Uday, Qusay killed in raid
Chuck Wright
Hooray!
See the story at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33693
Chuck Wright
http://www.libertarianism.com/
Melissa
Yeah, time for a Went Away Party!
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
Visit my store: http://www.cafeshops.com/melissa_photo
Denver Libertarian Objectivist Social Club http://tinyurl.com/h9cs
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Talk_Politics_Guns/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Colorado_General/
Also: Rocky Mountain Gun Owners' http://cologunmarket.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Colorado_Gun_Talk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fans_of_Melissa/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GunsSaveLives
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Women_To_Arms/
www.dimensional.com/~melissa/readinglist.htm
Uncle Samuel
wrote:
>
>Hooray!
Damn Chuck, we actually agree!
;-)
Socks the Whitehouse Cat
said in news:3f1e020d$1...@tde03.tde.com:
So how soon will we start seeing emails from scammers claiming to be their
wives with millions of dollars of embezzled funds squirreled away and ready
to be smuggled out of the country.
--
In either case, the Court cautions Plaintiff's counsel not to run with a
sharpened writing utensil in hand--he could put his eye out. (147 F.Supp.2d
668)
Phil Earnhardt
<agent...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>So how soon will we start seeing emails from scammers claiming to be their
>wives with millions of dollars of embezzled funds squirreled away and ready
>to be smuggled out of the country.
Two very funny websites about the Nigerian scam. From issues 92 and 95
of the B3ta newsletter ( www.b3ta.com )
>> Revenge on Spammers <<
We all hate the Nigerian spam. Steve Thompson
does too. He arranged an appointment with
a spammer, flew to Dubai and tried to get him
arrested. "We actually got photos of the scammer
waiting at the airport," writes Steve, "I can't
believe some people are that gullible. Having
been through the process several times I can see
why: greed is the main cause." Great stuff, but
we're not sure about some of language though.
(Coloured? Hmmm.)
http://www.craigmcateer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mupesa.htm
>> Scammers scammed II <<
We've all had those Nigerian scam emails.
Recently we brought you a guy who actually
tracked them down and photographed them. This
week; Ebolamonkeyman. "It started as a hobby,
but now it's a little more than that." he says.
He's been arranging to meet them and getting
them to hold up comedy signs at the airport.
http://www.ebolamonkeyman.com
...and one other site about scamming back on the scammers:
--phil
Melissa
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:33:26 -0600, Chuck Wright <caw...@tde.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Hooray!
>>See the story at
>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33693
>
> Here's the Million Dollar Question for Chuck:
>
> Do you think the US authorities had 100% "Time and Place" certainty
> that the two sons would be at the compound when they attacked?
What's the difference? They surrounded the place, said "come out with your
hands up", and the guys inside started firing at them. Tough shit.
Chuck Wright
the death of Saddam when Saddam had supposedly been killed for the
second time during the war? You were convinced, as were others,
by flimsy evidence while I cautioned that there wasn't any hard
evidence that Saddam was dead. If Uday and Qusay could survive the
war, so could Saddam. While the jury is still out on whether Saddam
is dead or alive (I think he's alive), I think it may be getting close
to the time where I can say I told you so.
Chuck
alohacyberian
news:Xns93C182E7C1...@206.124.0.13...
> Phil Earnhardt <p...@dim.com> said, and I quoteth:
> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:33:26 -0600, Chuck Wright <caw...@tde.com>
> > wrote:
> > Do you think the US authorities had 100% "Time and Place" certainty
> > that the two sons would be at the compound when they attacked?
>
> What's the difference? They surrounded the place, said "come out with your
> hands up", and the guys inside started firing at them. Tough shit.
>
And in any country in the world, had they done what they did, they would have
met the same response. End of story. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
alohacyberian
news:3f1f...@tde03.tde.com...
> Do you remember the quote, "He's dead Jim" that you gave me regarding
> the death of Saddam when Saddam had supposedly been killed for the
> second time during the war? You were convinced, as were others,
> by flimsy evidence while I cautioned that there wasn't any hard
> evidence that Saddam was dead. If Uday and Qusay could survive the
> war, so could Saddam. While the jury is still out on whether Saddam
> is dead or alive (I think he's alive), I think it may be getting close
> to the time where I can say I told you so.
