Hey, War Supporters
Grantland
Hey, War Supporters
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
There's no delicate way to say this, but to supporters of the Iraq war
I have a little message.
All together now, people: you were scammed.
No "weapons of mass destruction" have been found. None.
Some of us figured as much, since the rationale for the war kept
changing so frequently. And when the search for these weapons was
carried out in such a lackluster manner, one had to assume the
administration wasn't really worried about them. (We were casually
told that perhaps seven suspected Iraqi nuclear sites had been looted.
Nice planning there.)
Some people will believe administration propaganda no matter what. In
reply to an article I wrote for SeattleCatholic.com, one person wrote
to the editor: "Contrary to Dr. Woods' reference to the lack of Al
Qaeda--Iraqi links, we have all read of the proof of links dating to
before 9/11." Have we? That's funny, because every news article one
reads these days concedes that the link has not been made, and that
experts prior to the war insisted the alleged link was a mere fantasy.
I wonder what special intelligence briefings this critic received.
Some supporters of the war will doubtless plead, "But, but…that's what
Hannity and Limbaugh told me to think!"
Well, it's time now to start doing your own thinking, since Hannity
and Limbaugh wouldn't know conservatism if it punched them in the
face.
The automatons who send you angry emails when you write an article
like this condemn you for not wanting to "liberate the Iraqis." (I
dealt with that one in an earlier piece.) They'll point to the
toppling of the statue of Saddam as a glorious moment of liberation.
They somehow missed the news items informing us that that spectacle
was entirely staged: 500 Iraqi National Congress goons were flown in
by the Pentagon to put on that display for us. A wide-angle camera
shot of the incident shows American tanks patrolling a completely
deserted square (apart from the 500 goons).
Moreover, the likelihood increases with each passing day that Iraq
will, whether we like it or not, wind up an Islamic state. (The idea
that enfranchised Iraqis would vote for feminism and its allied
ideologies was, in retrospect, a little ridiculous.) That's just one
of the answers to the veritable army of propagandized automatons who
spend their time telling atrocity stories from the days of Saddam's
regime. "Nothing could be worse than Saddam." Well, Woodrow Wilson
didn't think anything could be worse than the Kaiser in Germany. A
decade after the President's death, intelligent men longed for the old
Kaiser.
I've already explained on this site why crusades for democracy are in
no sense "conservative"; the very fact that this needs to be pointed
out is something of a barometer of conservative thought at the moment.
The neoconservatives, not exactly known for their knowledge of
history, point to Japan and Germany as democracy-at-gunpoint success
stories, but Japan's intellectuals had been acquainted with and
increasingly interested in Western ideas for nearly a century by 1945,
and Germany had been at the heart of Western civilization for
millennia. Neither is true of Iraq, to say the least.
It is in the nature of the state to want to keep its people
permanently mesmerized by some terrible dictator somewhere. ("Ethel,
did you hear he used weapons of mass destruction against his own
people?") Saddam may well have been a monster. There are plenty of
monsters ruling African nations right now. Anyone care to depose them
all? To the brainwashed among us, of whom there are many, try to
think: do you suppose that would lead to more stability or less?
To peddle this silly campaign of installing democracy by force, you
would have to impugn the patriotism of every early American leader,
from Washington to Jefferson to Hamilton to John Quincy Adams to Henry
Clay. Every one of them considered it dangerous utopianism to suggest
that the United States should right the wrongs of the world (as if the
matter were that simple in the first place, a point which the
aftermath of the most recent conflict should be bringing home if
anyone were paying attention). Anyone criticizing opponents of the
Iraq war should have the integrity to condemn these great Americans as
well, and be explicit in their repudiation of the American tradition.
Now who's "anti-American"?
Meanwhile, Afghanistan, another example of goodness and light being
brought to a benighted people, continues to degenerate into chaos. But
for people even to remember Afghanistan, they'd have to have an
attention span longer than ten minutes.
Just think about how this is going to go over in the history books, or
in history classrooms. The neocons had better enjoy themselves now.
History doesn't look kindly upon those who asked no questions about
the alleged Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, and the prospects for the
present boondoggle don't look much better.
"Didn't people know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?"
"Yes and no. The easily suggestible among us were carried away by the
carefully worded insinuations of the Bush Administration."
"So you mean the patriotism of many decent Americans was exploited and
taken advantage of by government officials whose motives couldn't
possibly have had anything to do with 'weapons of mass destruction' or
any of this other nonsense?"
"I'm afraid so."
"So let's see. We alienated some of our oldest allies, often
gratuitously. We made accusations based on cooked evidence (e.g., the
forged documents 'proving' an Iraqi nuclear program, the 12-year-old
student term paper plagiarized to produce a dossier on Iraqi activity
in 2003). We destroyed our credibility in the world through our
reckless statements and our transparent desire for war throughout the
inspections process, thereby making it less likely that other
countries would cooperate with us against real terrorists. Some
countries, including some of our friends, even suspected we might
plant weapons in Iraq if we couldn't find any. That's a new low."
"Correct."
"Then we invaded and found no weapons at all -- none of the allegedly
huge stockpiles of anthrax and whatever else was supposedly on the
verge of being used against us. Meanwhile, order collapsed in the
country, and enormous demonstrations favoring an Islamic state broke
out."
"Right."
"And hatred of the U.S. grew to an all-time high."
"Indeed."
"And there were people foolish enough to denounce as 'unpatriotic'
those who had warned that this would happen?"
"Believe it or not, there were."
"And people who called themselves conservative considered this a
glorious event? They think conservatism means ignorant, bungling
belligerence, and that considerations of diplomacy or their country's
image around the world are the stuff of carping liberals?"
"Yes."
Good thing the neocons have no sense of history, or they'd worry about
this: in the decades to come, fewer and fewer people will be able to
hear about the Iraq war without snickering and shaking their heads.
May 21, 2003
Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail] holds an AB from
Harvard and a PhD from Columbia. He teaches history, is associate
editor of The Latin Mass Magazine, and is co-author (with Christopher
A. Ferrara) of The Great Façade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty
in the Roman Catholic Church (2002). The book (as well as a sample
chapter) is available at greatfacade.com.
Ivan Ho
The key phrase "some people will believe administration propaganda
no matter what",
should be rephrased: "most people have, and will always believe
administration propaganda, no matter what."
The Germans did.
The Russians did.
The Americans did, and still do, and always will
On Fri, 23 May 2003 17:11:23 GMT, mit...@iafrica.com (Grantland)
wrote:
R. Foreman
>
> The key phrase "some people will believe administration propaganda
> no matter what",
>
> should be rephrased: "most people have, and will always believe
> administration propaganda, no matter what."
>
> The Germans did.
> The Russians did.
> The Americans did, and still do, and always will
Are you saying you believe everything people tell you? You sound
like you're easily pursuaded.
--
It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and
another to put him in possession of Truth." - John Locke
Ivan Ho
<eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote:
>Ivan Ho <Iva...@terminus.net> Spat the Words
>
>>
>> The key phrase "some people will believe administration propaganda
>> no matter what",
>>
>> should be rephrased: "most people have, and will always believe
>> administration propaganda, no matter what."
>>
>> The Germans did.
>> The Russians did.
>> The Americans did, and still do, and always will
>
>
>Are you saying you believe everything people tell you? You sound
>like you're easily pursuaded.
The Americans did, and still do, and they always will .
They are sheep.
R. Foreman
> On Sat, 24 May 2003 03:16:54 GMT, "R. Foreman"
> <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>Ivan Ho <Iva...@terminus.net> Spat the Words
>>
>>>
>>> The key phrase "some people will believe administration propaganda
>>> no matter what",
>>>
>>> should be rephrased: "most people have, and will always believe
>>> administration propaganda, no matter what."
>>>
>>> The Germans did.
>>> The Russians did.
>>> The Americans did, and still do, and always will
>>
>>
>>Are you saying you believe everything people tell you? You sound
>>like you're easily pursuaded.
>
>
> The Americans did, and still do, and they always will .
>
> They are sheep.
>
So the answer is yes, you do believe everything people tell you. I've
got some desert properties I'd like to sell you.
Doctor Ago the Timelord ©
they were there and were transferred. The major point is that we freed and
saved millions of lives, in the "long run". Go to bed.
"Grantland" <mit...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:3ece55cd....@ct-news.iafrica.com...
> From: u9332...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch)
> Hey, War Supporters
>
>
> by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
>
>
> There's no delicate way to say this, but to supporters of the Iraq war
>
> I have a little message.
>
> All together now, people: you were scammed.
>
> No "weapons of mass destruction" have been found. None.
>
> Some of us figured as much, since the rationale for the war kept
> changing so frequently. And when the search for these weapons was
> carried out in such a lackluster manner, one had to assume the
> administration wasn't really worried about them. (We were casually
> told that perhaps seven suspected Iraqi nuclear sites had been looted.
> Nice planning there.)
>
> Some people will believe administration propaganda no matter what. In
> reply to an article I wrote for SeattleCatholic.com, one person wrote
> to the editor: "Contrary to Dr. Woods' reference to the lack of Al
> Qaeda--Iraqi links, we have all read of the proof of links dating to
> before 9/11." Have we? That's funny, because every news article one
> reads these days concedes that the link has not been made, and that
> experts prior to the war insisted the alleged link was a mere fantasy.
> I wonder what special intelligence briefings this critic received.
>
> Some supporters of the war will doubtless plead, "But, but.that's what
Grantland
>they were there and were transferred. The major point is that we freed and
>saved millions of lives, in the "long run". Go to bed.
Oh now you want to save lives, pig? Nazionist filth.
Grantland
From: "Strider" <lup...@bellsouth.net>
The fat lady has not sang yet! And the party goes on!
Excuse me for shouting, but why aren't the networks and cable news
shows raising all Billy Hell over this? This isn't a stupid blue
dress. We attacked and now occupy a foreign country because it was
supposed to have weapons of mass destruction that threatened us.
We trashed Uncle Sam's reputation, turned him into a bully, subverted
200 years of our nation's history, killed thousands of innocents, and
more than 150 of our own military died. So where are the weapons of
mass destruction?
In his January State of the Union address, President Bush told the
world:
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX
nerve agent ... upward of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering
chemical agents ... materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000
liters of botulinum toxin ... 29,984 of these prohibited munitions ...
an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a
nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching
uranium for a bomb."
If Saddam had 'em, why didn't he use 'em?
<...>
John David Rose is a long-time Hilton Head Islander and political
observer.
Doctor Ago the Timelord ©
were fleeing, I speculate, they stole saddams weapons and took them to syria
and iran for the money. I wa looking back at pre-war posts on this group,
and what a laughing stock a lot of the posters are now. "Million man army
will wipe out U.S. in one week", "America will 'plant' WMD and blame
saddam", "Bush will be killed", etc. Me thinks the only person that could
foretell the future was Nostradamus. He remains silent on the subject.
"Grantland" <mit...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:3ecf4d74....@ct-news.iafrica.com...
R. Foreman
> What can a madman do when his army tucks tail and runs away? As the
> cowards were fleeing, I speculate, they stole saddams weapons and took
> them to syria and iran for the money. I wa looking back at pre-war
> posts on this group, and what a laughing stock a lot of the posters
> are now. "Million man army will wipe out U.S. in one week",
I remember scott ritter on a talk-show saying 'the US doesn't have
enough people now or ever to take iraq.' Didn't he move to france or
something?
> "America
> will 'plant' WMD and blame saddam", "Bush will be killed", etc. Me
> thinks the only person that could foretell the future was Nostradamus.
> He remains silent on the subject.
>
>
> "Grantland" <mit...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
> news:3ecf4d74....@ct-news.iafrica.com...
>>
>> If Saddam had 'em, why didn't he use 'em?
>>
>
>
>
--
Jean Guernon
Grantland a écrit :
>
> From: u9332...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch)
> Hey, War Supporters
>
> by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
>
>
> There's no delicate way to say this, but to supporters of the Iraq war
>
> I have a little message.
>
> All together now, people: you were scammed.
>
> No "weapons of mass destruction" have been found. None.
Bah, they already found mobile lab that couldn't have had any other
purpose.
Besides there were other reasons to go there. This was but one. Saddam
deserved the serious consequences of 1441 by contravening to 687e when
he paid for homicide bombers. not to mention what he still was doing to
Kuwait. But this is the one I love to mention to piss off Grantland the
Nazi.
There were NO need to go back to the SC right there and then, not WMD
were concerned, only terrorism in contravention to article 32 of 687e.
Besides, about WMD, even if you are already debunked to the bone, it is
only the beginning... They were there, just they were hidden or
destroyed right before the attack. In Syria perhaps?
Wait a year or so... Although it i not necessary, the case being made,
they surely should surely bring the deck of card to Gantanamo if they
are not going to bribe them, given the level of priority to find
anything about them. Not as efficient though. But I said what I had to
say about that. It is not a priority since they didn't even bother to
destroy the labs. LOL
J.
Danirl Robinson
> Bah, they already found mobile lab that couldn't have had any other
> purpose.
The so called weapons labs, were shown to the UN weapons inspectors, and
proven to be used for, food testing and
mobile medical testing.
> Besides there were other reasons to go there. This was but one. Saddam
> deserved the serious consequences of 1441 by contravening to 687e when
> he paid for homicide bombers. not to mention what he still was doing to
> Kuwait. But this is the one I love to mention to piss off Grantland the
> Nazi.
Suicide bombers, fighting in a war of resistence against a illigal
occupation force.
> There were NO need to go back to the SC right there and then, not WMD
> were concerned, only terrorism in contravention to article 32 of 687e.
LOL, oh here we go, the old Osama is Saddam's old dear friend thory.
Saddam supported a resistence against a isreali occupation forces. Again
There is no hard evidence to prove a link between terrorism and Osama, if
your going to go with the supporting of suicide bombers against isreal, it
could easily be argued that he paid their families for the sacrifice, they
were forced to make.
> Besides, about WMD, even if you are already debunked to the bone, it is
> only the beginning... They were there, just they were hidden or
> destroyed right before the attack. In Syria perhaps?
More excuses, no hard evidence, no solid evidence of a weapons program at
all.
Where are the scubs, where are the weapons, where are the factories. The
mobile weapons labs are suspect at best because it can not be proven they
were for a weapons program, the UN examaned them and concluded they were for
what Iraq said they were for. The jumping up of such evidence is nothing
more then despration by people like yourself to prove that the invasion was
justified and legal.
> Wait a year or so... Although it i not necessary, the case being made,
> they surely should surely bring the deck of card to Gantanamo if they
> are not going to bribe them, given the level of priority to find
> anything about them. Not as efficient though. But I said what I had to
> say about that. It is not a priority since they didn't even bother to
> destroy the labs. LOL
Do you know what happens at Gantanamo bay? Did you know they are designing
death chambers there, I'm sure you will be happy when they start to "ship"
in the arab's for a final solution.
> J.
Doctor Ago the Timelord ©
reasons. When President Bush made his statement on the War On Terrorism, he
said, amongst other things "......and where terror is, we will be knocking
on its door." This was 18 months before we declared war on saddam. When we
were preparing to declare war on saddam, President Bush specifically cited
"....saddam's support for terrorists". WMD was the LAST on the list.
"Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:3ED059D9...@globetrotter.net...
WH
"Doctor Ago the Timelord ©" <.> skrev i meddelandet
news:vd2nt1a...@corp.supernews.com...
> Everyone thinks the war was about WMD. WMD was the last on the list of
> reasons. When President Bush made his statement on the War On Terrorism,
he
> said, amongst other things "......and where terror is, we will be knocking
> on its door." This was 18 months before we declared war on saddam. When
we
> were preparing to declare war on saddam, President Bush specifically cited
> "....saddam's support for terrorists". WMD was the LAST on the list.
Still an asshole...the whole WMD thingie was the whole reason for the attack
and occupation of Iraq. What kind of a fuckin' idiot are you eh?
WH
Doctor Ago the Timelord ©
"R. Foreman" <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9385DF86F38D3rr...@63.240.76.16...
Grantland
He's a shit-eating Jewboy. He lies and spins every time he opens his
cum-stained mouth.
Grantland
R. Foreman
>
>
>> Bah, they already found mobile lab that couldn't have had any other
>> purpose.
>
> The so called weapons labs, were shown to the UN weapons inspectors,
> and proven to be used for, food testing and
> mobile medical testing.
I thought we already talked about this. They were mobile breweries.
He was making beer and selling it in Syria. Doesn't everyone put
bio-chem labs on wheels?
>
>> Besides there were other reasons to go there. This was but one.
>> Saddam deserved the serious consequences of 1441 by contravening to
>> 687e when he paid for homicide bombers. not to mention what he still
>> was doing to Kuwait. But this is the one I love to mention to piss
>> off Grantland the Nazi.
>
> Suicide bombers, fighting in a war of resistence against a illigal
> occupation force.
>
>> There were NO need to go back to the SC right there and then, not WMD
>> were concerned, only terrorism in contravention to article 32 of
>> 687e.
>
> LOL, oh here we go, the old Osama is Saddam's old dear friend thory.
> Saddam supported a resistence against a isreali occupation forces.
> Again There is no hard evidence to prove a link between terrorism and
> Osama, if your going to go with the supporting of suicide bombers
> against isreal, it could easily be argued that he paid their families
> for the sacrifice, they were forced to make.
I think what he said just passed straight through your brain holes.
>
>> Besides, about WMD, even if you are already debunked to the bone, it
>> is only the beginning... They were there, just they were hidden or
>> destroyed right before the attack. In Syria perhaps?
>
> More excuses, no hard evidence, no solid evidence of a weapons program
> at all.
You want something solid? Bend over, spread thy cheeks, I've got
something solid for you.
>
> Where are the scubs, where are the weapons, where are the factories.
> The mobile weapons labs are suspect at best because it can not be
> proven they were for a weapons program, the UN examaned them and
> concluded they were for what Iraq said they were for. The jumping up
> of such evidence is nothing more then despration by people like
> yourself to prove that the invasion was justified and legal.
You're really frightened of the US, aren't you?
