imminent threat from Iraq. Bush brands his opponents on the
> Security Council as cowards, as though they were afraid to take action
> against Saddam Hussein. These countries were, in fact, increasingly
> alarmed-by the United States, not Iraq. Insofar as they summoned up
> resolve, to the shock of the Bush administration, it was to deny UN
> support for the war that Washington had already decided to wage.
Lie.
> Lie No. 9: "Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude
> to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now
> gathering to enforce the just demands of the world."
True.
> Only three nations are contributing military forces to the war:
> 250,000 from the US, 40,000 from Britain, and 2,000 from Australia.
> The other members of the "broad coalition" are those which have been
> bribed or browbeaten to allow the US to fly over their countries to
> bomb Iraq, to station troops, ships or warplanes on their territory,
> or provide technical assistance or other material aid to the war. None
> will do any fighting. All are acting against the expressed desire of
> their own population.
Lie.
> Lie No. 10: "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to
> its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."
True.
> Bush defines the UN body's responsibility as serving as a rubber stamp
> for whatever action the United States government demands. In relation
> to the UN, however, the United States does have definite
> responsibilities, including refraining from waging war without
> Security Council authorization, except in the case of immediate
> self-defense. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, it is for the
> Security Council, not the US or Britain, to decide how Security
> Council resolutions such as 1441 are to be enforced. The US decision
> to "enforce" its interpretation of 1441 regardless of the will of the
> Security Council is a violation of international law.
Lie.
> Lie No. 11: "If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed
> against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you."
True.
> The widely reported US military strategy is to conduct an aerial
> bombardment of Iraq so devastating that it will "shock and awe" the
> Iraqi people and compel the Iraqi armed forces to surrender en masse.
> According to one press preview, US and British forces "plan to launch
> the deadliest first night of air strikes on a single country in the
> history of air power. Hundreds of targets in every region of Iraq will
> be hit simultaneously." Estimates of likely Iraqi civilian casualties
> from the immediate impact of bombs and missiles range from thousands
> to hundreds of thousands, and even higher when the long-term effects
> are included.
Lie.
> Lie No. 12: "As our coalition takes their power, we will deliver the
> food and medicine you need."
True.
> This is particularly cynical, since the immediate consequence of
> Bush's 48-hour ultimatum was the withdrawal of all UN humanitarian aid
> workers and the shutdown of the oil-for-food program, which
> underwrites the feeding of 60 percent of Iraq's population. As for
> medicine, the US has systematically deprived the Iraqi people of
> needed medicine for the past 12 years, insisting that even the most
> basic medical supplies, like antibiotics and syringes, be banned as
> "dual-use" items that could be used in a program of biological
> warfare.
Lie.
> Lie No. 13: "We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will
> help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free."
True.
> The goal of the Bush administration is to install a US puppet regime
> in Baghdad, initially taking the form of an American military
> dictatorship. It is no exaggeration to say that the US government has
> been the leading promoter of dictatorships around the world, from
> Pinochet of Chile to Suharto of Indonesia to Saddam Hussein himself,
> who, according to one recent report, got his political start as an
> anti-communist hit-man working in a CIA-backed plot to assassinate
> Iraq's left-nationalist President Qasem in 1959.
Lie.
> Lie No. 14: "Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American
> people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and
> every measure will be taken to win it."
True.
> This combines a lie and a brutal truth. The Bush administration has
> taken every possible measure to insure that war takes place, viewing
> the resumption of UN weapons inspections with barely disguised
> hostility and directing its venom against those countries that have
> suggested a diplomatic settlement with Iraq is achievable. In
> prosecuting the war, the Bush administration is indeed prepared to use
> "every measure," up to an including nuclear weapons, in order to win
> it.
Lie.
> Lie No. 15: "War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice."
True.
> There will be colossal sacrifices for the Iraqi people, and sacrifices
> in blood and economic well-being for the American people as well. But
> for Bush's real constituency, the wealthiest layer at the top of
> American society, there will be no sacrifices at all. Instead, the
> administration is seeking a tax cut package of over $700 billion,
> including the abolition of taxation on corporate dividends. Major US
> corporations are in line to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in
> profits from the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure shattered by the
> coming US assault. These include the oil construction firm
> Halliburton, which Vice President Cheney headed prior to joining the
> Bush administration, and which continues to include Cheney on its
> payroll.
Lie.
> Lie No. 16: "[T]he only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is
> to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared
> to do so."
True.
> Every aggressor claims to deplore the suffering of war and seeks to
> blame the victim for resisting, and thus prolonging the agony. Bush is
> no different. His hypocritical statements of "concern" for the Iraqi
> people cannot disguise the fact that, as many administration
> apologists freely admit, this is "a war of choice"-deliberately sought
> by the US government to pursue its strategic agenda in the Middle
> East.
Lie.
> Lie No. 17: "The terrorist threat to America and the world will be
> diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
True, and it seems that events are bakcing this up. The Wast Bank terrorists
according to one report I read several months ago have been having severe
money problems. It seems that their Iraqi money suppluy has gone away.