> Chuck
>
Over absolute trivia. KM
Chuck Wright
Phil Earnhardt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:33:26 -0600, Chuck Wright <caw...@tde.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hooray!
>>See the story at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33693
>
>
> Here's the Million Dollar Question for Chuck:
>
> Do you think the US authorities had 100% "Time and Place" certainty
> that the two sons would be at the compound when they attacked?
No. Why do you ask?
Chuck Wright
http://www.libertarianism.com/
Phil Earnhardt
wrote:
>> Do you think the US authorities had 100% "Time and Place" certainty
>> that the two sons would be at the compound when they attacked?
>
>No. Why do you ask?
It's all about the terror alerts: your willingness to criticize the US
Government's policy and your unwillingness to specify exactly what you
think we should be doing instead. It has to do with your repeated
allegation that all of the elevated alerts were "false alarms" and
your failure to even describe that term with rigor -- let alone
document the "falseness" of all of the elevated status alerts.
IYHO, what percentage "Time and Place" certainty is appropriate for
having a threat that would have Tom Ridge raise the Terror Alert
status in the US?
>Chuck Wright
>http://www.libertarianism.com/
Chuck: Does the Libertarian Party know what you're doing with their
Intellectual Property on our newsgroup?
--phil
Melissa
> Do you remember the quote, "He's dead Jim" that you gave me regarding
> the death of Saddam when Saddam had supposedly been killed for the
> second time during the war? You were convinced, as were others,
> by flimsy evidence while I cautioned that there wasn't any hard
> evidence that Saddam was dead. If Uday and Qusay could survive the
> war, so could Saddam. While the jury is still out on whether Saddam
> is dead or alive (I think he's alive), I think it may be getting close
> to the time where I can say I told you so.
We still don't know about Saddam, and you may still be right, rumors are
that he's still alive. But at least we have these photos now, to prove that
his two monster sons are dead. http://www.foxnews.com/ See the link "view
the death photos".
Jim Shapiro
"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one
chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language;
and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings
to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to
come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so
near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of
itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind;
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for
thee."
"Chuck Wright" <caw...@tde.com> wrote in message
news:3f1e020d$1...@tde03.tde.com...
>
> Hooray!
JS
Dori
der...@strandrix.com
>You might take a moment to read Jon Donne's thoughts:
>"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one
>chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language;
>and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings
>to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to
>come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so
>near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of
>itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind;
>and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for
>thee."
Uh-hunh.
"Any man's death diminishes me"?
As if all men are good - Uday and Qusay were evil personified. Mankind is
better for their passing - I just hope it was as painful and prolonged as
possible.
Melissa
...
>> > Yeah, time for a Went Away Party!
>> >
>
> Allahu Akbar!
>
Uh, ok. :)
Even in the Islamic religion, these guys will be roasting in hell by now.
Donald L Ferrt
Why the sons were killed and the Femur chopped off! = Distraction,
Command and control for:
Operation Oily Immunity
By Steve Kretzmann and Jim Valette, AlterNet
July 24, 2003
During the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases
named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon. Those soldiers knew the score, even
if the Pentagon's talking points dismissed any ties between Iraqi oil
and their blood.
The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S.
corporate control over Iraqi resources at least through the year 2007.
The first part of the plan, created by the UN under U.S. pressure is
the Development Fund for Iraq which is being controlled by the U.S.
and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
(IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides
absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil.
In May, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1483,
which ended sanctions and endorsed the creation of Development Fund
for Iraq, to be controlled by Paul Bremer and overseen by a board of
accountants, including UN, World Bank, and IMF representatives. It
endorsed the transfer of over $1 billion (of Iraqi oil money) from the
Oil-for-Food program into the Development Fund. All proceeds from the
sale of Iraqi oil and natural gas are also to be placed into the fund.