>
>> Wait a year or so... Although it i not necessary, the case being
>> made, they surely should surely bring the deck of card to Gantanamo
>> if they are not going to bribe them, given the level of priority to
>> find anything about them. Not as efficient though. But I said what I
>> had to say about that. It is not a priority since they didn't even
>> bother to destroy the labs. LOL
>
> Do you know what happens at Gantanamo bay? Did you know they are
> designing death chambers there, I'm sure you will be happy when they
> start to "ship" in the arab's for a final solution.
>
>> J.
>
>
>
--
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> > Bah, they already found mobile lab that couldn't have had any other
> > purpose.
>
> The so called weapons labs, were shown to the UN weapons inspectors, and
> proven to be used for, food testing and
> mobile medical testing.
Provebn by whom. All experts say they couldn't be used for anything else
than WMD. I don't knwop what you are talking about. They were concealed
labs.
Show me some link where you pretense comne from, to see that they are
not totally made up and identify the propaganda site.
> > There were NO need to go back to the SC right there and then, not WMD
> > were concerned, only terrorism in contravention to article 32 of 687e.
>
> LOL, oh here we go, the old Osama is Saddam's old dear friend thory.
Not at all. By paying $25 000 for each Palies terrorists serial
murderers, they were supporters of terrorism and contreveening to
article 32 of resolution 687e. It goes without say.
[snipped the rest of the total lies]
J.
Jean Guernon
"Doctor Ago the Timelord ©" a écrit :
>
> Everyone thinks the war was about WMD. WMD was the last on the list of
> reasons. When President Bush made his statement on the War On Terrorism, he
> said, amongst other things "......and where terror is, we will be knocking
> on its door." This was 18 months before we declared war on saddam. When we
> were preparing to declare war on saddam, President Bush specifically cited
> "....saddam's support for terrorists". WMD was the LAST on the list.
>
Exactly. Thanks. And there was absolutely no need for any further
security council consultation for this reason (terrorism) with 1441, but
action.
J.
Jean Guernon
J.
WH a écrit :
Jean Guernon
Go suck an egg, loser.
J.
Grantland a écrit :
Dani
<jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote:
>The Nazi sees Jews even in his soup, as usual.
>
>Go suck an egg, loser.
Will someone please tell me WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE *JEWS*?
I just don't see it. I don't personally know very many Jews (only
four; and I'm only close to one of them.. she's cool, funny; seems
above average in intelligence - professional. Doesn't like when
people only talk about Christmas and not Hannukah <-- I have no idea
how to spell that word. She complains and gets upset about:
"My tax dollars!" often (lol).. she makes me laugh.) So that's all I
can personally go by. I would need to know more to be able to see
what the hype is all about.
But My God (oh yeah, that's another thing - she writes G*d instead
of God) I constantly hear all this talk over and over about Jew this
and Jew that. I won't even let my friend see this newsgroup! I won't
- she would go hysterical and start freaking out on Grantland.
I won't even tell her all the shit that I see being said about them..
probably hurt her feelings.. she can't know about this group..
Although I am tempted to show her sometimes - but I know it would
bother her soooo I don't show her. I can't imagine what it must feel
like to be discriminated against.. Must suck. I've never been on the
receiving end of prejudice in my life (well except now with the
anti-Americans).. I know it doesn't feel very good to be discriminated
against simply for living in a certain country - can't imagine what it
must feel like to be discriminated against simply for the pure fact
that you were born Jewish.
Dani
Dani
..........................................................................................................................
Oh yeah - almost forgot - wanna hear a good one? I was
accused of being an anti-semite for sticking up for Rachel Corrie!
Lovely, ha?
*Me* the one who has always been very vocal about ending racism..
"blind hate" etc.. was accused of that.
I couldn't frigin' believe it.
Woodswun
>On Mon, 26 May 2003 19:27:07 GMT, Jean Guernon
><jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote:
>
>>The Nazi sees Jews even in his soup, as usual.
>>
>>Go suck an egg, loser.
>
>Will someone please tell me WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE *JEWS*?
Dani,
You seem to think that a group has to have actually done something to be
blamed for every problem on the planet, and that just isn't so. It's far
easier to blame some (other!!) group for your situation than to accept
responsibility for it yourself. Some pick people of other ethnic backgrounds,
some pick people of other races, some pick people of other religions, but the
one constant is the projection onto another group to avoid
self-responsibility.
There are some specific acts/problems that can be attributed to certain
groups (fundie Islam -> terrorism, PETA -> spraypainting women wearing dead
animals, legislators -> higher school taxes, etc) , but general blaming of
everything that's wrong onto another group is not in that category.
Woods
Dee
with their liberal values, usually espoused against fundies and racists,
openly. They hardly ever criticize Sharon's heavy-handed tactics. The time
Spielberg apparently said something, it was a hoax. There is a road map, but
Sharon promised a lot of things about Jerusalem and borders when he became
PM. Removing settlements is a nothing jesture, which would be touted by some
as so clear progress. The right wing Jews won't let Sharon forget his
promise never to share Jerusalem.
.....................
Woodswun wrote in message ...
Danirl Robinson
Dani.
Its not that Isreal does not ahve the right to exist. Its the way that
Isreal supported by the west is chooseing to
abuse its power, Palistine is more like a enslaved population rather then a
independent and thriveing people. They hate each other.
Through out time Jews have been treated poorly, but because they have
suffered, does this give them the right to make others suffer when they
become powerful?
You would think they would take pitty on Palistine and try to help rather
then hurt, but they have choosen their path, when Jesus said kill thy emeny,
I do not think he meant to physically kill him, he meant kill him with
kindness, Isreal has the ability to end this in a good light.
Daniel
"Dani" <dani...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vtt4dvohij9sih5a6...@4ax.com...
Danirl Robinson
How many times does it have to be spelt out to you, the US never used a UN
resoultion. Your attempt to justify the illigal war on iraq is nothing more
then pittiful
If the US had a legit case for war against Iraq, then the UN security
council would have voted.
Daniel
"Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:3ED26ACA...@globetrotter.net...
Danirl Robinson
> Bah, they already found mobile lab that couldn't have had any other
> purpose.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_WMD030521.html
> Besides there were other reasons to go there. This was but one. Saddam
> deserved the serious consequences of 1441 by contravening to 687e when
> he paid for homicide bombers. not to mention what he still was doing to
> Kuwait. But this is the one I love to mention to piss off Grantland the
> Nazi.
>
> There were NO need to go back to the SC right there and then, not WMD
> were concerned, only terrorism in contravention to article 32 of 687e.
>
> Besides, about WMD, even if you are already debunked to the bone, it is
> only the beginning... They were there, just they were hidden or
> destroyed right before the attack. In Syria perhaps?
LOL, more excuses, no evidence.
Jean face the facts the US lied
dreamwalker
> Will someone please tell me WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE *JEWS*?
That's a very difficult question to answer. The reasons for Jew hatred are
many. The Catholic Church had been the largest promoters anti-Semite
beliefs. More modern European Jew hatred was generated greatly by Roman
Emperor Constantine. It was fostered through the church by numerous
religious leaders in Catholicism including Pope Paul IV, who set up a
Jewish ghetto in Rome in 1555. Even Pope Pius XII who had secret
connections to Hitler. There is also Thomas Aquinas, a medieval theologian
who blamed the Jewish authorities for the death of Christ. He enraged
crowds with his hyperbole. Bernard of Clairvaux endorsed not only violence
against Muslims but also against the Jew. Much of this hatred was stirred
up from versus in the Book of John in the New Testament. Recent attempts
have been made to strike these passages. These attempts are by individuals
who view life through a straw. Just as those who used these passages
against the Jews. The current pope recently apologized to the Jews for past
transgressions. A first in the Catholic church. It really does pain me that
the Catholic church has such an awful track record. I was raised Catholic.
But history is history. American government also has some dark days. Case
in point, the ship St. Louis. Over 900 Jews were turned back to Germany for
probable death by America, Cuba, and several other countries. America was
going through a very tough period of immigration quotas at that time. We
were in our isolationist period following W.W.I.
Then of course we have Nazi Germany. One man's obsession that turned into a
country's agenda. I don't think I have to go into that. I'll just say that
Germany needed a scapegoat, and Hitler gave it to them. If you look very
closely at German history, you'll see how the actions of 17-year-old
Herschel Grynszpan, a Jewish boy, solidified the German nation behind
Hitler and his march against the Jews.
Hatred of the Jews also has it's origins in the connection between Jews and
banking or lending. The Jews who settled in America did very well by
loaning capital to others for homes, transportation, and businesses. Some
saw this as a threat. Basically gaining ownership over too much of the free
capital. When I was 6, my brother-in-law referred to my nieces cash
register as a Jewish typewriter.
Current neo-Nazis like Grantland, hate Jews for a multitude of mythical
reasons. People of his character will go on and on about the slimy Jew
without ever giving one sliver of truth. They'll call the Jew this name or
that name but can't ever come up with anything concrete. This type of Jew
hatred is more about filling up head space. It's always a blast to debate
these types. They're actually quite spineless. They usually collect in
small groups complaining about how the Jews are running the world. Very
rarely will they spout anti-Semite statements in public. Usually because
they're fearful of getting the living shit stomped out of their puny
behinds. It's really quite bizarre. Hope that helps.
dw-neocon of the great white north.
R. Foreman
> In article <vtt4dvohij9sih5a6...@4ax.com>, Dani
> <dani...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 26 May 2003 19:27:07 GMT, Jean Guernon
>><jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The Nazi sees Jews even in his soup, as usual.
>>>
>>>Go suck an egg, loser.
>>
>>Will someone please tell me WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE *JEWS*?
>
> Dani,
>
> You seem to think that a group has to have actually done something to
> be blamed for every problem on the planet, and that just isn't so.
> It's far easier to blame some (other!!) group for your situation than
> to accept responsibility for it yourself. Some pick people of other
> ethnic backgrounds, some pick people of other races, some pick people
> of other religions, but the one constant is the projection onto
> another group to avoid self-responsibility.
Yep, that was the idea behind the nazis in wwii using the jews as
scapegoats. They focused all the illness in their own society at
the jews, and used them as a sort of psychic and social waste dump.
Not sure where grantland gets his opinions but I think he comes from
south africa where apartheid is still fresh in mind - small white
minority controlling a country overwhelmingly black in population.
>
> There are some specific acts/problems that can be attributed to
> certain groups (fundie Islam -> terrorism, PETA -> spraypainting women
> wearing dead animals, legislators -> higher school taxes, etc) , but
> general blaming of everything that's wrong onto another group is not
> in that category.
>
> Woods
>
--
Grantland
R. Foreman
>
>
> Dani.
>
> Its not that Isreal does not ahve the right to exist. Its the way
> that Isreal supported by the west is chooseing to
> abuse its power, Palistine is more like a enslaved population rather
> then a independent and thriveing people. They hate each other.
> Through out time Jews have been treated poorly, but because they have
> suffered, does this give them the right to make others suffer when
> they become powerful?
I think they've tried to help in the past, Daniel, but the thanks they
get in return is bombings of their civilians by the Palestinians. If
Israel is guilty of anything, its a desire to populate and settle that
whole area. The Palestinians, on the other hand, its not clear at all
what they want, and their civilian population is severly compromised,
even dominated by terrorist organizations, over which they have no
control and which they even embrace, since it brings them a cohesion
they've never known before.
It's not a stretch to say that without the terrorist organizations
like hamas and islamic jihad, the palestinians would have no social
cohesion at all, they could never form a gov't without a common goal
like the complete destruction of Israel. That's why I don't think
this 'roadmap' will go anywhere. Take away the palestinians' common
cause and they're no longer cohesive in any way, and hamas and islm
jhd will never let that happen.
--
R. Foreman
>
>> Bah, they already found mobile lab that couldn't have had any other
>> purpose.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_WMD030521.html
>
>> Besides there were other reasons to go there. This was but one. Saddam
>> deserved the serious consequences of 1441 by contravening to 687e
when
>> he paid for homicide bombers. not to mention what he still was doing
to
>> Kuwait. But this is the one I love to mention to piss off Grantland
the
>> Nazi.
>>
>> There were NO need to go back to the SC right there and then, not WMD
>> were concerned, only terrorism in contravention to article 32 of 687e.
>>
>> Besides, about WMD, even if you are already debunked to the bone, it
is
>> only the beginning... They were there, just they were hidden or
>> destroyed right before the attack. In Syria perhaps?
>
> LOL, more excuses, no evidence.
>
> Jean face the facts the US lied
Actually, Bush never intended to obtain UN permission to take down
Iraq. He didn't feel it was necessary, since Iraq had been violating
UN resolutions for 12 years. Every other week Iraq was moving radar
and anti-aircraft missiles into the no-fly zone.
Are you saying the US lied about wanting to take out Iraq? That's
pretty strange Daniel. Your thinking process doesn't hold much logic.
>
>> Wait a year or so... Although it i not necessary, the case being made,
>> they surely should surely bring the deck of card to Gantanamo if they
>> are not going to bribe them, given the level of priority to find
>> anything about them. Not as efficient though. But I said what I had to
>> say about that. It is not a priority since they didn't even bother to
>> destroy the labs. LOL
>
>
>
>> J.
>
>
>
--
Grantland
>
>Yep, that was the idea behind the nazis in wwii using the jews as
>scapegoats. They focused all the illness in their own society at
>the jews, and used them as a sort of psychic and social waste dump.
Stupid buffoon. You're the most ignorant moron on this group. The
Nazis were a reaction to the Bolsheviks.
>Not sure where grantland gets his opinions but I think he comes from
>south africa where apartheid is still fresh in mind - small white
>minority controlling a country overwhelmingly black in population.
>
Cretin. I won't waste my time.
Grantland
R. Foreman
> "R. Foreskin" <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yep, that was the idea behind the nazis in wwii using the jews as
>>scapegoats. They focused all the illness in their own society at
>>the jews, and used them as a sort of psychic and social waste dump.
>
> Stupid buffoon. You're the most ignorant moron on this group. The
> Nazis were a reaction to the Bolsheviks.
Of course they were, and lincoln is buried in grants tomb.
>
>>Not sure where grantland gets his opinions but I think he comes from
>>south africa where apartheid is still fresh in mind - small white
>>minority controlling a country overwhelmingly black in population.
>>
> Cretin. I won't waste my time.
Good, you do just that gruntie
>
> Grantland
Doctor Ago the Timelord ©
act any.
"Grantland" <mit...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:3ed2b601...@ct-news.iafrica.com...
Doctor Ago the Timelord ©
Bravo to you. You have my respect!
"dreamwalker" <backf...@dead.com> wrote in message
news:01c32416$d7510f00$64237640@default...
Dee
dreamwalker wrote in message <01c32416$d7510f00$64237640@default>...
In the early 60's, it would have helped if you were raised in NYC. The Irish
could fight and were the cops, the Italians got the union jobs, the Jews
were the doctors and lawyers and money men who didn't fight physically, the
blacks and Puerto Ricans stayed in their neighborhoods, the WASPs became the
figurehead politicians and CEO's. Being an indian in the North, Midwest, you
should have known some racial stereotyping.
The Godfather movies weren't totally fictional.
>It's really quite bizarre. Hope that helps.
Racism is instinctual as well as cultural, despite wanting outsiders
strengthening the gene pool. When people believe they don't have prejudices,
they probably are more prejudiced than people who admit they have prejudices
because the latter group understands the meaning of the word.
Jean Guernon
Dani a écrit :
You summed the spirit of the insanity of it up, with such grace as usual
Dani.
Indeed there is nothing wrong with them. It is pure prejudice for people
like Grantland. Gratuitous hatred. Indeed, it is true that this NG has
became an anti-Semite predators nest. And there are also pure terrorist
sympathizers, like WH, by association to other unrelated terrorist
groups. Harder to explain, but they will spread the same lies anyway,
with more nuance often times. But they are so few and don't proliferate
everywhere... Let's stick to the wider reality of the two main hate
groups category, the Nazi and the Muslims terrorists supporters.
It is very odd that we attract hate mongers like that since Nostradamus
grand-father was a Jew. And he never said anything against Jews. But
most of them don't have a clue about the Seer either.
It goes to show they try to infiltrate and invade all the NGs in order
to resuscitate the Hitlerian dream, some like Grantland, by pure Nazi
ideology, others, by hatred based on the generalized Muslim intolerance
that has generated more and more lies as decades went by, as both these
racist common desire to implement some kind of a second holocaust became
more vocal and less retrained.
It is no accident that they are even here. And in such a great number.
It is a world conspiracy that spreads, like a cancer.
Indeed you make us feel how insane it must be for these people. How
crazy it is. I personally thank you wholeheartedly. As one of the
experts here, given the concern of the authentic prophecies, I am
confident to say that you are not only a breath of fresh air but somehow
reflect the true spirit of this NG even if mostly as a barometer of the
times rather than of previsions, given that the Seer's vision requires
investment in time and interest that most here who try to assess the
world direction don't possess, still in that you sense you assess the
direction of the wind, with such eloquence here, you are poetically the
sunshine here compared to most posters. Like here, you shed more light
on the whole reality that truly grips the whole world and influences all
the events to come than, almost, the analysis of those predicted
upcoming occurrence themselves can.
In a word... You rule! :-)
J.
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> Jean
>
> How many times does it have to be spelt out to you, the US never used a UN
> resoultion. Your attempt to justify the illigal war on iraq is nothing more
> then pittiful
How many time does it have to be spelt out. THe UN used resolution 1441.
Period.
Now you can't much talk about spelling, no wonder you have a hard time
even understanding 1441. But you should read it instead of trusting the
anti-US losers who had interest in making up such things.
>
> If the US had a legit case for war against Iraq, then the UN security
> council would have voted.
Nope, 1441 was explicit that only if Saddam's infraction were WMD would
the SC had to pronounce itself. Not if he infringed other part of 687e,
which he did by proving funds for Palestinian terrorists and denying
Kuwait its archives, POWs, and keeping threatening it of ulterior
invasion. You would need to take your head out of your propaganda ass to
read the UN resolutions. If you have the intellectual capacity, try
sometimes. I havethem on my siteif you want me to repost the link. But
given years of your lies, I suspect you are here only to spread lies and
are not interested in the truth.
J.
Danirl Robinson
"R. Foreman" <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9387F1454DF6Frr...@204.127.199.17...
> "Danirl Robinson" <Dan...@yeahright.com> Spat the Words
>
> >
> >
> > Dani.