> No one, even in the American military-intelligence complex, seriously
> believes this. US counter-terrorism officials have repeatedly said
> that a US conquest and occupation of Iraq, by killing untold thousands
> of Arabs and Muslims and inflaming public opinion in the Arab world
> and beyond, will spark more terrorism, not less.
Lie.
> Lie No. 18: "We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be
> far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict
> harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over."
True.
> This is belied by the record of the past twelve years, which has seen
> a steady decline in Iraqi military power. Saddam Hussein has never
> been a threat to any "free nation," if that term has any meaning, only
> to the reactionary oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and to
> neighboring Iran, all ruled by regimes that are as repressive as his.
lie.
> Lie No. 19: "As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also
> honor the deepest commitments of our country."
True.
> The demands of the world were expressed by the millions who marched in
> cities throughout the world on February 15 and March 15 to oppose a
> unilateral US attack on Iraq. Bush seeks to have it both ways-claiming
> to enforce previous Security Council resolutions against Iraq ("the
> just demands of the world"), while flagrantly defying the will of the
> majority of the Security Council, the majority of the world's
> governments, and the vast majority of the world's people.
Lie.
> Lie No. 20: "Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are
> deserving and capable of human liberty... The United States with other
> countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region."
True.
> For "the Iraqi people," substitute "the Egyptian people," "the people
> of the Arabian peninsula," "the Pakistani people" or those of other
> US-backed dictatorships, not to mention the Palestinians who live
> under a brutal Israeli occupation that is supported by Washington.
> Does the US government believe that any of them are "deserving and
> capable of human liberty?" When the parliament of Turkey, under the
> pressure of popular opposition, voted to bar the US from using Turkish
> territory to invade Iraq, the Bush administration appealed to the
> Turkish military to pressure the government into overturning this
> democratic decision.
Lie.
David Hartung
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> I'm bothered that we waited so long. Shouldn't we have done this in
> 1998? Wasn't that long enough to wait for Saddam to become compliant?
We should have finished the job in 1991!
zepp
Gosh, you sure have a high opinion of my influence.
I'll have to tell Hillary about that when I have coffee with her later
this evening.
zepp
>Stuart Grey <Stuar...@comcastdot.net> wrote in
>news:cJeyb.362224$Tr4.1073912@attbi_s03:
>
>> Well great. Commies like you cheer when good people
>> making sacrifices for freedom are murdered.
>>
>> But we knew that your kind is a contemptible,
>> disgusting folk.
>
>Hey Stu... "Cheer" ... I don't see any "cheering" you wanna point it out
>to me... I must have missed it.
Stewie needs to feel persecuted in order to feed his hatred.
>
>
>>
>>> photo:
>>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031129/481/bag103112918
>>> 41
>>>
>>> Iraqi's celebrate over the bodies of killed members of a Spanish
>>> military intelligence team on a street, south of Baghdad, Saturday,
>>> Nov 29, 2003. At least six people where killed and one injured in the
>>> attack on the Spanish military intelligence team in Iraq, Spanish
>>> official said. (AP Photo/Sky News)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&e=1&u=/ap/20031129
>>> /ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
>>>
>>> Television footage showed a small group of youths gathered after the
>>> attack, chanting slogans in support of Saddam Hussein and kicking the
>>> bodies.
>>> +
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>B.
-
zepp
Putsch's daddy explained why they "didn't go on to Baghdad." A pity
his son isn't nearly as bright.
zepp
Still trying to find out if you would fight for your country if it was
invaded, Davie.
You seem to be having a little trouble answering that one.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
In hindsight. Of course the very same people who are ranting now that we
should've gone to Baghdad in 1991 were, at the time, ranting that so
many Iraqi soldiers were being killed by coalition forces that
hostilities had to end and right now. It's actually rather humorous.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
zepp wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:10:23 GMT, Brian Carey
> <car...@leavemealone-mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> ><std...@backpacker.com> wrote in news:3FCA3B32...@backpacker.com:
> >
> >> Count your lucky stars that no one takes you seriously, Zepp. American
> >> soldiers have died to free the Iraqis. You referring to that as rape
> >> is disgusting.
> >
> >I hope that Zepp manages to convince the Democrats to run their '04
> >campaigns on a platform of condemning the "rape" of Iraq.
>
> Gosh, you sure have a high opinion of my influence.
>
No he doesn't.
> I'll have to tell Hillary about that when I have coffee with her later
> this evening.
>
Nor about hers.
David Hartung
> Still trying to find out if you would fight for your country if it was
> invaded, Davie.
>
> You seem to be having a little trouble answering that one.
Since you are so concerned about it, yeas I would fight, and I have 11 years
of service under my belt to show my willingness, wht do you have? Would you
rn back to Canada if the US were invaded?
zepp
Lie. The decision to attack Iraq was made at least a year earlier.