In the creation and expected implementation of this Development Fund
for Iraq, one finds the fingerprints of the global economic structural
adjustment that has attracted so much protest in recent years. World
Bank and IMF programs, backed by the rigged rules of the World Trade
Organization, have imposed dramatic financial restructuring upon much
of the world. Developing countries have amassed huge debts in exchange
for selling out their natural resources to powerful Northern
corporations. This paradigm cloaks corporate welfare and
neocolonialism in terms of "poverty alleviation" and now in Iraq,
"humanitarian assistance".
New debt for Iraq will accrue through the very program that President
Bush pledged would 'benefit the people of Iraq.' The Development Fund,
derived from actual and expected Iraqi oil and gas sales, apparently
will be used to leverage U.S. government-backed loans, credit, and
direct financing for U.S. corporate forays into Iraq. Besides
financing reconstruction projects, some of the funds will also be used
as collateral for projects approved by the U.S. Export-Import Bank
(ExIm), whose mission is not development or poverty alleviation, but
rather the creation of U.S. jobs and the promotion of American
business abroad.
ExIm recently announced that it was open for business in Iraq and
would begin considering applications by subcontractors (that is,
companies hired by Bechtel and Halliburton) in Iraq. Corporations have
found it next to impossible to obtain private bank credit for work in
Iraq, due to the ongoing insecure environment. But ExIm has stepped in
to take a lead role in facilitating U.S. business in Iraq.
"The primary source of repayment," explained an ExIm release, "is the
Development Fund for Iraq, or another entity established under the
auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority with access to foreign
exchange and protection from claims of creditors of the former
regime." In other words, the U.S. government is happy to provide
credit to any U.S. business wishing to do business in Iraq –
especially because the money comes from Iraq.
For the Bush/Cheney administration and their allies in the oil
industry, this was not enough. Hours after the UN endorsed U.S.
control of the 'Development Fund' for Iraq, Bush signed an executive
order that was spun as implementing Resolution 1483, but in reality,
went much further towards attracting investment and minimizing risk
for U.S. corporations in Iraq.
Executive Order 13303 decrees that 'any attachment, judgment, decree,
lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited,
and shall be deemed null and void', with respect to the Development
Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and
interests therein."
In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it
will be immune from legal proceedings in the U.S.. Anything that could
go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations
will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at
an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline;
murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of
tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The President, with a
stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims,
creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated
through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to
be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.
In the short term, through the Development Fund and the Export-Import
Bank programs, the Iraqi peoples' oil will finance U.S. corporate
entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order 13303 protects
anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from
the point of production to the gas pump - and places oil companies
above the rule of law.
The authors are analysts with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network
of the Institute for Policy Studies. For more information on Executive
Order 13303, see
Chuck Wright
of Iraq, and I morn for the countless innocent Iraq civilians and US soldiers
who have died, but at least a few good things have come of the war like the
toppling of Saddam's government and the deaths of his sons. Too Uday and Qusay
could have chosen to surrender and live, but they chose to fight it out
and die instead. I shall not shed a tear for them.
Chuck Wright
Aozotorp
>
>Oh good grief! I am totally opposed to the war in Iraq and our occupation
>of Iraq, and I morn for the countless innocent Iraq civilians and US soldiers
>who have died, but at least a few good things have come of the war like the
>toppling of Saddam's government and the deaths of his sons. Too Uday and
>Qusay
>could have chosen to surrender and live, but they chose to fight it out
>and die instead. I shall not shed a tear for them.
>
>Chuck Wright
Well we put Saddam in power in the first place! All the time knowing what a
psycho he was. Now we hope for a kinder Shah of Iran type Puppet! Time will
tell what type of puppet we put in power there!
Jim Shapiro
morning (sic). That's the point, as any high school student realizes.
I'm sorry you don't get it. Millions of others have lived by those
words for 380 years. And by the way, it's not all about shedding
tears. The simple phrase, "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am
involved in mankind", says it all. Think about it.
JS
"Chuck Wright" <caw...@tde.com> wrote in message
news:3f2132f5$1...@tde03.tde.com...
Chuck Wright
I do get it, but it's idiotic. The deaths of these mass murders
doesn't diminish anyone except the murders and their allies.