> >
> > Its not that Isreal does not ahve the right to exist. Its the way
> > that Isreal supported by the west is chooseing to
> > abuse its power, Palistine is more like a enslaved population rather
> > then a independent and thriveing people. They hate each other.
> > Through out time Jews have been treated poorly, but because they have
> > suffered, does this give them the right to make others suffer when
> > they become powerful?
>
> I think they've tried to help in the past, Daniel, but the thanks they
> get in return is bombings of their civilians by the Palestinians. If
> Israel is guilty of anything, its a desire to populate and settle that
> whole area. The Palestinians, on the other hand, its not clear at all
> what they want, and their civilian population is severly compromised,
> even dominated by terrorist organizations, over which they have no
> control and which they even embrace, since it brings them a cohesion
> they've never known before.
>
> It's not a stretch to say that without the terrorist organizations
> like hamas and islamic jihad, the palestinians would have no social
> cohesion at all, they could never form a gov't without a common goal
> like the complete destruction of Israel. That's why I don't think
> this 'roadmap' will go anywhere. Take away the palestinians' common
> cause and they're no longer cohesive in any way, and hamas and islm
> jhd will never let that happen.
Interesting Argument.
However, I do not believe your totally correct, them majority of people
which to live their lives
happy, free, as long as they have good jobs to go to, food to eat houses to
live in and a country to be proud of.
No one has ever given them a chance to prove what they are capible of,
Isreal won't allow Palistine to become a state
out of fear, and the arabic states do not want Palistine to become a state
because it focus's the attentions of their own peoples
away from the actions of their respective governments. (*This is just my
opinion about how the arabic governments "care" about the Palistinian
people, and I have no real proof to back up this statement). Sure, they may
start out to be a directionless government, but survival of their people,
medical care, sport, the creation of jobs and internatioanl trade (of which
Isreal will be their biggest tradeing partner not syria) will soon allow
them to develope comprehensive policies.
As to the roadmap, If Bush uses the same tecniques of which he inforced on
Iraq, I'm almost positive both sides could be forced to the negotating
table.
Daniel
Danirl Robinson
>
>
> Danirl Robinson a écrit :
> >
> > Jean
> >
> > How many times does it have to be spelt out to you, the US never used a
UN
> > resoultion. Your attempt to justify the illigal war on iraq is nothing
more
> > then pittiful
>
> How many time does it have to be spelt out. THe UN used resolution 1441.
> Period.
>
> Now you can't much talk about spelling, no wonder you have a hard time
> even understanding 1441. But you should read it instead of trusting the
> anti-US losers who had interest in making up such things.
LOL attack the spelling because you have no case to fight. Jean if the UN
authroised war based on 1441, then why was there no second vote at the UN.
The cease-fire was you pointed out was never signed in the UN, however I've
never study the 1991 ceasefire, so I will have to take you word on how it
was signed and by which parties.
The US and Britian found a loop hole to wage there war, but the UN never
backed action in Iraq.
>
> >
>
Danirl Robinson
> "Danirl Robinson" <Dan...@yeahright.com> Spat the Words
>
> >
> >> Bah, they already found mobile lab that couldn't have had any other
> >> purpose.
> >
> > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_WMD030521.html
> >
> >> Besides there were other reasons to go there. This was but one. Saddam
> >> deserved the serious consequences of 1441 by contravening to 687e
> when
> >> he paid for homicide bombers. not to mention what he still was doing
> to
> >> Kuwait. But this is the one I love to mention to piss off Grantland
> the
> >> Nazi.
> >>
> >> There were NO need to go back to the SC right there and then, not WMD
> >> were concerned, only terrorism in contravention to article 32 of 687e.
> >>
> >> Besides, about WMD, even if you are already debunked to the bone, it
> is
> >> only the beginning... They were there, just they were hidden or
> >> destroyed right before the attack. In Syria perhaps?
> >
> > LOL, more excuses, no evidence.
> >
> > Jean face the facts the US lied
>
> Actually, Bush never intended to obtain UN permission to take down
> Iraq. He didn't feel it was necessary, since Iraq had been violating
> UN resolutions for 12 years. Every other week Iraq was moving radar
> and anti-aircraft missiles into the no-fly zone.
Moveing AA missiles around his own country is a crime and a reason to wage
war?
Violateing the UN is a crime and reason to wage war?
Bush
> Are you saying the US lied about wanting to take out Iraq? That's
> pretty strange Daniel. Your thinking process doesn't hold much logic.
huh, I'm saying the US lied about wanting to take out Iraq? No I'm saying
the US lied about its reasons for wanting to take over Iraq.
Funny, the US makes lots of noise about biological and chemical weapons,
labs, nuclear weapons being designed and built, long range scud rockets,
connections to terrorist cells
an entire infastructure from which Iraq was building illigal weapons.
These are the openly stated reasons for wageing war, Iraq was a threat to
the US and this war was being waged as a defensive first strike.
So Mr. Foreman, where are the Biological and Chemical weapons? Where are
the Scud Missles? Where are the chemical labs? Where are the files? where
are the people who helped design, build, protect, load, and test these
weapons?
Mr Foreman, tell me why is it America has ceased control of Iraq's oil.
Interesting lots of calms for starting the war, the calms are being proven
false each and every day, YET, the first thing the US does when it takes
control is grab's Iraq's oil.
Your saying my logic is flawed. Maybe your right, but I can tell you, Bush
lied to both the American people and the International community about the
real reasons for wageing war in Iraq. I can not tell you if the real reason
for wageing war is oil or not. Still he lied.
Daniel.
R. Foreman
That's a nice goal, now you just need to convince hamas and islamic
jihad of how beneficial it would be. You see, legitimizing the
Palestinians as a state would require they be accountable to some
extent, which would mean they'd have to police their own people (like
every other state in the world has to do) and that would spell an end
to hamas and other terrorists.
Those terrorists I believe are opposed to Palestinian statehood since
it would mean the reason for their existance - that of opposing
Israel - would become irrelevant. I think those terrorists will do
everything possible to ensure that peace does not erupt.
Part of the terrorists tools is to brainwash the poor Palestinian
people into believing that Israel is somehow oppressing them. You
said this in your statement above, that you think Israel won't
allow Palestine to become a state. Only the Palestinians (not Israel)
can determine if Palestine becomes a state - but they need to get
their act together and behave as if they have a state, perhaps get
outside help on how gov't is run - so far we haven't seen too much
of this from the Palestinian camp.
R. Foreman
So you don't know why we waged war, but you're certain that Bush lied
about it. Is that correct?
Dani
<jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote:
No - *you* rule!! :)
Dani
Jean Guernon
Dani a écrit :
WE rule! :-)
J.
Danirl Robinson
I do not know the real reason why war was waged in the middle east. The
reason stated by Bush has turned out to be more then a obvious lie.
So you tell me why did the US wage war in Iraq? I thought the stated reason
was to stop Iraq useing biological and chemical weapons via terrorists from
attacking american cities.
Daniel
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> "Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED45DA4...@globetrotter.net...
> >
> >
> > Danirl Robinson a écrit :
> > >
> > > Jean
> > >
> > > How many times does it have to be spelt out to you, the US never used a
> UN
> > > resoultion. Your attempt to justify the illigal war on iraq is nothing
> more
> > > then pittiful
> >
> > How many time does it have to be spelt out. THe UN used resolution 1441.
> > Period.
> >
> > Now you can't much talk about spelling, no wonder you have a hard time
> > even understanding 1441. But you should read it instead of trusting the
> > anti-US losers who had interest in making up such things.
>
> LOL attack the spelling because you have no case to fight. Jean if the UN
> authroised war based on 1441, then why was there no second vote at the UN.
What second vote? 1441 promised instant dire consequences if there were
infraction to any of the 687e rules. There were 4, 3 against Kuwait, and
one against terrorism (Money to Palies assassins).
Serious consequences are spelled out in 687e, the simple implementation
of this resolution for which 1441 was made. No more postponement,
despite the fact that 687e called for the lifting of the cease fire by
itself without further consultation. They made 1441 to insure that it
was going to be implemented at last. Saddam had the choice,. He chose to
ignore article 32 when he paid for homicide by the bombers. And chose to
ignore a bunch of article about Kuwait when he chose to refuse the
Kuwaitis their national archives and their prisoners and threatened to
re-invade them.
All this the month previous.
True, one day before the war, he did comply to the WMD article by
starting to speak of anthrax and a few other which, if there had been
only that, would have required some SC consultation.
> The cease-fire was you pointed out was never signed in the UN, however I've
> never study the 1991 ceasefire, so I will have to take you word on how it
> was signed and by which parties.
By Saddam and the coalition. And it was cast in resolution 687e. 1441 is
simply the absolute deadline for 687e. Saddam played with fire. He got
burned.
You have to look at 687e http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res687e.htm
that was the main resolution.( a couple preliminary before, and many
after when he would never comply... to postpone the lifting of the cease
fore more than anything else. But 1441 didn't give him any option except
for WMD. If only there would have been only that. It was the main reason
given to constituents, but not the only reason. The decision was taken
when, one day before the war, Saddam, at last, announced what he
supposedly had done with the anthrax.
Read carefully resolution 1441,
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res1441.htm, and you will see that his
other infractions to 687e warranted him the serious consequences of this
resolution, i.e. its implementation, re: the lifting of the cease fire.
They tried to go back to the UN to try to commute the regime
obliteration into a regime change, but the other permanent members of
the SC all played prima donna, and France made sure there was no way
there could be any compromise, by promising to veto any further
resolution, even if it really meant that regime obliteration was the
only option... as strange as it may seem, since they did it to obstruct
the US determination, it is so.
Read the texts, you will see, there is nothing equivocal in the texts
themselves.
>
> The US and Britian found a loop hole to wage there war, but the UN never
> backed action in Iraq.
The UN backed the action on Iraq the minute they voted for 1441. Read
the resolution.
But seeing how it is perceived even today, I must agree with you on one
thing: that it wasn't sold properly to the public.
But you see, as I said, WMD were part of the dangerous missing piece of
the puzzle until the very last minute, well, the last day, say. Saddam
brought this upon himself.
But yes, they should have known better and insisted more on the real
operative reasons, not the real fear behind their determination. It
would have been more proper but there were no real support for 1441 even
if they all had signed it. I guess the deception of Saddam, well, until
almost the very end, was too easy. Had he complied on their request
about anthrax and others earlier, they would have had to focus on the
real reasons rather than the real fears.
But in the end he wasn't crazy like a fox although they thought he was.
In fact he didn't care, probably because of assurance from permanent
countries sitting on the SC, assurances they couldn't deliver; . They
should have known better. But the fact remain anyway that with 1441 they
had all the backing in the world for invading by not going back to the
SC, by doing nothing. And France didn't give them any other option. See?
J.
>
> >
> > >
> >
R. Foreman
>
>> So you don't know why we waged war, but you're certain that Bush lied
>> about it. Is that correct?
>
> I do not know the real reason why war was waged in the middle east.
> The reason stated by Bush has turned out to be more then a obvious
> lie.
>
> So you tell me why did the US wage war in Iraq? I thought the stated
> reason was to stop Iraq useing biological and chemical weapons via
> terrorists from attacking american cities.
I'd say we did it to take out saddam and company, who were certainly
willing, and probably capable of doing a terrorist act like you
described, but there were other very good reasons to take out saddam,
like the fact he was fomenting continued violence in Israel by giving
money to suicide bombers.
It's all one big ugly, intertwined story, and you seem to want to
focus on one specific thing and ignore everything else.
>
>
> Daniel
WH
"Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3ED45DA4...@globetrotter.net...
>
>
> Danirl Robinson a écrit :
> >
> > Jean
> >
> > How many times does it have to be spelt out to you, the US never used a
UN
> > resoultion. Your attempt to justify the illigal war on iraq is nothing
more
> > then pittiful
>
> How many time does it have to be spelt out. THe UN used resolution 1441.
> Period.
The UN didn't attack Iraq you hairy stupid bastard. It was the Yanks, Brits,
a few Aussies and a U-boat from Denmark...(which is probably still on it's
way to the gulf).
WH
Jean Guernon
WH a écrit :
Well the coalition used the authorization of resolution 1441.
Me I can't believe it when I see, even yesterday, Canadian reporters,
asked by Arabs questions implying the operation was illegal,
never responding to that false allegation.
I have shown it wasn't. Same with the Secretary General. The fucking
assholes who are shown to ask him questions last week was talking about
illegal operation. The Secretary General didn'T address that but
addressed the overall question and said we must look forward, not back,
etc. But no one dares to set them straight.
As if there wouldn't be consequences if that lie was founded. I have
shown black on white it isn't.
Of course the Belgian make their unrecognized mock court to judge the
Americans as they do the Israelis. No wonder NATO now will, well is
strongly urged to, move its headquarters from this country of sedition
sympathizers onto a more just country... and a cheaper one. Let these
'Walloons' "wallow" in their freedom fries by themselves.
But the US did lead the coalition on Desert storm, and so the subsequent
resolution 687e brought about Desert Fox and, after having given
saddam a second chance, with 1441 as the ultimatum, Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
I don't get what you (or any of the losers) don't get. The USA *IS* part
of the UN! It is the greatest part of these resolutions.
Unfortunately some other nations on the SC, pussies as I we used to call
them, which never did anything to enforce the UN resolutions after
Desert Storm, but were there just to hinder them cannot speak much about
how the US is the one that made the UN relevant in that matter. Cost
them a lot if they can't recoup their loss with oil.
(I could say the same about Chretien who criticizes but did nothing. The
USA deficit of the scope of the cost of of the war. But I won't even get
into deficit consideration further here. Deficits are a concern for the
USA as well, that will be addressed in the upcoming summit. Just that
Chretien could have waited until then to discuss it IMO given the
circumstances, since it mostly shows there is a deficit in dialogue
between the two countries now. Anyway, I digress outside the scope of
concern here.)
The fact remains that the US had all legitimacy and only lack of respect
for its prerogative especially by France who is influential is what
makes the mayhem but only because the f***ing losers who criticize can't
or won't read the damn 1441 resolution. No wonder Rice inferred that
they will punish France. Indeed, the other permanent never had
credibility by their very bias, but France really sowed discord with
this unjustified stubbornness. They know how to read, them.
J.
R. Foreman
Those damn UBoats from Denmark, I knew they were stirring up trouble.
A reporter saw Bush and Blair talking quietly amongst themself, the
reporter asked them what they were talking about. They said "we're
plotting to kill a million arabs and one dentist." The reporter
thought for a moment and said "why are you going to kill one
dentist?" Blair looked at Bush with a smile and said, "see, I told
you no one would ask about the million arabs."
>
> WH
Danirl Robinson
Danirl Robinson
> "Danirl Robinson" <Dan...@yeahright.com> Spat the Words
>
> >
> >> So you don't know why we waged war, but you're certain that Bush lied
> >> about it. Is that correct?
> >
> > I do not know the real reason why war was waged in the middle east.
> > The reason stated by Bush has turned out to be more then a obvious
> > lie.
> >
> > So you tell me why did the US wage war in Iraq? I thought the stated
> > reason was to stop Iraq useing biological and chemical weapons via
> > terrorists from attacking american cities.
>
> I'd say we did it to take out saddam and company, who were certainly
> willing, and probably capable of doing a terrorist act like you
> described, but there were other very good reasons to take out saddam,
> like the fact he was fomenting continued violence in Israel by giving
> money to suicide bombers.
>
> It's all one big ugly, intertwined story, and you seem to want to
> focus on one specific thing and ignore everything else.
>
Your right, it is more complex that I've given it credit for. However
the final justification, was to stop Saddam useing biological and chemical
weapons to threaten his neighbours, and the US.
You can not start a war just because you do not like someone elses
government (*how many governments do not like the US, and how many
governments do the US want to get rid of.) So we need a better reasoin
for starting wars against governments we do not like, in iraq's case, this
war was being waged as a defensive first strike, because it was almost
certain that Iraq was going to launch a first strike against its neighbours,
or even worse the US. Saddam had to be taken out before he could act.
By making this calm Bush made biological and chemical weapons the very
center of his aggressive Iraqi policy. That center is currently slideing
out of the circle.
I am impressed and suprised however that they did not plant the weapons, so
some credit needs to be given to the adminisation up on this one fact (so
far).
Iraq is not the end, Bush is now putting in place a policy of ragime change
in Iran. Another one of the axis of evil, it makes one wonder if his actual
policy has little to do with offensive weapons or oil and everything to do
with his own ego, Bush wants to be known as the guy that saved the world
from evil dictators *keep in mind this is a opinion*.
Anyway, your've argued some interesting points.
My argument here was more to prove that the US and Britian lied about the
level of threat Saddam was, and that all their stated reasons for wageing
war in Iraq, were not the 'real' unstated reasons.
However if politics was simple then common men would be given a say in
national security.
Daniel
Danirl Robinson
">
> WE rule! :-)
Actually its Bush who rules.. America, Britian, Australia, Iraq. Iran and
North Korea , Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are next.
Then Bush can start on your dream of a final solution to the muslim people.
Jean is a racists, he hates Muslims.
Daniel
Danirl Robinson
> That's a nice goal, now you just need to convince hamas and islamic
> jihad of how beneficial it would be. You see, legitimizing the
> Palestinians as a state would require they be accountable to some
> extent, which would mean they'd have to police their own people (like
> every other state in the world has to do) and that would spell an end
> to hamas and other terrorists.
>
> Those terrorists I believe are opposed to Palestinian statehood since
> it would mean the reason for their existance - that of opposing
> Israel - would become irrelevant. I think those terrorists will do
> everything possible to ensure that peace does not erupt.
>
> Part of the terrorists tools is to brainwash the poor Palestinian
> people into believing that Israel is somehow oppressing them. You
> said this in your statement above, that you think Israel won't
> allow Palestine to become a state. Only the Palestinians (not Israel)
> can determine if Palestine becomes a state - but they need to get
> their act together and behave as if they have a state, perhaps get
> outside help on how gov't is run - so far we haven't seen too much
> of this from the Palestinian camp.
Convinceing Hamas and Islamic Jihad of anything would be difficult
However it is not the powerful members who you need to prove anything too
Its is the men and woman who make up the amries of these groups, leaders
can not lead if no one is willing to follow.