>
>> The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time
>> having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in
>> which US troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press
>> reports, most recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the
>> first National Security Council meetings of his presidency, months
>> before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon,
>> Bush expressed his determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his
>> willingness to commit US ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that
>> purpose. All that was required was the appropriate pretext-supplied by
>> September 11, 2001.
>
>Offensive bile.
But also entirely factual.
>
>> Lie No. 2: "For more than a decade, the United States and other
>> nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi
>> regime without war."
>
>Truth.
>
If we were being patient and honorable, we wouldn't have invaded that
nearly defenseless country.
>> The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined
>> with "no-fly" zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of
>> brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical
>> supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of
>> more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials
>> who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the
>> conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the
>> inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original
>> inspections program. The CIA's aim was to spy on Iraq's top officials
>> and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.
>
>Lie.
Truth.
>
>> Lie No. 3: "The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time
>> and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions
>> demanding full disarmament..."
>
>Truth.
>
>> Iraq has never "defied" a Security Council resolution since the end of
>> the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the
>> dictates of the UN body, although frequently under protest or with
>> reservations, because many of the resolutions involve gross violations
>> of Iraqi sovereignty. From 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the
>> destruction of the vast bulk of the chemical and biological weapons,
>> as well as delivery systems, which Iraq accumulated (with the
>> assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and they also
>> destroyed all of Iraq's facilities for making new weapons.
>
>Lie.
I note that Hans Blix himself states unequivocably that he is
confident that the UN inspectors found and eliminated at least 99% of
the weapons banned under the UN agreement. I think the fact that
after eight months, we haven't found ONE SINGLE VIOLATION of that
lengthy list of weapons suggests that Blix, if anything, understated
the case.
At this point, this debate is already over, since you defied us to
come up with a single lie Putsch has told. I gave you twenty, and
you've only been able to gainsay on the first three, without providing
a shred of evidence on your toy president's behalf.
In short, you've lost.
-
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
zepp wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:41:08 GMT, "David Hartung"
> <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> ><std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> >news:3FCA3ADF...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >> I'm bothered that we waited so long. Shouldn't we have done this in
> >> 1998? Wasn't that long enough to wait for Saddam to become compliant?
> >
> >We should have finished the job in 1991!
>
> Putsch's daddy explained why they "didn't go on to Baghdad." A pity
> his son isn't nearly as bright.
>
Thinks changed in the over ten intervening years and going to Baghdad
became necessary in a global war against terrorism that didn't exist in
1991.
Suomy Nona
>
> zepp wrote:
>
>>Six Spanish Recon Soldiers Killed in Iraq
>>
>
> Zepp seeks high fiving Liberals with post.
While Bonde and Muffin are in full 69 position..
David Hartung
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>
>
> David Hartung wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > news:3FCA3ADF...@backpacker.com...
> >
> > > I'm bothered that we waited so long. Shouldn't we have done this in
> > > 1998? Wasn't that long enough to wait for Saddam to become compliant?
> >
> > We should have finished the job in 1991!
> >
> In hindsight. Of course the very same people who are ranting now that we
> should've gone to Baghdad in 1991 were, at the time, ranting that so
> many Iraqi soldiers were being killed by coalition forces that
> hostilities had to end and right now. It's actually rather humorous.
Bill, I was aying in 91 that we needed to finish the job.
Dave Lister
>
>
> zepp wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:41:08 GMT, "David Hartung"
>> <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
>> ><std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3FCA3ADF...@backpacker.com...
>> >
>> >> I'm bothered that we waited so long. Shouldn't we have done this in
>> >> 1998? Wasn't that long enough to wait for Saddam to become compliant?
>> >
>> >We should have finished the job in 1991!
>>
>> Putsch's daddy explained why they "didn't go on to Baghdad." A pity
>> his son isn't nearly as bright.
>>
> Thinks changed in the over ten intervening years and going to Baghdad
> became necessary in a global war against terrorism that didn't exist in
> 1991.
Are you still babbling bullshit in here, Bozo?
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
David Hartung wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3FCAA4CC...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > David Hartung wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
> > > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3FCA3ADF...@backpacker.com...
> > >
> > > > I'm bothered that we waited so long. Shouldn't we have done this in
> > > > 1998? Wasn't that long enough to wait for Saddam to become compliant?
> > >
> > > We should have finished the job in 1991!
> > >
> > In hindsight. Of course the very same people who are ranting now that we
> > should've gone to Baghdad in 1991 were, at the time, ranting that so
> > many Iraqi soldiers were being killed by coalition forces that
> > hostilities had to end and right now. It's actually rather humorous.
>
> Bill, I was aying in 91 that we needed to finish the job.
>
Are you a Liberal ranting today that we shouldn't now finish the job?
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
More like while Suomy Nona is in full rigour.
David Hartung
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
Thems fightin words Podner!<g> I was a liberal once, for about 10 minutes,
then I came to my senses.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
What I was trying to say was about Liberals who now claim that we
should've gone to Baghdad in 1991. There isn't a shortage of people of
other views who thought that in 1991. At least thought that we might've
done a bit more.