Instead it brings joy to most people through the knowledge that
these murders will never murder anyone again. Mankind is far
better off without them.
Chuck Wright
http://www.lp.org/
alohacyberian
> Oh good grief! I am totally opposed to the war in Iraq and our occupation
> of Iraq, and I morn for the countless innocent Iraq civilians and US
soldiers
> who have died, but at least a few good things have come of the war like the
> toppling of Saddam's government and the deaths of his sons. Too Uday and
Qusay
> could have chosen to surrender and live, but they chose to fight it out
> and die instead. I shall not shed a tear for them.
>
> Chuck Wright
>
Nor do you ever seem to shed tears for the tens of thousands of Iraqis that
were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered by the Saddam Hussein regime and
family. You'd rather bash Bush than give him credit for stopping Hussein's
atrocities. KM
Chuck Wright
alohacyberian wrote:
> "Chuck Wright" <caw...@tde.com> wrote in message
> news:3f2132f5$1...@tde03.tde.com...
>
>>Oh good grief! I am totally opposed to the war in Iraq and our occupation
>>of Iraq, and I morn for the countless innocent Iraq civilians and US
>
> soldiers
>
>>who have died, but at least a few good things have come of the war like the
>>toppling of Saddam's government and the deaths of his sons. Too Uday and
>
> Qusay
>
>>could have chosen to surrender and live, but they chose to fight it out
>>and die instead. I shall not shed a tear for them.
>>
>>Chuck Wright
>
> Nor do you ever seem to shed tears for the tens of thousands of Iraqis that
> were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered by the Saddam Hussein regime and
> family.
That's a lie.
> You'd rather bash Bush than give him credit for stopping Hussein's
> atrocities. KM
I give Bush credit for that.
By the way, have you read Cato Policy Analysis No. 464 "Why the United
States Should Not Attack Iraq" by Ivan Eland and Bernard Gourley yet?
It's located on the Cato web site at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-464es.html.
Be sure to follow the full text link.
Chuck Wright
http://www.cato.org/
Phil Earnhardt
Did you miss this reply to your question? Or did you simply have no
reply?
My primary objection to posting the Libertarian infomercials is that
you are unwilling to engage on the issues. You did that again in this
thread: you have claimed that the alerts are "false alarms", but you
have categorically failed to rigirously define that term. What would
it mean for a terror alert to be false? And you have failed to
demonstrate, as you claimed, that all of the alerts were "false".
You've also failed to explain why a President who is labeled as "pro
business" would allow the Terror Alert level to be gratuitously raised
-- costing those businesses significant money. Can you explain the
discrepency?
Finally, I am still waiting for your response: Does the Libertarian
Party know what you're doing with their Intellectual Property on the
newsgroup?
Thanks!
--phil
In article <3700iv0nf464gojkh...@4ax.com>,
Uncle Samuel
wrote:
>
>
>alohacyberian wrote:
>
>> "Chuck Wright" <caw...@tde.com> wrote in message
>> news:3f2132f5$1...@tde03.tde.com...
>>
>>>Oh good grief! I am totally opposed to the war in Iraq and our occupation
>>>of Iraq, and I morn for the countless innocent Iraq civilians and US
>>
>> soldiers
>>
>>>who have died, but at least a few good things have come of the war like the
>>>toppling of Saddam's government and the deaths of his sons. Too Uday and
>>
>> Qusay
>>
>>>could have chosen to surrender and live, but they chose to fight it out
>>>and die instead. I shall not shed a tear for them.
>>>
>>>Chuck Wright
>>
>> Nor do you ever seem to shed tears for the tens of thousands of Iraqis that
>> were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered by the Saddam Hussein regime and
>> family.
>
>That's a lie.
Is it ass hole?
Care to try and make that case you POS?
Prepare to be humiliated!
C'mon, bring it!
>> You'd rather bash Bush than give him credit for stopping Hussein's
>> atrocities. KM
>
>I give Bush credit for that.
>
>By the way, have you read Cato Policy Analysis No. 464 "Why the United
>States Should Not Attack Iraq" by Ivan Eland and Bernard Gourley yet?
Fuck CATO!