Isreal is the key to peace, You say that Palestinie needs to grab the moment
how can they do this with isreali tanks inside their cities, iseali soliders
lineing their streets
they are a population under occuptation, it is isreal which dictatates
everything about the life
of your average palisitinian, they can not even go to a hospital without
isreali troops watching them.
Isreal must withdraw and remove their settlements, allow a single state to
be formed, not a state
devided into 3 peices,
well I got to go out I will argue with you later :) on this issue
Daniel
Jean Guernon
"R. Foreman" a écrit :
LOL
J.
WH
>
>
> WH a écrit :
> >
> > "Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:3ED45DA4...@globetrotter.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Danirl Robinson a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Jean
> > > >
> > > > How many times does it have to be spelt out to you, the US never
used a
> > UN
> > > > resoultion. Your attempt to justify the illigal war on iraq is
nothing
> > more
> > > > then pittiful
> > >
> > > How many time does it have to be spelt out. THe UN used resolution
1441.
> > > Period.
> >
> > The UN didn't attack Iraq you hairy stupid bastard. It was the Yanks,
Brits,
> > a few Aussies and a U-boat from Denmark...(which is probably still on
it's
> > way to the gulf).
> >
> > WH
>
> Well the coalition used the authorization of resolution 1441.
The yanks, brits, a few Aussies and a Danish U-boat are not the UN you twat!
The UN were against the fuckin' tirade!
WH
JHawk
By Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in Kuwait City
29 May 2003
Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading Parliament and the British
people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims that
the threat posed by Iraq justified war.
Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, seized on a "breathtaking" statement
by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that Iraq's weapons may have been
destroyed before the war, and anger boiled over among MPs who said the admission
undermined the legal and political justification for war.
Mr Blair insisted yesterday he had "absolutely no doubt at all about the
existence of weapons of mass destruction".
But Mr Cook said the Prime Minister's claims that Saddam could deploy chemical
or biological weapons within 45 minutes were patently false. He added that Mr
Rumsfeld's statement "blows an enormous gaping hole in the case for war made on
both sides of the Atlantic" and called for MPs to hold an investigation.
Meanwhile, Labour rebels threatened to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the
Commons for the cardinal sin of misleading Parliament - and force him to answer
emergency questions in the House.
Mr Rumsfeld ignited the row in a speech in New York, declaring: "It is ...
possible that they [Iraq] decided that they would destroy them prior to a
conflict and I don't know the answer."
Speaking in the Commons before the crucial vote on war, Mr Blair told MPs that
it was "palpably absurd" to claim that Saddam had destroyed weapons including
10,000 litres of anthrax, up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tons of
mustard gas, sarin, botulinum toxin and "a host of other biological poisons".
But Mr Cook said yesterday: "We were told Saddam had weapons ready for use
within 45 minutes. It's now 45 days since the war has finished and we have still
not found anything.
"It is plain he did not have that capacity to threaten us, possibly did not have
the capacity to threaten even his neighbours, and that is profoundly important.
We were, after all, told that those who opposed the resolution that would
provide the basis for military action were in the wrong.
"Perhaps we should now admit they were in the right."
Speaking as he flew into Kuwait before a morale-boosting visit to British troops
in Iraq today, Mr Blair said: "Rather than speculating, let's just wait until we
get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the Iraqi
scientists.
"We have already found two trailers that both our and the American security
services believe were used for the manufacture of chemical and biological
weapons."
He added: "Our priorities in Iraq are less to do with finding weapons of mass
destruction, though that is obviously what a team is charged with doing, and
they will do it, and more to do with humanitarian and political reconstruction."
Peter Kilfoyle, the anti-war rebel and former Labour defence minister, said he
was prepared to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for misleading
Parliament. Mr Kilfoyle, whose Commons motion calling on Mr Blair to publish the
evidence backing up his claims about Saddam's arsenal has been signed by 72 MPs,
warned: "This will not go away. The Government ought to publish whatever
evidence they have for the claims they made."
Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "No weapons means no
threat. Without WMD, the case for war falls apart. It would seem either the
intelligence was wrong and we should not rely on it, or, the politicians
overplayed the threat. Even British troops who I met in Iraq recently were
sceptical about the threat posed by WMD. Their lives were put at risk in order
to eliminate this threat - we owe it to our troops to find out if that threat
was real."
But Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defence Secretary, said: "I think it is too early
to rush to any conclusions at this stage; we must wait and see what the outcome
actually is of these investigations."
Ministers have pointed to finds of chemical protection suits and suspected
mobile biological weapons laboratories as evidence of Iraq's chemical and
biological capability. But they have also played down the importance of finding
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier this month, Jack Straw, the Foreign
Secretary, provoked a storm of protest after claiming weapons finds were "not
crucially important".
The Government has quietly watered down its claims, now arguing only that the
Iraqi leader had weapons at some time before the war broke out.
Tony Benn, the former Labour minister, told LBC Radio: "I believe the Prime
Minister lied to us and lied to us and lied to us. The whole war was built upon
falsehood and I think the long-term damage will be to democracy in Britain. If
you can't believe what you are told by ministers, the whole democratic process
is put at risk. You can't be allowed to get away with telling lies for political
purposes."
Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South, said MPs "supported war based on a
lie". He said: "If it's right Iraq destroyed the weapons prior to the war, then
it means Iraq complied with the United Nations resolution 1441."
The former Labour minister Glenda Jackson added: "If the creators of this war
are now saying weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before the war began,
then all the government ministers who stood on the floor in the House of Commons
adamantly speaking of the immediate threat are standing on shaky ground."
The build-up to war: What they said
Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal
weapons
George Bush, Us President 18 March, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such
a claim is palpably absurd
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass
destruction
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest
they wait a bit
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the
conflict
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary 28 May, 2003
29 May 2003 23:46
JHawk
OPERATION IRAQI ERADICATION
Tue May 27, 5:05 PM ET Add Op/Ed - Ted Rall to My Yahoo!
By Ted Rall
NEW YORK--We told you so.
We warned the Bush Administration that invading Iraq would destabilize the
Middle East and spread radical anti-American Islamism. We told the American
people that taking out Saddam Hussein without a viable government to replace him
would open a vacuum for anarchy, civil war and a power grab by radical
Iranian-backed Shiite clerics. Now the antiwar movement's doomsday scenarios
have been fulfilled so completely that military history scarcely mentions a more
thoroughly botched endeavor--and we'll be living with the fallout for years.
When we argued that Donald Rumsfeld's low-budget occupation of Iraq would turn
out as disastrously as it had in Afghanistan, right-wing Republicans called us
stupid and un-American. Now that we've been proven correct on every count, is it
too much to expect an apology? Maybe so. Given George W. Bush's performance on
the economy and the war on terrorism (where's Osama? Saddam? the WMDs? the
surplus?), betting against him hardly makes one a prophet. And no one is less
pleased with the speed and totality of the Iraqi catastrophe than those of us
who called it in advance.
As I predicted last July, the war has meant the end of a unified Iraq and the
beginning of chaos throughout the Middle East.
The former northern "no-fly zone" is already openly referred to by Kurdish
officials as the incipient Islamic Republic of Kurdistan. "It's etiquette, like
a game," says Farhad Pirbal of Erbil University. "[Kurdish] politicians say what
the Americans want to hear"--that they want to remain part of Iraq. But, he
continues, "more than 80 percent of the people are for independence."
Since Turkish reticence prompted the Pentagon to invade Iraq from the south,
only small numbers of American forces entered the Kurdish zone, which has since
remained under control of peshmerga guerillas. On May 23 U.S. and British
occupation authorities formally endorsed the permanent partition of Iraq,
setting the stage for Kurdish statehood. Even as U.S. civilian administrator
Paul Bremer officially dissolved Iraq's armed forces, allied commander Lt. Gen.
David McKiernan announced that the peshmerga would be allowed to keep its
automatic weapons and heavy artillery--becoming Kurdistan's de facto army. A few
days later, Kurdish leaders announced plans to continue expanding their
territory. "Now we are back in Mosul," regional governor Nechirvan Barzani told
The New York Times. "We control Senjar and Mosul provinces. We want to add the
other parts of Kurdistan."
The most significant "other part" lies across the Iraqi-Turkish border. If
Turkish Kurds armed by their Iraqi counterparts fight to attach southeastern
Turkey to Iraqi Kurdistan, bloody civil wars and ethnic cleansing could sweep
across Turkey to Eastern Europe and the Caucasus--potentially claiming hundreds
of thousands of lives.
But why dwell on the negative: It's two liberations for the price of one!
Regrettably, free Kurdistan looks a lot like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan:
women under wraps, blood feuds, medieval Islamism. "Kurdish political parties
today are not that different from the tribes of the 18th century," notes David
McDowall, author of "A Modern History of the Kurds." "You don't get democracy as
an end product." And what's left of Iraq looks even worse.
The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) is angry that the
U.S. has endorsed a Kurdish, but not a Shiite, army. "We will not accept that
other militias will be allowed to stay there with their weapons while we will
not be there with ours," says a spokesman for Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim,
the leader of SCIRI who recently returned from exile in Iran.
SCIRI and other Shiite groups are already using their weapons and
demographics--60 percent of Iraqis are Shia Muslims--to transform Saddam
Hussein's modern secular dictatorship into a fundamentalist Islamic state
melding Iranian Shiaism to Taliban-style Sharia law. Incredibly, American
occupation forces are working with, and even financing, these anti-American
zealots.
On May 2 influential Mullah Murtada Sadr, son of an ayatollah famously murdered
under Saddam, called for Sharia law in Iraq. "The banning of alcohol and the
wearing of the veil should be spread to all and not only to Muslims," Sadr told
followers in Kufa, near Najaf. "Alcohol and the display of a woman's body are
forbidden for us Muslims, as they are for Christians, upon whom I call to give
up these banned things." In Baghdad Imam Mohammed al-Fartussi upped the ante on
May 16, threatening those who show "indecent films" and "sinful women" who
consort with foreigners, especially Americans. "If in a week from now they do
not change their attitude, the murder of these women is sanctioned (by Islam),"
Fartussi raged. "This warning also goes out to sellers of alcohol, radios and
televisions. The torching of cinemas would be permitted."
Shiite militias that control Baghdad's vast Sadr City slum are already enforcing
the mullahs' diktats. Sheik Kadhem al-Fartusi, who asserts that "Islam and all
religions forbid alcohol," runs a local gang that beats liquor vendors and men
who refuse to grow beards. "He's the primary shaker and mover here," U.S.
Special Operations Maj. Arthur P. Vidal told The Times. Special ops troops pay
Fartusi's religious police with "bricks of Iraqi dinars."
Presidents Reagan and Bush I armed and funded similar men with identical
religious and political beliefs in Afghanistan during the 1980s and 1990s. The
result was Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, September 11, 2001. So why
the hell are we doing it again?
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> ">
> > WE rule! :-)
>
> Actually its Bush who rules.. America, Britian, Australia, Iraq. Iran and
> North Korea , Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are next.
I mean WE rule this NG. But OK, yes, Sure, if you accept Bush rules over
there, good for you.
Sometimes you loser surprise me. LOL
J.
[lies snipped]
Jean Guernon
That "UN" could kiss my ass. The UN resolution was the TRUE UN then, not
the clowns representing the countries that didn't back the coalition. I
flip these the bird with all my heart!!!
They had signed the resolution FOR invading when Saddam was going to pay
for the Palies terrorists, or when he was going to flip the bird to
Kuwait. And I mean with 687e. The US DIDN'T EVEN have to go back to
enforce it, but they did, and it was signed by all again.
That they played the prima donna to kiss his ass, just like you, when it
was time to act, shows how depraved these countries are, NOTHING else.
If the UN keep being that misled, the world won't last very long.
J.
Danirl Robinson
Finally Jean see's Bush for the dictator he is.
Glad to see we are finally in agreement over something Jean.
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
I just agreed that Bush rules. Maybe you have no clue what it means to
rule? Take us (Dani & me) on this NG, we rule (remember, this was the
starting point of this little power tantrum charade you pulled). Doesn't
mean we put you assholes, lowlifes, parasites, and terrorist supporters,
out of the NG or out of your misery. Just mean we rule, i.e. we are the
best. No matter how hard you try. You need to get acquainted with the
lingo if you are going to argue with us.
As I say, I am glad to see you admit that Bush rules in the Mid-East. In
fact he certainly had Putin convinced a few minutes ago in Russia, that
there is need to question what Iran does with its nuclear industry
heavily supported by the Russians. Putin talked also without naming it
about NK where no one really rules. maybe China. see, another nuance, it
takes class to rule. But Putin certainly seemed to agree that Bush Rules
there. He said he admires him. They had a very good exchange.
Now I don't think that Bush will be as conciliatory with France or
Germany this week at the G8 in Avignon which is where he should rule
totally if the world wasn't sick and full of assholes.
But on the other hand, and to rejoin your concern, I am pretty sure he
will "rule" in the Mid-East summit in Egypt... Thank you very much. :-)
This week will be full of developments. Already is.
J.
WH
>
>
> Danirl Robinson a écrit :
> >
> > "Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
> > news:3ED91324...@globetrotter.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Danirl Robinson a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > ">
> > > > > WE rule! :-)
> > > >
> > > > Actually its Bush who rules.. America, Britian, Australia, Iraq.
Iran
> > and
> > > > North Korea , Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are next.
> > >
> > > I mean WE rule this NG. But OK, yes, Sure, if you accept Bush rules
over
> > > there, good for you.
> > >
> > > Sometimes you loser surprise me. LOL
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > > [lies snipped]
> >
> > Finally Jean see's Bush for the dictator he is.
> >
> > Glad to see we are finally in agreement over something Jean.
>
> I just agreed that Bush rules. Maybe you have no clue what it means to
> rule? Take us (Dani & me) on this NG, we rule (remember, this was the
> starting point of this little power tantrum charade you pulled). Doesn't
> mean we put you assholes, lowlifes, parasites, and terrorist supporters,
> out of the NG or out of your misery. Just mean we rule, i.e. we are the
> best. No matter how hard you try. You need to get acquainted with the
> lingo if you are going to argue with us.
Hehe...guernon you are a laff. It's "Dani and I" you fool not "Dani and me".
Your next lesson in English will be tomorrow at 10!
WH
R. Foreman
> The case for war is blown apart
> By Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in Kuwait City
> 29 May 2003
>
> Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading Parliament and the
> British people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and
> his claims that the threat posed by Iraq justified war.
>
> Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, seized on a "breathtaking"
> statement by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that Iraq's
> weapons may have been destroyed before the war, and anger boiled over
> among MPs who said the admission undermined the legal and political
> justification for war.
>
> Mr Blair insisted yesterday he had "absolutely no doubt at all about
> the existence of weapons of mass destruction".
And that's correct. There are large amounts of Iraqi wmd's that were
not accounted for. People who claim there are no wmd, are the same
people who believe that 5 + 8 = 0. The numbers just don't add up.
--
Jean Guernon
WH a écrit :
Nah. Both are good. Let it be a lesson to your big gieant (empty) head.
Jean Guernon
WH a écrit :
Nah. Both are good. Let it be a lesson to your big giant (empty) head.
Danirl Robinson
>
>
> Danirl Robinson a écrit :
> >
> > "Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
> > news:3ED91324...@globetrotter.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Danirl Robinson a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > ">
> > > > > WE rule! :-)
> > > >
> > > > Actually its Bush who rules.. America, Britian, Australia, Iraq.
Iran
> > and
> > > > North Korea , Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are next.
> > >
> > > I mean WE rule this NG. But OK, yes, Sure, if you accept Bush rules
over
> > > there, good for you.
> > >
> > > Sometimes you loser surprise me. LOL
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > > [lies snipped]
> >
> > Finally Jean see's Bush for the dictator he is.
> >
> > Glad to see we are finally in agreement over something Jean.
>
> I just agreed that Bush rules. Maybe you have no clue what it means to
> rule? Take us (Dani & me) on this NG, we rule (remember, this was the
> starting point of this little power tantrum charade you pulled). Doesn't
> mean we put you assholes, lowlifes, parasites, and terrorist supporters,
> out of the NG or out of your misery. Just mean we rule, i.e. we are the
> best. No matter how hard you try. You need to get acquainted with the
> lingo if you are going to argue with us.
to rule -
1. Governing power or its possession or use; authority.
2. The duration of such power.
In a true democarcy there should be no one ruler, that is why such things
are congress and senates were created so that the rule
was a rule of the people and a rule of law, and not the rule of a single
dictator.
See you agree with me, that Bush is a dictator.
Jean Guernon
You don't get what it means when someone rules form the modern people.
I won't argue with you if you are not willling to learn.
Wallow in your fartitude, what do I care.
J.
Danirl Robinson
> > > >
> > > > Glad to see we are finally in agreement over something Jean.
> > >
> > > I just agreed that Bush rules. Maybe you have no clue what it means to
> > > rule? Take us (Dani & me) on this NG, we rule (remember, this was the
> > > starting point of this little power tantrum charade you pulled).
Doesn't
> > > mean we put you assholes, lowlifes, parasites, and terrorist
supporters,
> > > out of the NG or out of your misery. Just mean we rule, i.e. we are
the
> > > best. No matter how hard you try. You need to get acquainted with the
> > > lingo if you are going to argue with us.
> >
> > to rule -
> > 1. Governing power or its possession or use; authority.
> > 2. The duration of such power.
>
> You don't get what it means when someone rules form the modern people.
Huh.. you either believe in a single dictator or you believe in the
democratic process
and the rule of law..
Jean, not only are you anti-arabic racist, your've progressed to
hypocraitcal racists.
Daniel
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> > > > >
> > > > > Glad to see we are finally in agreement over something Jean.
> > > >
> > > > I just agreed that Bush rules. Maybe you have no clue what it means to
> > > > rule? Take us (Dani & me) on this NG, we rule (remember, this was the
> > > > starting point of this little power tantrum charade you pulled).
> Doesn't
> > > > mean we put you assholes, lowlifes, parasites, and terrorist
> supporters,
> > > > out of the NG or out of your misery. Just mean we rule, i.e. we are
> the
> > > > best. No matter how hard you try. You need to get acquainted with the
> > > > lingo if you are going to argue with us.
> > >
> > > to rule -
> > > 1. Governing power or its possession or use; authority.
> > > 2. The duration of such power.
> >
> > You don't get what it means when someone rules form the modern people.
>
> Huh.. you either believe in a single dictator or you believe in the
> democratic process
> and the rule of law..
>
> Jean, not only are you anti-arabic racist, your've progressed to
> hypocraitcal racists.
>
> Daniel
Nah. I am neither. But you, are a total loser.
J.
Danirl Robinson
> > democratic process
> > and the rule of law..
> >
> > Jean, not only are you anti-arabic racist, your've progressed to
> > hypocraitcal racists.
> >
> > Daniel
>
> Nah. I am neither. But you, are a total loser.
self denial Jean. You have to acknowledge the hatrid you feel for Arabic
people
before you can start to deal with it.
I see you never commented on my democarcy comment,
a non comment indicates that you agree with my assessment that Bush is a
dictator
this makes you a supporter of a dictator Jean,
Interesting you hate Arab's so much that you would turn a blind eye to the
democractic process and rule of law, by supporting the rule of a dictator.
Daniel.
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> > > Huh.. you either believe in a single dictator or you believe in the
> > > democratic process
> > > and the rule of law..
> > >
> > > Jean, not only are you anti-arabic racist, your've progressed to
> > > hypocraitcal racists.
> > >
> > > Daniel
> >
> > Nah. I am neither. But you, are a total loser.
>
> self denial Jean.
Nah.
> You have to acknowledge the hatrid you feel for Arabic
> people
> before you can start to deal with
Only in your dreams.
J.
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> "R. Foreman" <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns938A30514456Crr...@204.127.204.17...
> > "Danirl Robinson" <Dan...@yeahright.com> Spat the Words
> >
> > >
> > >> So you don't know why we waged war, but you're certain that Bush lied
> > >> about it. Is that correct?
> > >
> > > I do not know the real reason why war was waged in the middle east.
> > > The reason stated by Bush has turned out to be more then a obvious
> > > lie.
> > >
> > > So you tell me why did the US wage war in Iraq? I thought the stated
> > > reason was to stop Iraq useing biological and chemical weapons via
> > > terrorists from attacking american cities.
> >
> > I'd say we did it to take out saddam and company, who were certainly
> > willing, and probably capable of doing a terrorist act like you
> > described, but there were other very good reasons to take out saddam,
> > like the fact he was fomenting continued violence in Israel by giving
> > money to suicide bombers.
> >
> > It's all one big ugly, intertwined story, and you seem to want to
> > focus on one specific thing and ignore everything else.
> >
>
> Your right, it is more complex that I've given it credit for. However
> the final justification, was to stop Saddam useing biological and chemical
> weapons to threaten his neighbours, and the US.
>
> You can not start a war just because you do not like someone elses
You can apply a UN resolution which was what was the object. It wasn't
on a whim. They waited 12 years. And even made a second resolution. It
is not a war per se but merely hostilities that the UN breach about
terrorism and Kuwait required. They didn't need to go back to the
inspectors to know he broke THESE rules.
The WMD were feared from the fact that he had contempt for everything
else and didn't even address the anthrax and VX issue, but yes,
reluctantly at the very last day. He played with fire if anything. But
the resolutions called for invasion whether there were WMD or not.
Kuwait and Israel were sufficient reasons. Read the resolutions again.
Buy glasses if you need to.
J.
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> > Bah, they already found mobile lab that couldn't have had any other
> > purpose.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_WMD030521.html
>
> > Besides there were other reasons to go there. This was but one. Saddam
> > deserved the serious consequences of 1441 by contravening to 687e when
> > he paid for homicide bombers. not to mention what he still was doing to
> > Kuwait. But this is the one I love to mention to piss off Grantland the
> > Nazi.
> >
> > There were NO need to go back to the SC right there and then, not WMD
> > were concerned, only terrorism in contravention to article 32 of 687e.
> >
> > Besides, about WMD, even if you are already debunked to the bone, it is
> > only the beginning... They were there, just they were hidden or
> > destroyed right before the attack. In Syria perhaps?
>
> LOL, more excuses, no evidence.
>
> Jean face the facts the US lied
Only in your dreams.
J.
>
> > Wait a year or so... Although it i not necessary, the case being made,
> > they surely should surely bring the deck of card to Gantanamo if they
> > are not going to bribe them, given the level of priority to find
> > anything about them. Not as efficient though. But I said what I had to
> > say about that. It is not a priority since they didn't even bother to
> > destroy the labs. LOL
>
> > J.
Danirl Robinson
please link the resoultion which calls for the invasion of iraq and removal
of the iraqi government, by us forces.
Politics via its very nature is about interruptation, and I've not
personally read an resoultion calling for the
international body aka the UN to remove saddam.
You might have read something I haven't, so please link
Daniel
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
687e calls for the lifting of the ceasefire (between the US led
coalition and Iraq) if any article were broken.
1441 was only the implementation of 687e, they didn't even need it. They
just got it to give a last chance to Saddam, and to confirm the approval
of all the world. Their right to lift the cease fire. As soon as he paid
for terrorists, he was fried as he was in infraction of article 32
(Requires Iraq to inform the Council that it will not commit or support
any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed
towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to
condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of
terrorism;).
No inspectors needed to assess the infraction. Their only expertise was
in WMD.
This was for the world to see. No need to even discuss this further. He
was guilty and deserved automatic invasion. Sure the US tried to get the
council to downgrade the elimination of the regime into a change of
regime, but the French chickens were not going to allow discussion,
hence they went ahead.
Funny how the little French twerps do take military action in Congo as
if they had more authorization for force than a 12 years old resolution
that guaranteed force for each of the 12 years of continual infractions,
which was yet supported by another one endorsed by the whole world when
it occured. Anyway, learn how to read, and this personal recommendation
(learn how to read) applies to that fucking loser Chirac as well.
J.
Danirl Robinson
Jean you said the ceasefire was between the colation forces and Iraq, and
had nothing to do with the UN.
How can a UN resoultion governing the ceasefire exist when you stated it was
done outside the UN. So if the UN
resoultion was used to wage war on iraq because of reasons of which you
believe was failer to live up to the resoultion
then the UN secuirty coucil should have a voice in that resoultion other
then that, its just Britian and America playing mind games with the security
council to get what they want.
Interesting, because if it had been any other nation doing this you would
have condemed it, but since it was America, you believe its ok.
Daniel
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> "Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
> news:3EE7F26E...@globetrotter.net...
> >
> >[snip]
What? The cease-fire had everything to do with the UN. It is the
hostilities, started by Saddam, that had nothing to do with the UN. The
coalition against the aggression was led by the US but all the countries
were behind it.
You see, the problem with Iraq started the day he invaded Kuwait.
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/IraqKuwait/IraqResolutionsEng.htm
Then the UN told Iraq to get out with 660 the very day it invaded or
else.
4 days later Iraq was still there, the UN made another resolution 661,
and decided Iraq had failed to comply, thus decide that all states (all
nations of the world) to stop ANY dealing with Iraq. Furthermore call
upon them Not to recognize the new regime, etc... and **to "take the
appropriate measures"** to protect the legitimacy of Kuwait. Then 3 days
later Iraq had supposedly decided to annex Kuwait. So came resolution
662, decides the annexation illegal and void, call upon all state to
refrain from any dealing with the illegal state, and to continue its
effort ot put an end to the occupation.
To make a long story short, the other resolutions that followed until
678 will insist on taking appropriate measures then 678 that give an
ultimatum. On 29 November 1990. It says, no compliance by Jan 15th,
then all necessary means can be used to uphold 660 and all the
subsequent relevant resolutions AND to restore peace and security in the
area. The equivalent of serious consequences.
They didn't say, USA you go ahead and use force, they said to Iraq you
comply or else action can be taken. And then they didn't. So action was
taken and NO other S.C. resolution came to change any of that, see?
Only after they US led coalition had taken Saddam out did they, the US
and Saddam, agree to a cease fire, and the UN then came and regulated it
with 686 and 687e. In March. No resolution from november 1990 until
March 1991. The authorization of combat was implicit.
What you don't get maybe is that it is individual nations like the USA
are those that word and propose these resolutions, that the (united)
nations adopt, and thus these 'nations' that 'unite' behind these
resolutions, implement them by accepting them. Once a resolution is
adopted it is to be implemented.
>
> How can a UN resoultion governing the ceasefire exist when you stated it was
> done outside the UN.
It is formulated and decided outside the UN but it is adopted by the UN.
I was clear on that.
> So if the UN
> resoultion was used to wage war on iraq because of reasons of which you
> believe was failer to live up to the resoultion
> then the UN secuirty coucil should have a voice in that resoultion other
> then that, its just Britian and America playing mind games with the security
> council to get what they want.
> Interesting, because if it had been any other nation doing this you would
> have condemed it, but since it was America, you believe its ok.
>
> Daniel
Bah no, 687e **is** the resolution, and 1441 is just one that says that
687e **must** be implemented NOW DESPITE THE FACT IT WASN'T UNTIL THEN -
i.e. NO MORE DELAY.
They didn't even need 1441. Only 687e. But they got 1441 because the UN
had adopted resolution 687e and then did nothing but talk when lifting
the cease fire was requested as mandated. They just made sure that the
world still wanted 687e. Just to make sure everyone knew what they were
getting into.
Then, yes, when it was time to act after 1441 was adopted at unanimity,
once Saddam had broken ONCE AGAIN the 3 articles concerning Kuwait AND
the one in support of terrorism, these nations didn't respect their
signatures, and pissed in their pants. Not the US and Britain, THESE
NATIONS.
This DIDN'T take away the resolution 1441 on the table.
They could piss in their pants like pussies all they wanted, the
resolution still had to be implemented.
It would have made the UN totally irrelevant for ever, and would have
been a green light for any rogue nations, not to implement 687e/1441 by
lifting the cease fire as the serious consequences of 1441 required. But
they did try to restrict it to change of regime. It was not accepted
because the pussies didn't want to look like bullies and wanted to stick
it to the US who is the one who took the initiative so as not to be
responsible for the costs and/or protect their financial assets there.
Either reason, totally reprehensible.
So once again PLEASE PAY ATTENTION! And read the resolutions:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/IraqKuwait/IraqResolutionsEng.htm
ANY other infraction required the IMMEDIATE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES, i.e.
those of 687e since it is the implementation of 687e that is stated in
1441, without any additional delay.
There was no other ultimatum as in 678 where he had 1.5 month to comply,
1441 was the intrinsic ultimatum with no period but to comply fully, the
ultimatum was the 13 years he hadn't.
ANY infraction was to bring serious consequences, and that means only
one thing in diplomatic terms. The resolution required for the SC to
reassess the infractions ONLY if they concerned WMD, and ONLY because it
was for the inspectors to really reassess. Again, please read the 2
resolutions, the infractions towards its neighbors couldn't go
unpunished if the UN was to remain relevant.
That France still fiddles with the SC maintaining it will veto any
military resolution ever is unthinkable and this country should be
impeached out of it. But I digress here. Let's stick to Iraq.
J.
Danirl Robinson
If the ceasefire was between the UN and Iraq, then only the UN has the right
to decide if Iraq was living up to its obligations or not, resolution
678e is a directive The secuirty council should have voted on war with
iraq, and the majorty of the security council did not want war with iraq.
Daniel
Jean Guernon
No, 687e is NOT a directive, it is an OBLIGATION. It sets up the
conditions of the cease-fire. ANY of these conditions was breached,
called for lifting of the cease fire.
The security council should have voted on war with
> iraq, and the majorty of the security council did not want war with iraq.
>
> Daniel
The security council voted for 1441 which is the immediate
implementation of 687e, the same type of ultimatum as 678 which gave
until january 15 1991, remember?, well, this 1441 gave no delay, just an
ultimatum that any infraction was to trigger serious consequences if
proven. Remember what 678 was to trigger? Not "serious consequences",
*only* "necessary means" to implement 660, which was respect the
sovereignty of Kuwait.
So, let's review, the clauses of Resolution 687e, ARE the conditions of
the ceasefire, they put forth conditions to stop the serious
consequences of 678 (again, "serious consequences" wasn't even mentioned
in 678 merely "necessary means"). The only way there would be question
if he had broken clauses that referred to WMD, not other infractions,
Then inspectors would have ot say it clearly, simply that. That Blix
said that anthrax and the rest wasn't accounted for, still one day
before the ultimatum of the war, when Saddam all of a sudden decided to
pretend he had destroyed them all by himself in secret, was reason
enough. but yes that he waited for that one day, when he could have been
saving his neck by speaking about it before then, probably made the
difference, since although he was in breach for all the other reasons i
mentioned, and there was no need to go back to the SC, still, this is
what the Americans feared the most, WMD in the wrong hands. but Saddam
wasn't going to play along until the very last minute. By then decisions
were already made and justified by the other contempt he had for the
other clauses. And nothing indicated that he was at last telling the
truth. But he almost stopped it by speaking about it. Except he didn't
produce any evidence, just that he had disposed of it, showing his true
intentions to keep playing the deadly game to the very end and even
after.
The security of the free world was at stake even though you don't seem
to realize it. Realize that he broke the 3 binding clauses about Kuwait,
and the one about terrorist bombers each of which didn't require to go
back to the security council if they were clear breach, which they were.
And get it in your head that there is no excuse for the French attitude.
The others neither, and they should stop, but they always played games.
The French have no excuse.
Read 1441.
J.
Danirl Robinson
Jean what your trying to say in a very long winded way, is that the
Americans
can do what they want and be justified in doing what they want, even if they
do not have a UN mandate to do so.
You note that the ceasefire was governed by the UN, Hans Blinx wanted more
time
before the US forced an ultermateim, a US ultermatim by the way and not a UN
backed one.
Basically your trying to justify this war by useing a legal loophole. Not a
loop whole backed by the UN SC.
Remember the US could not even get a "moral" majorty at the SC to justify
their position on the war.
Now. You make the calm that Iraq was about to attack the west with
biological and chemical weapons, so I will ask you one more time.
where are the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons?
where are the long range rockets?
where is the infasture to build and maintain an nuclear biological and
chemical weapons fleet
where are the thousands of biological and chemical weapons
where are the solid links between saddam and osama bin laidin
where is the proof that saddam had anything to do with sept.11 other then
his rejoiceing at the suffering of the american people.
Basically your've been lied to Jean, Bush lied to you, Blair lied to you,
and they continue to lie to you.
Daniel
The only people who could protray Saddam Hussan
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
Nope. Doesn't mean they can't. It means I am NOT saying that.
Only in your dreams.
>
> You note that the ceasefire was governed by the UN,
The UN only set out the conditions of the cease fire yes. Cease fire
from the necessary force for Iraq them to comply in 678. Yes. But only
Saddam could decide since he accepted. If he broke one condition, he was
risking war.
> Hans Blinx wanted more
> time
> before the US forced an ultermateim, a US ultermatim by the way and not a UN
> backed one.
> Basically your trying to justify this war by useing a legal loophole. Not a
> loopwhole backed by the UN SC.
Yes. backed by the UNSC with 1441. No other resolution came to pass. And
it is ONLY because of France there was not another resolution.
So 1441 authorized "serious consequences", for failing to abide to 687e.
Not merely "all necessary means" like in 678 to make him comply (which
STILL led to desert storm) which could have been interpreted in a lesser
manner this time, but it was WORST, it was "serious consequences" this
time! See the difference?
There was no way around it except if it had been only about WMD., then
yes, the inspectors would have had to consider the evidence before the
breach would be declared.
But yes, if you read 1441 you see that he was in breach with other
clauses that didn't concern the inspector. But you seem to understand
that now. Yes, it is in the resolution, what you call a loophole is a
implied consequence to his other breaches.
>
> Remember the US could not even get a "moral" majorty at the SC to justify
> their position on the war.
Bah. This is rhetorical. They couldn't even go back to the SC with
France who promised to veto it. They had the full support of the SC with
1441, doesn't matter that weasels backed down when Saddam's carrots were
cooked, doesn't change their signature. The US didn't have to accept
anything else than 1441. Nothing else was on the table. They were not
going to make another resolution to nullify all the previous
resolutions, were they?
That is what was asked of them. Nah. They were going to downgrade
serious consequences, i.e. regime annihilation, to regime change. It was
either that or the UN was irrelevant. France didn't even allow that. Of
course it was to obstruct justice, not for any other reason. Still they
simply made the actual law, resolution 1441, unavoidable. They had no
other reason BTW than envy, jealousy that the US is the super power,
likewise China and Russia, Syria was really Saddam's butt kissing. But
the other three are like kids. ONLY France made sure to block
everything. And still today they threaten to always block any military
initiative of the UN. Yet, they take the initiative themselves in Congo
as if it didn't apply to them (not that this is not the right thing to
do, the question is that it doesn't justify preventing others doing the
right thing too... it is the veto power becoming pure power trip, a
power which they should lose).
>
> Now. You make the calm that Iraq was about to attack the west with
> biological and chemical weapons, so I will ask you one more time.
> where are the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons?
> where are the long range rockets?
What attack? They didn't invade because of that. They invaded because he
financed serial killer terrorists against israel. They invaded because
he refused to give back the archives and the POWs of Kuwait and
threatened to re-invade them at the first occasion. This is breach of 4
of the UN conditions EACH of which was to trigger the "serious
consequences" we were talking about.
> where is the infasture to build and maintain an nuclear biological and
> chemical weapons fleet
> where are the thousands of biological and chemical weapons
> where are the solid links between saddam and osama bin laidin
> where is the proof that saddam had anything to do with sept.11 other then
> his rejoiceing at the suffering of the american people.
All this we will find out. Thanks to his stupidity. But it is irrelevant
to the UN resolution. It is certainly some motivation to find these
things out. But not relevant to the UN resolution.
Read them again.
>
> Basically your've been lied to Jean, Bush lied to you, Blair lied to you,
> and they continue to lie to you.
I don't know what you are talking about. They haven't lied. Only in your
propaganda den do you see that...
>
> Daniel
>
> The only people who could protray Saddam Hussan
?
J.
Danirl Robinson
> > >
> > > J.