And Fuck YOU!
Uncle Samuel
Amen brother.
Uncle Samuel
Ferrt) wrote:
>Chuck Wright <caw...@tde.com> wrote in message news:<3f1fe01d$1...@tde03.tde.com>...
>> Phil Earnhardt wrote:
>> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:33:26 -0600, Chuck Wright <caw...@tde.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Hooray!
>> >>See the story at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33693
>> >
>> >
>> > Here's the Million Dollar Question for Chuck:
>> >
>> > Do you think the US authorities had 100% "Time and Place" certainty
>> > that the two sons would be at the compound when they attacked?
>>
>> No. Why do you ask?
>>
>
>Why the sons were killed and the Femur chopped off! =
U R STUPID!
Now shut up ferret head!
alohacyberian
> alohacyberian wrote:
> > "Chuck Wright" <caw...@tde.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f2132f5$1...@tde03.tde.com...
>
> States Should Not Attack Iraq" by Ivan Eland and Bernard Gourley yet?
> It's located on the Cato web site at
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-464es.html.
> Be sure to follow the full text link.
>
No, I read the Gulf War Treaty which was signed by Saddam Hussein and shows
the reasons why the United States should have attacked Iraq and I've read the
Chapter VII Resolutions of the United Nations which Hussein violated,
thereby, providing grounds for the Allies to attack. Those are the things
that count. Apologies to Cato, but, their opinions have no bearing in
international law, though it's evident they enjoy ignoring laws that don't
support their prejudices. If they wish to continue living in fantasyland,
that's their prerogative, but, I hope they don't mind if the rest of us stick
to more pragmatic things, like facts. KM
alohacyberian
news:o3gshvs4o3c6ab308...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:33:26 -0600, Chuck Wright <caw...@tde.com>
> wrote:
> >Hooray!
> >See the story at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33693
>
> Here's the Million Dollar Question for Chuck:
>
> Do you think the US authorities had 100% "Time and Place" certainty
> that the two sons would be at the compound when they attacked?
>
Who cares? Uday and Qusay have gone to the great torture chamber in the sky,
only maybe this time they might be on the receiving end of things. ;-) KM
Donald L Ferrt
http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp
headline:
The Bush administration's
Top 40 Lies
about war and terrorism
... (c0nt)
Uncle Samuel
Ferrt) wrote:
>headline:
25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
ferret-boy!
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:ulmeiv07ek28uu716...@4ax.com...
Conservative intellectual thought. Ain't it grand?
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
How many Iraqis did George I force our troops to stand by and watch being
slaughtered? Pike Bishop.
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
Brilliant! Do you vote Republican with the same mouth?
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>
> Amen brother.
I don't think you have a brother, I think your mother submitted to voluntary
sterilization after going through the horror of giving birth to slime like
you.
Uncle Samuel
A: None.
Q: How many Kurds did Soddem gas?
Uncle Samuel
Careful, keep repeating that and you might just have one...
>Ain't it grand?
Tis indeed, not that a moron like you'd know...
Uncle Samuel
>
>"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>news:tkmeivk63ic6pnc68...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Amen brother.
>
>I don't think you have a brother,
But you don't think period, so that comes as no surprise, moron.
Uncle Samuel
Thank you!
> Do you vote Republican with the same mouth?
I don't think I've ever had the option to vote that way. they do
things differently where you are, moron?
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
You're saying you forgot how George Herber Walker Moron Bush cleverly
negotiated to allow Saddam to fly armed gunships at the end of the last Iraq
Debacle permitting him to slaughter the Shia whom Bush himself incited into
insurrection and then ordered US occupying troops to stand by and take no
action? Same belligerent idiocy with no endgame plan as we're watching go
down the drain today. History repeats itself if you're too stupid to learn
from it.
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
And then congratulate yourself.
> > Do you vote Republican with the same mouth?
>
> I don't think I've ever had the option to vote that way. they do
> things differently where you are, moron?
Is there still a literacy test to vote in your redneck county? Or are you
in one of the Bush banana republics Florida where they don't have time to
count the votes anyway?