> >
> > Jean what your trying to say in a very long winded way, is that the
> > Americans
> > can do what they want and be justified in doing what they want, even if
they
> > do not have a UN mandate to do so.
>
> Nope. Doesn't mean they can't. It means I am NOT saying that.
>
> Only in your dreams.
>
> >
> > You note that the ceasefire was governed by the UN,
>
> The UN only set out the conditions of the cease fire yes. Cease fire
> from the necessary force for Iraq them to comply in 678. Yes. But only
> Saddam could decide since he accepted. If he broke one condition, he was
> risking war.
Wrong. The ceasefire agreement was between more party's then just America
and Iraq.
> > Hans Blinx wanted more
> > time
> > before the US forced an ultermateim, a US ultermatim by the way and not
a UN
> > backed one.
> > Basically your trying to justify this war by useing a legal loophole.
Not a
> > loopwhole backed by the UN SC.
>
> Yes. backed by the UNSC with 1441. No other resolution came to pass. And
> it is ONLY because of France there was not another resolution.
>
> So 1441 authorized "serious consequences", for failing to abide to 687e.
> Not merely "all necessary means" like in 678 to make him comply (which
> STILL led to desert storm) which could have been interpreted in a lesser
> manner this time, but it was WORST, it was "serious consequences" this
> time! See the difference?
>
> There was no way around it except if it had been only about WMD., then
> yes, the inspectors would have had to consider the evidence before the
> breach would be declared.
>
> But yes, if you read 1441 you see that he was in breach with other
> clauses that didn't concern the inspector. But you seem to understand
> that now. Yes, it is in the resolution, what you call a loophole is a
> implied consequence to his other breaches.
wrong 1441 was never a ultermatim. It was a warning to Iraq that Serious
Conquences would come without complete co-operation, the serious conquences
was added in to appease america and england.
Also 1441 can not be used as a justification in supporting a US ultermation,
the US ultermatim came after 1441 had been set in place
and it came because the UN refused to give such a ultermaitm in accordence
with its own resoultions. *I'm sure the French, German's, Russian's,
Chinese* governments understand
UN resoulations a lot better then you and I. Resolution 1441 warned of
serious conquences, it did not specify war as a serious conquence, and there
for was never a ultermatim
> >
> > Remember the US could not even get a "moral" majorty at the SC to
justify
> > their position on the war.
>
> Bah. This is rhetorical. They couldn't even go back to the SC with
> France who promised to veto it. They had the full support of the SC with
> 1441, doesn't matter that weasels backed down when Saddam's carrots were
> cooked, doesn't change their signature. The US didn't have to accept
> anything else than 1441. Nothing else was on the table. They were not
> going to make another resolution to nullify all the previous
> resolutions, were they?
> That is what was asked of them. Nah. They were going to downgrade
> serious consequences, i.e. regime annihilation, to regime change. It was
> either that or the UN was irrelevant. France didn't even allow that. Of
> course it was to obstruct justice, not for any other reason. Still they
> simply made the actual law, resolution 1441, unavoidable. They had no
> other reason BTW than envy, jealousy that the US is the super power,
> likewise China and Russia, Syria was really Saddam's butt kissing. But
> the other three are like kids. ONLY France made sure to block
> everything. And still today they threaten to always block any military
> initiative of the UN. Yet, they take the initiative themselves in Congo
> as if it didn't apply to them (not that this is not the right thing to
> do, the question is that it doesn't justify preventing others doing the
> right thing too... it is the veto power becoming pure power trip, a
> power which they should lose).
Wrong again. The US said it would go for the vote if it could get a moral
majorty in the SC, even if one or more
of the other members of the SC vetoed the resolution, this would have given
it a justifcation of sorts. At least
prove that a majorty supported the cause, they failed to get such a majorty,
and pulled out of the negotiations
> >
> > Now. You make the calm that Iraq was about to attack the west with
> > biological and chemical weapons, so I will ask you one more time.
> > where are the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons?
> > where are the long range rockets?
>
> What attack? They didn't invade because of that. They invaded because he
> financed serial killer terrorists against israel. They invaded because
> he refused to give back the archives and the POWs of Kuwait and
> threatened to re-invade them at the first occasion. This is breach of 4
> of the UN conditions EACH of which was to trigger the "serious
> consequences" we were talking about.
Wrong.. Bush sited that Saddam was a threat to the US, and the World at
large.
Saddam supporting Terrorism in Isreal, then why single our Iraq, Iran
supports
Islamic Jihad, Syria supports a lot of others. Why not attack these
countries as well?
Your clutching for straws now that the biological and chemical weapons
throry has fallen flat on its face.
> > where is the infasture to build and maintain an nuclear biological and
> > chemical weapons fleet
> > where are the thousands of biological and chemical weapons
> > where are the solid links between saddam and osama bin laidin
> > where is the proof that saddam had anything to do with sept.11 other
then
> > his rejoiceing at the suffering of the american people.
>
> All this we will find out. Thanks to his stupidity. But it is irrelevant
> to the UN resolution. It is certainly some motivation to find these
> things out. But not relevant to the UN resolution.
>
> Read them again.
LOL we will find it all out, But didn't the US had solid evidence of these
things, which is why they went to war in the first place?
Or are you saying the only Reason the US went to war with Iraq is becuase he
was giving money to the families of suicide bombers?
Jean wake up.. Bush lied to you, Face it..
Daniel
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > >
> > > Jean what your trying to say in a very long winded way, is that the
> > > Americans
> > > can do what they want and be justified in doing what they want, even if
> they
> > > do not have a UN mandate to do so.
> >
> > Nope. Doesn't mean they can't. It means I am NOT saying that.
> >
> > Only in your dreams.
> >
> > >
> > > You note that the ceasefire was governed by the UN,
> >
> > The UN only set out the conditions of the cease fire yes. Cease fire
> > from the necessary force for Iraq them to comply in 678. Yes. But only
> > Saddam could decide since he accepted. If he broke one condition, he was
> > risking war.
>
> Wrong. The ceasefire agreement was between more party's then just America
> and Iraq.
It was between the US led coalition and Iraq.
It is the US that has all the time designed the military action to take.
Yeah right, serious consequences for Iraq to appease America. Jeez you
are dreaming. It was an ultimatum.
>
> Also 1441 can not be used as a justification in supporting a US ultermation,
> the US ultermatim came after 1441 had been set in place
> and it came because the UN refused to give such a ultermaitm in accordence
> with its own resoultions. *I'm sure the French, German's, Russian's,
> Chinese* governments understand
> UN resoulations a lot better then you and I. Resolution 1441 warned of
> serious conquences, it did not specify war as a serious conquence, and there
> for was never a ultermatim
Nah, there is no other resolution than 1441. Doesn't matter what they
said, they signed for 1441. If they didn't want 1441 they just had to
refuse signing for it. There are no other resolution after 1441.
And 1441 was clear. It didn't matter what each said after, if they
didn't put it in another resolution, 1441 was categorical.
And it was simply the implementation of 687e. The only reasons they were
against is because they made money with Iraq and because they were
selling them prohibited (conventional at least) weapons and of course
because they didn't want to pay for it either, they are jealous of the
only true superpower but they don't show at all they are worth any
additional recognition by acting like greedy brats.
They won't be rewarded for it in the new Iraq, that's for sure.
Support for an additional resolution that would commute the regime
annihilation implied by serious consequences into regime change. Get
with the program. It is not a vote of support for 1441. This vote was
already done. There was unanimous support.
It is a vote for another resolution that was never worded. France had
made it clear it would veto it no matter what it was if it implied
force. There was no point in proposing anything.
Resolution 687e had to be implemented despite the Roland 3 France had
sold Iraq illegally, not to mention what Russia and China had done. (It
is not even worth talking about Syria, until they become serious since
they would always vote for any terrorist state if it is Arab. They don't
count.)
>
> > >
> > > Now. You make the calm that Iraq was about to attack the west with
> > > biological and chemical weapons, so I will ask you one more time.
> > > where are the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons?
> > > where are the long range rockets?
> >
> > What attack? They didn't invade because of that. They invaded because he
> > financed serial killer terrorists against israel. They invaded because
> > he refused to give back the archives and the POWs of Kuwait and
> > threatened to re-invade them at the first occasion. This is breach of 4
> > of the UN conditions EACH of which was to trigger the "serious
> > consequences" we were talking about.
>
> Wrong.. Bush sited that Saddam was a threat to the US, and the World at
> large.
Saddam cited that much. Bush just took him to his word.
> Saddam supporting Terrorism in Isreal, then why single our Iraq, Iran
> supports
> Islamic Jihad, Syria supports a lot of others. Why not attack these
> countries as well?
Because 687e prevented Saddam from doing it. Other countries have the
terrorist resolution from Sept. 11, but are not bound with the lifting
of any cease fire. Iraq was bound since 1990 not to pay for
International terrorist in ANY way, but 687e. Or the ceasefire would be
lifted.
They just didn't apply the serious consequences they should have. It
took 1441 to say, wait a minute, let's apply that seriously. if he
breaks any clause he gets it. 1441 is about 687e.
>
> Your clutching for straws now that the biological and chemical weapons
> throry has fallen flat on its face.
Bah this remains to be seen.
>
> > > where is the infasture to build and maintain an nuclear biological and
> > > chemical weapons fleet
> > > where are the thousands of biological and chemical weapons
> > > where are the solid links between saddam and osama bin laidin
> > > where is the proof that saddam had anything to do with sept.11 other
> then
> > > his rejoiceing at the suffering of the american people.
> >
> > All this we will find out. Thanks to his stupidity. But it is irrelevant
> > to the UN resolution. It is certainly some motivation to find these
> > things out. But not relevant to the UN resolution.
> >
> > Read them again.
>
> LOL we will find it all out, But didn't the US had solid evidence of these
> things, which is why they went to war in the first place?
Bah sure, he was in breach and waited until the last day to speak about
Anthrax even, who knows what he did with it, they could have stopped on
their tracks, they just didn't trust him to have destroyed the missing
anthrax in secret, the last day before they told him to surrender. They
had threats from Saddam, and intelligence hints. They went to get him
because they couldn't trust him BECAUSE he broke three clauses about
Kuwait and one about Israel, which gave them the legality to go in.
There was no other resolution and no other choice but to go in, if the
UN was to remain credible. Although now France has decided to make its
veto power against any military action a permanent thing, thereby making
the UN totally irrelevant, except for what France decides to do of
course. They won't veto their own military intervention with their own
coalition in Congo. No one will, it is what must be done,. Even though
they themselves will veto whatever must be done elsewhere by US
coalition because they don't like the US.
I tell you, the UN has became irrelevant, and there is no reason for the
US to even consider going the UN route anymore about Iran or Syria for
instance, if they find they have WMD and are threatening, just because
of Chirac. What must be done must be done. Even if the UN is
meaningless. It is a tragedy though that is the sole responsibility of
France.
> Or are you saying the only Reason the US went to war with Iraq is becuase he
> was giving money to the families of suicide bombers?
Yes. And becasue it refused to give Kuwait its National archives and
becasue it refused to give them its proisoners of war, and becasue it
threatened to reinvade them at the first occasion. Four infractions that
went against 687e and the 1441 ultimatum.
>
> Jean wake up.. Bush lied to you, Face it..
>
> Daniel
Only in your dreams.
Stop dreaming about me.
J.
Danirl Robinson
> It was between the US led coalition and Iraq.
>
> It is the US that has all the time designed the military action to take.
Wrong. The US, England, France were the major players in the first gulf
war.
>
> >
>
> Yeah right, serious consequences for Iraq to appease America. Jeez you
> are dreaming. It was an ultimatum.
It was no ultimatum, Resoultion 1441 was a chance for Iraq to come clean,
before
America took independent actions of which the UN was not prepared to stop.
Countries signed on to 1441, to stop American action which was going to
happen
sooner rather then later.
> Nah, there is no other resolution than 1441. Doesn't matter what they
> said, they signed for 1441. If they didn't want 1441 they just had to
> refuse signing for it. There are no other resolution after 1441.
>
> And 1441 was clear. It didn't matter what each said after, if they
> didn't put it in another resolution, 1441 was categorical.
>
> And it was simply the implementation of 687e. The only reasons they were
> against is because they made money with Iraq and because they were
> selling them prohibited (conventional at least) weapons and of course
> because they didn't want to pay for it either, they are jealous of the
> only true superpower but they don't show at all they are worth any
> additional recognition by acting like greedy brats.
>
> They won't be rewarded for it in the new Iraq, that's for sure.
Countries are not allowed to make money? However provide solid proof that
these countries
were selling prohibated weapons to Iraq. Iraq under the UN chater is
allowed to prachase weapons
for its own self-defense.
>
> Support for an additional resolution that would commute the regime
> annihilation implied by serious consequences into regime change. Get
> with the program. It is not a vote of support for 1441. This vote was
> already done. There was unanimous support.
>
> It is a vote for another resolution that was never worded. France had
> made it clear it would veto it no matter what it was if it implied
> force. There was no point in proposing anything.
>
> Resolution 687e had to be implemented despite the Roland 3 France had
> sold Iraq illegally, not to mention what Russia and China had done. (It
> is not even worth talking about Syria, until they become serious since
> they would always vote for any terrorist state if it is Arab. They don't
> count.)
Jean, when 1441 was being nutted out, there was a lot of argument over
serious concequences, the only ones who took this to mean war were the
united states
and great britian, the other members of the security council had other
things in mind.
> > Wrong.. Bush sited that Saddam was a threat to the US, and the World at
> > large.
>
> Saddam cited that much. Bush just took him to his word.
Saddam never threatened to destory the west or america, it was the other way
around
Who had more nukes, the US or Pre-war Iraq?
> Because 687e prevented Saddam from doing it. Other countries have the
> terrorist resolution from Sept. 11, but are not bound with the lifting
> of any cease fire. Iraq was bound since 1990 not to pay for
> International terrorist in ANY way, but 687e. Or the ceasefire would be
> lifted.
>
> They just didn't apply the serious consequences they should have. It
> took 1441 to say, wait a minute, let's apply that seriously. if he
> breaks any clause he gets it. 1441 is about 687e.
687e stopped Saddam supporting Terrorists, I would agree, but once again
Politics is about inturpations, and what saddam was doing was supplying the
"families"
with compensation for their heroic loss, this is not terrorism.
So even your argument here is flawed, Saddam was not supporting a terrorist,
he was
helping one of the victums of terrorism, the families that lost a
son/daughter.
> >
> > Your clutching for straws now that the biological and chemical weapons
> > throry has fallen flat on its face.
>
> Bah this remains to be seen.
Oh Iraq has so many nukes the desert is covered with them. Blair made the
claim
that Iraq could have biological and chemical weapons loaded and ready to fly
within 45 minutes
Something that easy for Iraq to get out of hideing, fill chemical warheads
with, and ready them to fly.
should not be that hard for the US services to find.
The US built there case around Iraq having Biological and Chemical weapons
This is the case they sold the world at large.
Iraq with biological and chemical weapons, and links to alcadia could in
effect destory
a American city, this is the very point that Bush was trying to get at.
Everyone told him he was wrong that Saddam's biological agents, IF and that
was always a big IF
he had them would be crude at best.
America was going to war in self-defense, or so we were told by President
Bush.
So Jean, now that the major war in Iraq is over, and that the US has total
control of the country.
Where are the biological, Chemical, and "dreaded" nuclear weapons, America
has been searching
the country for weeks now, and the best they have come up with is a couple
of trailers which as it is looking more likely
have nothing to do with biological or chemical weapons at all.
> > Or are you saying the only Reason the US went to war with Iraq is
becuase he
> > was giving money to the families of suicide bombers?
>
> Yes. And becasue it refused to give Kuwait its National archives and
> becasue it refused to give them its proisoners of war, and becasue it
> threatened to reinvade them at the first occasion. Four infractions that
> went against 687e and the 1441 ultimatum.
I can not comment on the kuwait national archive, because I thought it had
been found and returned to kuwait.
PoW's, there was no, and still isn't any proof that pow's were kepted after
the first gulf war.
please explain the threatened to invade kuwait stance? At what point
exactally did Iraq threaten to invade Kuwait?
If you say after America was threatening to invade Iraq, I'm going to laugh
at you and your hypocracy.
> >
> > Jean wake up.. Bush lied to you, Face it..
> >
> > Daniel
>
> Only in your dreams.
>
> Stop dreaming about me.
Bush lied to you. I can prove it by the lack of evidence which has not been
found in iraq. Can you prove that Iraq had biological and Chemical weapons
in the last 5 years?
I will ask you once again Jean.
Where are the biological and Chemical weapons which Iraq was supposed to
have?
Daniel
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> >
> > It was between the US led coalition and Iraq.
> >
> > It is the US that has all the time designed the military action to take.
>
> Wrong. The US, England, France were the major players in the first gulf
> war.
>
So what? Doesn't make it wrong. The US designed, and then once everyone
agreed, they conducted, the Gulf War. They were central command as well.
> >
> > >
> >
> > Yeah right, serious consequences for Iraq to appease America. Jeez you
> > are dreaming. It was an ultimatum.
>
> It was no ultimatum, Resoultion 1441 was a chance for Iraq to come clean,
That is an ultimatum.
> before
> America took independent actions of which the UN was not prepared to stop.
Duh.
> Countries signed on to 1441, to stop American action which was going to
> happen
> sooner rather then later.
Bullshit. 1441 was giving Saddam the last chance to stop breaking the
rules of 687e, he didn't. He didn't cooperate, even about WMD only on
the last day before the war did he say something about anthrax. That's
not cooperation. Even though the other infractions were the reasons.
Period.
>
> > Nah, there is no other resolution than 1441. Doesn't matter what they
> > said, they signed for 1441. If they didn't want 1441 they just had to
> > refuse signing for it. There are no other resolution after 1441.
> >
> > And 1441 was clear. It didn't matter what each said after, if they
> > didn't put it in another resolution, 1441 was categorical.
> >
> > And it was simply the implementation of 687e. The only reasons they were
> > against is because they made money with Iraq and because they were
> > selling them prohibited (conventional at least) weapons and of course
> > because they didn't want to pay for it either, they are jealous of the
> > only true superpower but they don't show at all they are worth any
> > additional recognition by acting like greedy brats.
> >
> > They won't be rewarded for it in the new Iraq, that's for sure.
>
> Countries are not allowed to make money? However provide solid proof that
> these countries
> were selling prohibated weapons to Iraq. Iraq under the UN chater is
> allowed to prachase weapons
> for its own self-defense.
Not those that were illegal under the sanctions. I have posted an
article about that. Anyway, this we found out after. We went there
because of other things. But the opposition by France and Germany as
well as Russia China and Syria was there because of their support in
illegal weapons trade. Now, notwithstanding the soviet equipment which
is standard in Iraq, will we find blown up Chinese silk missile like we
did the franco-German Roland 3? Maybe they were more careful than with
their illegal fiber optics? Anyway, they will first find Saddam and
finish the job of tracing all the WMD. Then we will see what was their
motivation to refuse the resolution they had signed. IMO they didn't
expect Saddam to flip the bird to Kuwait and to the prohibition of
international terrorism. They signed what they thought would be,
something Saddam would respect. They were wrong.
>
> >
> > Support for an additional resolution that would commute the regime
> > annihilation implied by serious consequences into regime change. Get
> > with the program. It is not a vote of support for 1441. This vote was
> > already done. There was unanimous support.
> >
> > It is a vote for another resolution that was never worded. France had
> > made it clear it would veto it no matter what it was if it implied
> > force. There was no point in proposing anything.
> >
> > Resolution 687e had to be implemented despite the Roland 3 France had
> > sold Iraq illegally, not to mention what Russia and China had done. (It
> > is not even worth talking about Syria, until they become serious since
> > they would always vote for any terrorist state if it is Arab. They don't
> > count.)
>
> Jean, when 1441 was being nutted out, there was a lot of argument over
> serious concequences, the only ones who took this to mean war were the
> united states
> and great britian, the other members of the security council had other
> things in mind.
Bah there is no other things for the authorization of serious
consequences.
Already, the first Gulf war, was merely authorization to take the
necessary measures, or something like that. Serious consequences is
really serious.
>
> > > Wrong.. Bush sited that Saddam was a threat to the US, and the World at
> > > large.
> >
> > Saddam cited that much. Bush just took him to his word.
>
> Saddam never threatened to destory the west or america, it was the other way
> around
> Who had more nukes, the US or Pre-war Iraq?
Saddam threaten the West many times over. All the time. Were were you in
the last 5 years? Let me dig up the first article that comes about.
http://www.strategicjungle.com/kathleen/1127dkk.html
(11/27/2000 Saddam Hussein has called upon all Arabs to attack US and
Israeli interests around the world)
And his neighbors...
http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/mena/media/aip/media97/0021.html
... Saddam threatens the Arabs that he will retaliate from all who did
not support Iraq during its crisis, when Iraq will dominate the Arab
world once again as he ...
I won't mention israel, he always did threaten them, but it is not his
threat by breaking his parole about terrorism that he got invaded, so no
need to mention them. My point is that he was a loud mouth pain in the
neck. He was threatening the world, and never really cooperated with the
UN even about the anthrax but waited until the last day before the
ultimatum to utter something about it.
Saddam was playing with fire and he made sure no one knew if he had
matches.
>
> > Because 687e prevented Saddam from doing it. Other countries have the
> > terrorist resolution from Sept. 11, but are not bound with the lifting
> > of any cease fire. Iraq was bound since 1990 not to pay for
> > International terrorist in ANY way, but 687e. Or the ceasefire would be
> > lifted.
> >
> > They just didn't apply the serious consequences they should have. It
> > took 1441 to say, wait a minute, let's apply that seriously. if he
> > breaks any clause he gets it. 1441 is about 687e.
>
> 687e stopped Saddam supporting Terrorists, I would agree, but once again
> Politics is about inturpations, and what saddam was doing was supplying the
> "families"
> with compensation for their heroic loss, this is not terrorism.
Yes it is, support for their family is support for terrorism. The
martyrdom was that of their victims, not of them.
They were serial killers killing innocents, to give $25000 for each of
them WAS to support them, it was a breach of 687e, of his parole in
other words. He knew it and didn't give a shit.
>
> So even your argument here is flawed, Saddam was not supporting a terrorist,
> he was
> helping one of the victums of terrorism, the families that lost a
> son/daughter.
Same thing. These families should be sued to pay millions to the
victims, and die working to repay for having supported their serial
killer son(s), not given money. Anyway, the question of ethics has to be
dealt with separately. They lose their houses, maybe it will teach them.
The fact remains that he paid $25 000 for each terrorist who murdered
innocents, and it was a breach of his condition, of article 32. Which
was enough to lift the cease fire according to 687e. Period.
They didn't even need 1441. 1441 was to tell the world, we WILL apply
687e, OK? And they all said YES.
Saddam was fried by going the confrontational way.
>
> > >
> > > Your clutching for straws now that the biological and chemical weapons
> > > throry has fallen flat on its face.
> >
> > Bah this remains to be seen.
>
> Oh Iraq has so many nukes the desert is covered with them. Blair made the
> claim
> that Iraq could have biological and chemical weapons loaded and ready to fly
> within 45 minutes
If he hadn't decided to destroy them days before as scientists tell us.
> Something that easy for Iraq to get out of hideing, fill chemical warheads
> with, and ready them to fly.
> should not be that hard for the US services to find.
Oh yes it is, After so many years after the gulf war, the UN didn't find
anything in Iraq, until a defector told them where it was, and it was
right by.
Then, they found tons and tons. And that was before he got smart about
them.
No, it is very hard, and until Saddam is in custody it will be hard to
find anyone who would speak. It is like a mafia, but worse. Even then.
They better insure would-be defectors immunity, and lots of money,
dozens of millions, to enjoy their freedom with secure settings, 'cause
otherwise, why talk? They are sure to lose their lives if they talk &
aren't rewarded properly for it.
When one think that the brother in law one who helped us so much had no
choice but go back there... and be killed. It is a shame. I hope they
learn from their mistake.
Yep. He had them. The question is where are they?
Remember that Saddam promised the scientists with death of they talk:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/24/102447.shtml
Hence it is sad but until the US reviews its policy and guarantee them
dozens of millions and immunity they won't get any lead. Their noble
principles don't help against vermin's like Saddam and their supporters.
>
> Everyone told him he was wrong that Saddam's biological agents, IF and that
> was always a big IF
> he had them would be crude at best.
No one knows. So all who told him he was wrong were clowns. If anything,
facts prove he was right until a couple of days before the war.
>
> America was going to war in self-defense, or so we were told by President
> Bush.
>
> So Jean, now that the major war in Iraq is over, and that the US has total
> control of the country.
Nah, Saddam is not in custody.
> Where are the biological, Chemical, and "dreaded" nuclear weapons, America
> has been searching
> the country for weeks now, and the best they have come up with is a couple
> of trailers which as it is looking more likely
> have nothing to do with biological or chemical weapons at all.
Could be anywhere, there on in neighboring countries, again, they better
take the means to find out.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/special_packages/iraq/6043566.htm
U.S. Says Iraq Hid Banned Weapons Well
>
> > > Or are you saying the only Reason the US went to war with Iraq is
> becuase he
> > > was giving money to the families of suicide bombers?
> >
> > Yes. And becasue it refused to give Kuwait its National archives and
> > becasue it refused to give them its proisoners of war, and becasue it
> > threatened to reinvade them at the first occasion. Four infractions that
> > went against 687e and the 1441 ultimatum.
>
> I can not comment on the kuwait national archive, because I thought it had
> been found and returned to kuwait.
Not according to the Kuwaitis themselves (January 26, 2003)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76621,00.html quote:
"Speaking of Kuwaiti national archives looted by Iraq that Baghdad
claims it returned in October, Sabah said Iraq only returned "worthless
papers." The archives return is a condition for lifting U.N.-imposed
sanctions on Iraq."
> PoW's, there was no, and still isn't any proof that pow's were kepted after
> the first gulf war.
No POW? LOL. There were supposed to be encouraging signs of that last
year http://www.flonnet.com/fl1911/19110650.htm
("There are indications that Iraq and Kuwait may soon exchange prisoners
of war, held since the 1991 conflict.")
But it did not happen of course. Their only hope was his ousting...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0422/p02s02-wome.html
("After 13 years, a new hope for Kuwaiti POWs in Iraq")
Well, they find out what happened to some of them now
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08593679.htm
Believe me they are not in good shape... :-(
Jeez why do you always say the opposite of me without having a clue?
> please explain the threatened to invade kuwait stance? At what point
> exactally did Iraq threaten to invade Kuwait?
> If you say after America was threatening to invade Iraq, I'm going to laugh
> at you and your hypocracy.
>
You mean that is if it after 1441, it doesn't count?
OK, then, I'll find you when he pretended Kuwait was still part of Iraq
BEFORE 1441. YOU ask for it:
Well the Kuwaitis felt that way even in 1999
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990118/1999011810.html
"The statement added that these Iraqi statements are flagrant violations
of the UN charter. It asserted that the recent Iraqi practices reflect
once again the policy ever characterized the Iraqi government, a matter
which it said reveals "
Remember that
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990112/1999011213.html "Tariq
Aziz called for giving up recognizing Kuwait as a state and for rather
to consider it as an integral part of Iraq."
(Remember that this was against the clauses of the resolution 687e.)
Uday was still saying that Kuwait was part of Iraq in 2001
http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/2001/012601/Arab_league.html
(The 22-member Arab League Jan. 18 condemned a statement by Saddam
Hussein's son Uday, who called Kuwait an integral part of Greater Iraq.)
Although in his case one must admit he is not very bright (or his brain
is fucked up since the attempt on his life?) for saying
http://www.islam-online.net/english/news/2002-11/12/article76.shtml
(In 1991, we were not the ones who fired the first bullet, but we waited
for the first bullet to be fired by the other side, knowing the enormous
sacrifices which would result," he said.)
Now is that to your liking? A more happy camper hopefully?
Are you a less ignorant now?
> > >
> > > Jean wake up.. Bush lied to you, Face it..
> > >
> > > Daniel
> >
> > Only in your dreams.
> >
> > Stop dreaming about me.
>
> Bush lied to you.
Only in your dreams.
> I can prove it by the lack of evidence which has not been
> found in iraq. Can you prove that Iraq had biological and Chemical weapons
> in the last 5 years?
Right, by lack of evidence you mean you have no clue. Or that you can
reveal the world what only Saddam know, and a few in the secret. Why is
it that somehow I think YOU make this up?
Let the experts do their jobs Danirl.
BTW, time for me to ask you something I am curious about, when will you
correct your name into Daniel in your headers?
>
> I will ask you once again Jean.
>
> Where are the biological and Chemical weapons which Iraq was supposed to
> have?
Bah, in Iraq or Syria or both... Iran? We will find out.
You pretending you know, why don't you tell us what exactly happened to
the missing ones we know existed at least, so that when we find them we
can see if you knew anything or were full of shit.
Where are they Daniel?
J.
>
> Daniel
Danirl Robinson
>
>
> Danirl Robinson a écrit :
> >
> > >
> > > It was between the US led coalition and Iraq.
> > >
> > > It is the US that has all the time designed the military action to
take.
> >
> > Wrong. The US, England, France were the major players in the first gulf
> > war.
> >
>
> So what? Doesn't make it wrong. The US designed, and then once everyone
> agreed, they conducted, the Gulf War. They were central command as well.
The US supplied command and control system and infasturcture, BUT it was a
co-ordinated effort between
the major powers, which included France, England, the Sovert Union and
China.
Also Germany and Japan payed for the first Gulf war, which also gave them a
say
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah right, serious consequences for Iraq to appease America. Jeez you
> > > are dreaming. It was an ultimatum.
> >
> > It was no ultimatum, Resoultion 1441 was a chance for Iraq to come
clean,
>
> That is an ultimatum.
>
> > before
> > America took independent actions of which the UN was not prepared to
stop.
>
> Duh.
>
Once again Jean. Only someone like yourself could see Resoultion 1441 as a
ultimatum
The US had said they were going to take action with or without the UN, the
UN had to try something
to remain in the picture, well it didn't work because the US took actions
without the concent of the US
Since the US throy of biological and chemical weapons has fallen over,
people like yourself Jean have started
grabbing for any justification that you can to legitmisy the invasion of
Iraq.
Like trying to prove that Iraq had, or has possed since 1995 mass amounts of
biological and chemical agents, you too will fail to prove
the invasion of Iraq to be legal.
> > Countries signed on to 1441, to stop American action which was going to
> > happen
> > sooner rather then later.
>
> Bullshit. 1441 was giving Saddam the last chance to stop breaking the
> rules of 687e, he didn't. He didn't cooperate, even about WMD only on
> the last day before the war did he say something about anthrax. That's
> not cooperation. Even though the other infractions were the reasons.
> Period.
Resoultion 1441 was more about trying to slow down American and British
action
and getting the weapons inspectors back in place. Hans Blix himself said
that the US had not given his team
enough time to prove if Iraq had biological or chemical agents, and that
there was only "suspected" wrong doing.
> Not those that were illegal under the sanctions. I have posted an
> article about that. Anyway, this we found out after. We went there
> because of other things. But the opposition by France and Germany as
> well as Russia China and Syria was there because of their support in
> illegal weapons trade. Now, notwithstanding the soviet equipment which
> is standard in Iraq, will we find blown up Chinese silk missile like we
> did the franco-German Roland 3? Maybe they were more careful than with
> their illegal fiber optics? Anyway, they will first find Saddam and
> finish the job of tracing all the WMD. Then we will see what was their
> motivation to refuse the resolution they had signed. IMO they didn't
> expect Saddam to flip the bird to Kuwait and to the prohibition of
> international terrorism. They signed what they thought would be,
> something Saddam would respect. They were wrong.
Iraq faught a long and bloody war with Iran, and they had many suppliers of
weapons
includeing England and America, there is more military equipment floating
around
Iraq then most small countries.
Chinese Silk worm missiles are not proof that china has been selling weapons
to Iraq, they
are a common missile, and a lot of countries have them. The fiber optics
case was never proven
by the US and was only ever suspected.
> Bah there is no other things for the authorization of serious
> consequences.
>
> Already, the first Gulf war, was merely authorization to take the
> necessary measures, or something like that. Serious consequences is
> really serious.
If there was no argument over it Jean, then the US would have simply stated
Do this or we are at war in the resoulation, they did not.
>
> Saddam threaten the West many times over. All the time. Were were you in
> the last 5 years? Let me dig up the first article that comes about.
>
> http://www.strategicjungle.com/kathleen/1127dkk.html
> (11/27/2000 Saddam Hussein has called upon all Arabs to attack US and
> Israeli interests around the world)
Calling up on all arabs to go to war with the united states, isreal and
Great britian has nothing to do with terrorism
He was calling for all Arabs to wage war against these countries, he at the
time was basically fighting a war with those nations anyway.
> And his neighbors...
> http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/mena/media/aip/media97/0021.html
> ... Saddam threatens the Arabs that he will retaliate from all who did
> not support Iraq during its crisis, when Iraq will dominate the Arab
> world once again as he ...
OMG I can not believe that you actually think he does not have the right to
defend his nation?
Jean you suffer from a problem where you can not see an argument from both
sides.
Basically if Isreal, the US or Britian does it, then thats ok, becuase these
countries are the Good guys
and if anyone else disagrees with the actions of the US Isreal or Britian,
well they are the bad guys.
Your world is very black and white.
> I won't mention israel, he always did threaten them, but it is not his
> threat by breaking his parole about terrorism that he got invaded, so no
> need to mention them. My point is that he was a loud mouth pain in the
> neck. He was threatening the world, and never really cooperated with the
> UN even about the anthrax but waited until the last day before the
> ultimatum to utter something about it.
>
> Saddam was playing with fire and he made sure no one knew if he had
> matches.
Even you must be able to see that making a threat, and taking action on
those threats
are 2 diffrent things. I did not realise the ceasefire he signed in the UN
stopped him
from having a opinion or dislikeing other countries.
All you have done is proven that he threatend other nations, but your've not
proven he
activally supported terrorsim against any of those nations.
>
>
> Yes it is, support for their family is support for terrorism. The
> martyrdom was that of their victims, not of them.
>
> They were serial killers killing innocents, to give $25000 for each of
> them WAS to support them, it was a breach of 687e, of his parole in
> other words. He knew it and didn't give a shit.
So if your brother goes out and kills 10 people, your parents can be held
accountible arrested and tried
because there son did something wrong?
He supplied the familes with money, not the guys that did the wrong doing.
Compensation for there loss
not active support of the groups themselves.
If you can prove he has since 1991 provided serveral million dollars to
Hamas then you would have a case
once again your argument has no real basis
>
> Same thing. These families should be sued to pay millions to the
> victims, and die working to repay for having supported their serial
> killer son(s), not given money. Anyway, the question of ethics has to be
> dealt with separately. They lose their houses, maybe it will teach them.
>
> The fact remains that he paid $25 000 for each terrorist who murdered
> innocents, and it was a breach of his condition, of article 32. Which
> was enough to lift the cease fire according to 687e. Period.
>
> They didn't even need 1441. 1441 was to tell the world, we WILL apply
> 687e, OK? And they all said YES.
>
> Saddam was fried by going the confrontational way.
Wrong he payed 25000 to each family who lost Son's and Daughters in a
struggle against
an oppressive isreali government.
Once again if you do something evil, would you accept your parents being
punished for it?
Now if you believe that the families of the sucide bombers should be paying
millions to iusrealis
how much do you think isreal should be paying to the palistinians, how many
palistinians have died
at the hands of the isrealis
> >
>
> If he hadn't decided to destroy them days before as scientists tell us.
Iraqi scientists told the world that Iraq has not had biological and
chemical weapons for years
Even if he did destory the weapons days before the invasion, the
infastructor would remain.
>
> Oh yes it is, After so many years after the gulf war, the UN didn't find
> anything in Iraq, until a defector told them where it was, and it was
> right by.
>
> Then, they found tons and tons. And that was before he got smart about
> them.
>
> No, it is very hard, and until Saddam is in custody it will be hard to
> find anyone who would speak. It is like a mafia, but worse. Even then.