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
I was sure your mother wouldn't go through the horror twice. Looks like I
hit the bull's-eye.
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
ooh, ooh, I think a feel a conservative intellectual thought coming. Um,
"ass-burp", "shaddup" " "moron". There, real free-market, family-values
ideas, eh? Original as hell, too.
> >Ain't it grand?
>
> Tis indeed, not that a moron like you'd know...
I suppose you get used to the smell after a while.
Donald L Ferrt
Hard to say what will happen = after all, we put Saddam I into Power
along with his Party!
Jason Bowen
The United States supports genocidal despots? At least that's what you
called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
Uncle Samuel
Ferrt) wrote:
>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote in message news:<df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com>...
>> On 30 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>> Ferrt) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >headline:
>>
>> 25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
>> ferret-boy!
>
>Hard to say what will happen = after all, we put Saddam I into Power
>along with his Party!
And the Brits gave 'em King Faisal, it can't be any worse...
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
>In article <df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com>,
>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>>On 30 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>>Ferrt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>headline:
>>
>>25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
>>ferret-boy!
>
>The United States supports genocidal despots?
Q: Did we just remove the asshole?
A: Yes.
>At least that's what you
>called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
Surprise, he turned out to be a creep, now he's history.
Deal with it!
Uncle Samuel
>
>"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>news:skmiiv8inrj634oak...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:34:05 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> >news:df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com...
>> >> On 30 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>> >> Ferrt) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >headline:
>> >>
>> >> 25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
>> >> ferret-boy!
>> >
>> >How many Iraqis did George I force our troops to stand by and watch being
>> >slaughtered?
>>
>> A: None.
>
>You're saying
None, period.
Uncle Samuel
Well don't let it split yer thick l;iberal skull wide open.
> Um,
>"ass-burp", "shaddup" " "moron". There, real free-market, family-values
>ideas, eh? Original as hell, too.
Nothing about you bears any need for originality.
>> >Ain't it grand?
>>
>> Tis indeed, not that a moron like you'd know...
>
>I suppose you get used to the smell after a while.
Nah, you stink as bad as ever.
Uncle Samuel
Why not, I'm worth it!
>> > Do you vote Republican with the same mouth?
>>
>> I don't think I've ever had the option to vote that way. they do
>> things differently where you are, moron?
>
>Is there still a literacy test to vote in your redneck county?
Moron, can you stay on the subject for one volley?
Apparently not...
When's the last time you cast a voice vote in an election?
Uncle Samuel
>
>"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>news:somiivc0q4p08sj7l...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:36:25 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> >news:tkmeivk63ic6pnc68...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> Amen brother.
>> >
>> >I don't think you have a brother,
>>
>> But you don't think period, so that comes as no surprise, moron.
>
>I was sure
You ain't sure of anything, go crawl back in yer apartment spam-brain.
Jason Bowen
Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2003 18:28:16 GMT, bow...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason
>Bowen) wrote:
>
>>In article <df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com>,
>>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>>>On 30 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>>>Ferrt) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>headline:
>>>
>>>25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
>>>ferret-boy!
>>
>>The United States supports genocidal despots?
>
>Q: Did we just remove the asshole?
>
>A: Yes.
>
You're not very skilled at logic. Can you answer the question?
>>At least that's what you
>>called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
>
>Surprise, he turned out to be a creep, now he's history.
>
>Deal with it!
>
Ahh a revisionist. The US supported him when he served it's purpose.
He's always been the same person.
Jason Bowen
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
Fact is the Soddem regime is history now - that is all that matters at
this point.
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
>In article <d5elivgt32u1dsv2j...@4ax.com>,
>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>>On 1 Aug 2003 18:28:16 GMT, bow...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason
>>Bowen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com>,
>>>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>>>>On 30 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>>>>Ferrt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>headline:
>>>>
>>>>25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
>>>>ferret-boy!
>>>
>>>The United States supports genocidal despots?
>>
>>Q: Did we just remove the asshole?
>>
>>A: Yes.
>>
>
>You're not very skilled at logic.
More than you'd admit..
> Can you answer the question?
I have.