> They better insure would-be defectors immunity, and lots of money,
> dozens of millions, to enjoy their freedom with secure settings, 'cause
> otherwise, why talk? They are sure to lose their lives if they talk &
> aren't rewarded properly for it.
Nice, so basically your saying that even though the US controls the country
Saddam is the true power in the country?
But this negates your argument that the US had solid proof of weapons, if
they had
the proof, then where are the weapons?
> When one think that the brother in law one who helped us so much had no
> choice but go back there... and be killed. It is a shame. I hope they
> learn from their mistake.
>
>
> Yep. He had them. The question is where are they?
>
> Remember that Saddam promised the scientists with death of they talk:
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/24/102447.shtml
> Hence it is sad but until the US reviews its policy and guarantee them
> dozens of millions and immunity they won't get any lead. Their noble
> principles don't help against vermin's like Saddam and their supporters.
Its not the fact that US has not found any weapons, its that the US has not
found
a thing to prove weapons existed, so far they have been in control of the
country for over a month
and they have a 1000 teams searching, and nothing concreate has been found
> >
> > Everyone told him he was wrong that Saddam's biological agents, IF and
that
> > was always a big IF
> > he had them would be crude at best.
>
> No one knows. So all who told him he was wrong were clowns. If anything,
> facts prove he was right until a couple of days before the war.
What facts? The US has no facts, no proof of weapons.
Now your argueing that by not reconniseing the state of kuwait, which was
origionally part of iraq
that the US suddenly has a right to invade
Once again, your've not proven that Iraq took any actions against Kuwait
other then making statements
that Iraq own Kuwait.
> Only in your dreams.
Bush lied to you.
>
> Right, by lack of evidence you mean you have no clue. Or that you can
> reveal the world what only Saddam know, and a few in the secret. Why is
> it that somehow I think YOU make this up?
Your still ashumming that Saddam has biological and chemical weapons to hide
Clearly, he has little or none.
> Let the experts do their jobs Danirl.
Funny, you were so not willing to let the experts do the job before the war
and your still agree with the US that the true experts from the UN should
not
be allowed back into join the search, giving international legitmacy to
anything found.
> BTW, time for me to ask you something I am curious about, when will you
> correct your name into Daniel in your headers?
I've been too lazy
>
> > I will ask you once again Jean.
> >
> > Where are the biological and Chemical weapons which Iraq was supposed to
> > have?
>
> Bah, in Iraq or Syria or both... Iran? We will find out.
> You pretending you know, why don't you tell us what exactly happened to
> the missing ones we know existed at least, so that when we find them we
> can see if you knew anything or were full of shit.
>
> Where are they Daniel?
Now now Jean, your the one who made the calm he had them, and your the one
who keeps
saying the weapons are there and the US had proof that they were there.
So you tell me, where are the weapons Jean, where is the infastructor to
build and maintain
the weapons, where are the scietists to design them.
And how many times did Iraq use these weapons on US troops in the last war,
when saddam knew he was
going to be over thrown
Its up to you to provide solid evidence of Iraqi duplisity.
Face it, all the current released evidence has proven nothing concreate, and
all we have had from US officals
are excuses.
Daniel
Jean Guernon
Danirl Robinson a écrit :
>
> "Jean Guernon" <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
> news:3EF7154A...@globetrotter.net...
> >
> >
> > Danirl Robinson a écrit :
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It was between the US led coalition and Iraq.
> > > >
> > > > It is the US that has all the time designed the military action to
> take.
> > >
> > > Wrong. The US, England, France were the major players in the first gulf
> > > war.
> > >
> >
> > So what? Doesn't make it wrong. The US designed, and then once everyone
> > agreed, they conducted, the Gulf War. They were central command as well.
>
> The US supplied command and control system and infasturcture, BUT it was a
> co-ordinated effort between
> the major powers, which included France, England, the Sovert Union and
> China.
China partaken? I don't remember seeing them. I have to check that out.
The Soviet Union? Jeez I think they were helping Saddam if I recall.
Anyway, I don't know what you are thinking, the US is the one that
decided to make this coalition, they are the one who planned everything.
Then they invited anyone who would join (as long as they followed the
lead of the US) to join the coalition.
This is a US initiative. USSR? Joined the US to fight Saddam? Are you
sure?
>
> Also Germany and Japan payed for the first Gulf war, which also gave them a
> say
Since it didn't work with Saddam because of them, since they provided
weapons, and also because of China who provided fiber optics, their say
was to go fuck themselves.
Thank you very much.
>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah right, serious consequences for Iraq to appease America. Jeez you
> > > > are dreaming. It was an ultimatum.
> > >
> > > It was no ultimatum, Resoultion 1441 was a chance for Iraq to come
> clean,
> >
> > That is an ultimatum.
> >
> > > before
> > > America took independent actions of which the UN was not prepared to
> stop.
> >
> > Duh.
> >
>
> Once again Jean. Only someone like yourself could see Resoultion 1441 as a
> ultimatum
687e was THE ultimatum. But ot took 1441 to wake up the faggots in the
SC that it was going to happen. They all signed., They had NO RIGHT to
come back on their word, and they didn't. There is NO other resolution
after 1441 until the US was in total control. no blame in the recent
resolution. The whining is political, it is so that they don't pay for
it, and the promised veto to anything implying military force in the
future, a power trip by France to insure that the US cannot carry its
burden of being the superpower. It is a shame. An outrage. Doesn't
change the reality of 1441 and 687e.
> > > Countries signed on to 1441, to stop American action which was going to
> > > happen
> > > sooner rather then later.
> >
> > Bullshit. 1441 was giving Saddam the last chance to stop breaking the
> > rules of 687e, he didn't. He didn't cooperate, even about WMD only on
> > the last day before the war did he say something about anthrax. That's
> > not cooperation. Even though the other infractions were the reasons.
> > Period.
>
> Resoultion 1441 was more about trying to slow down American and British
> action
> and getting the weapons inspectors back in place. Hans Blix himself said
> that the US had not given his team
> enough time to prove if Iraq had biological or chemical agents, and that
> there was only "suspected" wrong doing.
You are dreaming. It is the US who designed 1441.
Get a clue!
>
> > Not those that were illegal under the sanctions. I have posted an
> > article about that. Anyway, this we found out after. We went there
> > because of other things. But the opposition by France and Germany as
> > well as Russia China and Syria was there because of their support in
> > illegal weapons trade. Now, notwithstanding the soviet equipment which
> > is standard in Iraq, will we find blown up Chinese silk missile like we
> > did the franco-German Roland 3? Maybe they were more careful than with
> > their illegal fiber optics? Anyway, they will first find Saddam and
> > finish the job of tracing all the WMD. Then we will see what was their
> > motivation to refuse the resolution they had signed. IMO they didn't
> > expect Saddam to flip the bird to Kuwait and to the prohibition of
> > international terrorism. They signed what they thought would be,
> > something Saddam would respect. They were wrong.
>
> Iraq faught a long and bloody war with Iran, and they had many suppliers of
> weapons
> includeing England and America, there is more military equipment floating
> around
> Iraq then most small countries.
Nah. They didn't. It was the USSr their suppliers.
>
> Chinese Silk worm missiles are not proof that china has been selling weapons
> to Iraq, they
> are a common missile, and a lot of countries have them.
Whatever...
> The fiber optics
> case was never proven
> by the US and was only ever suspected.
Yes it was.
Hahaha Jeez. It is too late now, saddam is fried, stop kissing his butt.
>
> > Bah there is no other things for the authorization of serious
> > consequences.
> >
> > Already, the first Gulf war, was merely authorization to take the
> > necessary measures, or something like that. Serious consequences is
> > really serious.
>
> If there was no argument over it Jean, then the US would have simply stated
> Do this or we are at war in the resoulation, they did not.
What? At war with the resolution? You seem to live in another world. How
old are you?
>
> >
> > Saddam threaten the West many times over. All the time. Were were you in
> > the last 5 years? Let me dig up the first article that comes about.
> >
> > http://www.strategicjungle.com/kathleen/1127dkk.html
> > (11/27/2000 Saddam Hussein has called upon all Arabs to attack US and
> > Israeli interests around the world)
>
> Calling up on all arabs to go to war with the united states, isreal and
> Great britian has nothing to do with terrorism
> He was calling for all Arabs to wage war against these countries, he at the
> time was basically fighting a war with those nations anyway.
Nah, 1441 wasn't even there yet. You are dreaming again (of Saddam's
butt... is it so juicy? LOL).
>
> > And his neighbors...
> > http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/mena/media/aip/media97/0021.html
> > ... Saddam threatens the Arabs that he will retaliate from all who did
> > not support Iraq during its crisis, when Iraq will dominate the Arab
> > world once again as he ...
>
> OMG I can not believe that you actually think he does not have the right to
> defend his nation?
> Jean you suffer from a problem where you can not see an argument from both
> sides.
What defend his nation? This was in 1997. This makes my point, you just
are full of bad faith.
>
> Basically if Isreal, the US or Britian does it, then thats ok, becuase these
> countries are the Good guys
> and if anyone else disagrees with the actions of the US Isreal or Britian,
> well they are the bad guys.
What are you talking about. When did the US Israel or Britain say they
will dominate the Arab world and that then they will act like little
dictators?
You dream of Saddam's anus again. Tss tss.
> well they are the bad guys.
>
> Your world is very black and white.
When it comes to text of resolutions.
I don't make up things indeed.
>
> > I won't mention israel, he always did threaten them, but it is not his
> > threat by breaking his parole about terrorism that he got invaded, so no
> > need to mention them. My point is that he was a loud mouth pain in the
> > neck. He was threatening the world, and never really cooperated with the
> > UN even about the anthrax but waited until the last day before the
> > ultimatum to utter something about it.
> >
> > Saddam was playing with fire and he made sure no one knew if he had
> > matches.
>
> Even you must be able to see that making a threat, and taking action on
> those threats
> are 2 diffrent things. I did not realise the ceasefire he signed in the UN
> stopped him
> from having a opinion or dislikeing other countries.
Read it again then.
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res687e.htm
>
> All you have done is proven that he threatend other nations, but your've not
> proven he
> activally supported terrorsim against any of those nations.
True, I have not dug out the article where he gives 25000 in an official
ceremony for each serial killer he calls martyrs. But I don't need to,
do I? You know it exists, right?
Do you want me to?
This IS supporting actively international terrorism, WHATEVER the losers
who do kiss the ass of these pieces of shit serial murderers say.
You don't reward murder. Period. And if you have a resolution that make
it mandatory, then if you do, you are in breach.
Anyone with a brain and no agenda sees that.
>
> >
>
> >
> > Yes it is, support for their family is support for terrorism. The
> > martyrdom was that of their victims, not of them.
> >
> > They were serial killers killing innocents, to give $25000 for each of
> > them WAS to support them, it was a breach of 687e, of his parole in
> > other words. He knew it and didn't give a shit.
>
> So if your brother goes out and kills 10 people, your parents can be held
> accountible arrested and tried
> because there son did something wrong?
Accomplices are as guilty as murderers. They don't get rewards for
having a murderer in their family. So, Yep.
>
> He supplied the familes with money, not the guys that did the wrong doing.
> Compensation for there loss
> not active support of the groups themselves.
Same thing. He gives money for murders. Doesn't matter how you call it.
This is like Alqaeda calling their money charities. Blood money is
nothing else.
And anyone who disagree can kiss my ass.
>
> If you can prove he has since 1991 provided serveral million dollars to
> Hamas then you would have a case
> once again your argument has no real basis
This is providing money to Hamas and the other organizations who planned
these murders. By itself, it is a proof he made public.
>
> >
> > Same thing. These families should be sued to pay millions to the
> > victims, and die working to repay for having supported their serial
> > killer son(s), not given money. Anyway, the question of ethics has to be
> > dealt with separately. They lose their houses, maybe it will teach them.
> >
> > The fact remains that he paid $25 000 for each terrorist who murdered
> > innocents, and it was a breach of his condition, of article 32. Which
> > was enough to lift the cease fire according to 687e. Period.
> >
> > They didn't even need 1441. 1441 was to tell the world, we WILL apply
> > 687e, OK? And they all said YES.
> >
> > Saddam was fried by going the confrontational way.
>
> Wrong he payed 25000 to each family who lost Son's and Daughters in a
> struggle against
> an oppressive isreali government.
Nah, he paid for murders.
[snip the apologies for murderers, go kiss their ass if you wish he was
breaking article 32 of 687e. Period. Go fuck yourself with all these
terrorists if you don't like it.]
>
> > >
>
> >
> > If he hadn't decided to destroy them days before as scientists tell us.
>
> Iraqi scientists told the world that Iraq has not had biological and
> chemical weapons for years
Do they have the choice?
> Even if he did destory the weapons days before the invasion, the
> infastructor would remain.
Not necessarily as identifiable.
>
> >
> > Oh yes it is, After so many years after the gulf war, the UN didn't find
> > anything in Iraq, until a defector told them where it was, and it was
> > right by.
> >
> > Then, they found tons and tons. And that was before he got smart about
> > them.
> >
> > No, it is very hard, and until Saddam is in custody it will be hard to
> > find anyone who would speak. It is like a mafia, but worse. Even then.
> > They better insure would-be defectors immunity, and lots of money,
> > dozens of millions, to enjoy their freedom with secure settings, 'cause
> > otherwise, why talk? They are sure to lose their lives if they talk &
> > aren't rewarded properly for it.
>
> Nice, so basically your saying that even though the US controls the country
> Saddam is the true power in the country?
Yep. Today we just learned it will take 5 years, FIVE, to get the
country to become clean.
So yes, by then we will have found out about every WMD.
Thank you very much.
>
> But this negates your argument that the US had solid proof of weapons, if
> they had
> the proof, then where are the weapons?
>
They had proof, Saddam destroyed it right before the war. So they have
to find out what happened to the proof.
What is it you don't understand in that?
> > When one think that the brother in law one who helped us so much had no
> > choice but go back there... and be killed. It is a shame. I hope they
> > learn from their mistake.
> >
>
> >
> > Yep. He had them. The question is where are they?
> >
> > Remember that Saddam promised the scientists with death of they talk:
> > http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/24/102447.shtml
> > Hence it is sad but until the US reviews its policy and guarantee them
> > dozens of millions and immunity they won't get any lead. Their noble
> > principles don't help against vermin's like Saddam and their supporters.
>
> Its not the fact that US has not found any weapons, its that the US has not
> found
> a thing to prove weapons existed, so far they have been in control of the
> country for over a month
> and they have a 1000 teams searching, and nothing concreate has been found
Yeah well, it will take the time it will take, they have up to 5 years.
if they take the means I suggest they do, they will get results,
otherwise, it will be like the <5 years prior to an unexpected defector,
except they won't get any unexpected defector. Doesn't change the fact
they had intelligence about him that went south right before the war.
>
> > >
> > > Everyone told him he was wrong that Saddam's biological agents, IF and
> that
> > > was always a big IF
> > > he had them would be crude at best.
> >
> > No one knows. So all who told him he was wrong were clowns. If anything,
> > facts prove he was right until a couple of days before the war.
>
> What facts? The US has no facts, no proof of weapons.
Facts of those that confirm the destruction's of the WMD. Facts are what
Blix tells us even now. Facts are those missing weapons. One has to find
out what happened to them. Be patient, It will take a while.
Only in your dreams.
Kuwait was not part of Iraq centuries BC, nor was it one it was a
country. Before then, Kuwait was part of the ottoman empire as Iraq was.
>
> Once again, your've not proven that Iraq took any actions against Kuwait
> other then making statements
> that Iraq own Kuwait.
Yeah right, as if.
This IS a threat.
This IS why they got the Gulf War. This IS part of their aggression as
stated in 687e. I don't care what you think in your little pea brain, in
687e Kuwait is a country. Never was part of Iraq.
>
> > Only in your dreams.
>
> Bush lied to you.
You wish.
>
> >
> > Right, by lack of evidence you mean you have no clue. Or that you can
> > reveal the world what only Saddam know, and a few in the secret. Why is
> > it that somehow I think YOU make this up?
>
> Your still ashumming that Saddam has biological and chemical weapons to hide
> Clearly, he has little or none.
Doesn't matter, he didn't respect 687e.
>
> > Let the experts do their jobs Danirl.
>
> Funny, you were so not willing to let the experts do the job before the war
> and your still agree with the US that the true experts from the UN should
> not
> be allowed back into join the search, giving international legitmacy to
> anything found.
Bah, they were not allowed to do their jobs by Saddam himself. Now he is
not in the way. We shall see.
>
> > BTW, time for me to ask you something I am curious about, when will you
> > correct your name into Daniel in your headers?
>
> I've been too lazy
hahaha
>
> >
> > > I will ask you once again Jean.
> > >
> > > Where are the biological and Chemical weapons which Iraq was supposed to
> > > have?
> >
> > Bah, in Iraq or Syria or both... Iran? We will find out.
>
> > You pretending you know, why don't you tell us what exactly happened to
> > the missing ones we know existed at least, so that when we find them we
> > can see if you knew anything or were full of shit.
> >
> > Where are they Daniel?
>
> Now now Jean, your the one who made the calm he had them, and your the one
> who keeps
> saying the weapons are there and the US had proof that they were there.
Yep.
>
> So you tell me, where are the weapons Jean, where is the infastructor to
> build and maintain
> the weapons, where are the scietists to design them.
They will find what happened to them eventually. They don't disappear in
thin air. The sooner they take the means to do so, the more likely they
will find out.
>
> And how many times did Iraq use these weapons on US troops in the last war,
> when saddam knew he was
> going to be over thrown
He didn't dare use them. He would have lost support from the traitors to
the US.
>
> Its up to you to provide solid evidence of Iraqi duplisity.
>
Bah I did above, and you have acquiesced seeing it. You may not agree
but I don't give a nun's fart about you not agreeing. You have seen what
he did to break his parole. Doesn't even concern WMD. This is a separate
question that they will solve with time. It is enough for me.
> Face it, all the current released evidence has proven nothing concreate, and
> all we have had from US officals
> are excuses.
>
> Daniel
One thing is sure, if it is what bothers you, they didn't disappear.
Read all blix reports. Stop being lazy and figure it out with nights of
anguish and coffee abuse. And change your damn headline. Maybe it is
because you are lazy that you have no clue.
J.