>>>At least that's what you
>>>called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
>>
>>Surprise, he turned out to be a creep, now he's history.
>>
>>Deal with it!
>>
>
>Ahh a revisionist.
Nothing to revise, he turned out to be just that - a creep.
> The US supported him when he served it's purpose.
Sometime the best bet is still a loser.
>He's always been the same person.
No, he got a lot worse over the years.
Jason Bowen
Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2003 19:14:49 GMT, bow...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason
>Bowen) wrote:
>
>>In article <p3eliv0p8nm6ps0p6...@4ax.com>,
>>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>>>On 1 Aug 2003 11:25:42 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>>>Ferrt) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote in message news:<df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com>...
>>>>> On 30 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>>>>> Ferrt) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >headline:
>>>>>
>>>>> 25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
>>>>> ferret-boy!
>>>>
>>>>Hard to say what will happen = after all, we put Saddam I into Power
>>>>along with his Party!
>>>
>>>And the Brits gave 'em King Faisal, it can't be any worse...
>>
>>Your statement doesn't change the known facts.
>
>Fact is the Soddem regime is history now - that is all that matters at
>this point.
We supported him, that matters. We didn't care about his or the Baath
parties actions. If you can't acknowledge that we supported you aren't a
very honest person.
Jason Bowen
Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2003 19:13:50 GMT, bow...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason
>Bowen) wrote:
>
>>In article <d5elivgt32u1dsv2j...@4ax.com>,
>>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>>>On 1 Aug 2003 18:28:16 GMT, bow...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason
>>>Bowen) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com>,
>>>>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>>>>>On 30 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>>>>>Ferrt) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>headline:
>>>>>
>>>>>25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
>>>>>ferret-boy!
>>>>
>>>>The United States supports genocidal despots?
>>>
>>>Q: Did we just remove the asshole?
>>>
>>>A: Yes.
>>>
>>
>>You're not very skilled at logic.
>
>More than you'd admit..
>
You called him a genocidal despot, we supported him when it benefitted us.
What does your logic say?
>> Can you answer the question?
>
>I have.
>
Still haven't. I sense you are afraid to.
>>>>At least that's what you
>>>>called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
>>>
>>>Surprise, he turned out to be a creep, now he's history.
>>>
>>>Deal with it!
>>>
>>
>>Ahh a revisionist.
>
>Nothing to revise, he turned out to be just that - a creep.
>
He was a "creep" when we supported him in his war with Iran.
>> The US supported him when he served it's purpose.
>
>Sometime the best bet is still a loser.
>
The US supported a genocidal despot by your logic.
>>He's always been the same person.
>
>No, he got a lot worse over the years.
Irrelevant, he commited attrocities when we supported him.
alohacyberian
news:bgbgck$cup$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
It's what happened in the end, dearie, that counts. Why didn't you ask that
question of William Jefferson Clinton? *Doh!* KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
alohacyberian
news:b9eb3efe.03080...@posting.google.com...
but, I'm not sure who you mean by "we". "We", of course, includes you, so
please tell us your role in putting Saddam into Power. Aren't you ashamed of
yourself? KM
alohacyberian
news:bgebg0$n19$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
Hussein.
As it happens, _The Weekly Standard_ "Scrapbook" column has a short piece
with a graph using data from the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute. Not likely to be a pro-America source. [The Institute source is
here:
http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html ]
The graph is titled, and the numbers are:
"How the United States Armed Iraq - Weapons imported by Iraq, 1973-2002"
USSR - 57%
France - 13%
China - 12%
Czech. - 7%
Poland - 4%
Brazil - 2%
Egypt, Romania, Denmark, Libya, USA - 1% each
~ data from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, via _Weekly
Standard_, April 14, 2003
How was that, again, "WE" made Saddam what he is? Appears not to be so...
~ David C. Kifer
Ain't facts a bitch? KM
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
>In article <iqmlivsi018a7t80e...@4ax.com>,
>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>>On 1 Aug 2003 19:14:49 GMT, bow...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason
>>Bowen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <p3eliv0p8nm6ps0p6...@4ax.com>,
>>>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>>>>On 1 Aug 2003 11:25:42 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>>>>Ferrt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote in message news:<df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com>...
>>>>>> On 30 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>>>>>> Ferrt) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >headline:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
>>>>>> ferret-boy!
>>>>>
>>>>>Hard to say what will happen = after all, we put Saddam I into Power
>>>>>along with his Party!
>>>>
>>>>And the Brits gave 'em King Faisal, it can't be any worse...
>>>
>>>Your statement doesn't change the known facts.
>>
>>Fact is the Soddem regime is history now - that is all that matters at
>>this point.
>
>We supported him, that matters.
No it does not going forward.
> We didn't care about his or the Baath
>parties actions.
So why did we take him out?
>If you can't acknowledge that we supported you aren't a
>very honest person.
Crap.
We took the best bet in a loser game, and then we doubled down - deal
with it.
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
Nah, he was not even half the ass hole he turned into back then.
>>> The US supported him when he served it's purpose.
>>
>>Sometime the best bet is still a loser.
>>
>
>The US supported a genocidal despot by your logic.
We took the best bet in a loser's game - deal with it.
>>>He's always been the same person.
>>
>>No, he got a lot worse over the years.
>
>Irrelevant,
No you ass-burp it IS NOT irrelevant!
>he commited attrocities when we supported him.
He did worse after,and his sons too!
Screw you.
Uncle Samuel
Oh man, they always make a liberal cry!
Jason Bowen
Unable to reconcile your own logic?
>>>> Can you answer the question?
>>>
>>>I have.
>>>
>>
>>Still haven't. I sense you are afraid to.
>>
Maybe so heh?
>>>>>>At least that's what you
>>>>>>called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
>>>>>
>>>>>Surprise, he turned out to be a creep, now he's history.
>>>>>
>>>>>Deal with it!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ahh a revisionist.
>>>
>>>Nothing to revise, he turned out to be just that - a creep.
>>>
>>
>>He was a "creep" when we supported him in his war with Iran.
>
>Nah, he was not even half the ass hole he turned into back then.
>
He was the same brutal leader. It just served us to have him fight Iran.
>>>> The US supported him when he served it's purpose.
>>>
>>>Sometime the best bet is still a loser.
>>>
>>
>>The US supported a genocidal despot by your logic.
>
>We took the best bet in a loser's game - deal with it.
>
You need to deal with the fact that the US supports genocidal despots.
>>>>He's always been the same person.
>>>
>>>No, he got a lot worse over the years.
>>
>>Irrelevant,
>
>No you ass-burp it IS NOT irrelevant!
>
Yeah it is. He was ruling by fear and intimidation since he rose to
power.
>>he commited attrocities when we supported him.
>
>He did worse after,and his sons too!
>
>Screw you.
>
No thanks. Does it hurt to realize that members of the current
administration had business relations with Iraq and supported them in
their war with Iran?
Jason Bowen
alohacyberian <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>"Jason Bowen" <bow...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
>news:bgebg0$n19$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>> In article <df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com>,
>> Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote:
>> >On 30 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>> >Ferrt) wrote:
>> >25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
>> >ferret-boy!
>>
>> The United States supports genocidal despots? At least that's what you
>> called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
>>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html
Your graph was meaningless, we did support them.
Jason Bowen
It does matter, is shows that our actions aren't absolutely moral.
>> We didn't care about his or the Baath
>>parties actions.
>
>So why did we take him out?
>
It benefitted us. How many malevolent dictators are in power today
commiting genocide?
>>If you can't acknowledge that we supported you aren't a
>>very honest person.
>
>Crap.
>
>We took the best bet in a loser game, and then we doubled down - deal
>with it.
We supported somebody that by your own words was genocidal.
Jason Bowen
The US contributed, no crying hear as I'm not a liberal, more of a
libertarian. I just hate people that can't think for themselves. I'm not
stupid, I know that the adminstration lied to justify the war. Little boy
is finishing the job that Daddy should've. The only people that should've
toppled Saddam are the Iraqi's. How stupid are you? The USA contributed
1%, that's not 0%.
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
Absolute anything is irrelevant - only God's law is "absolutely
moral".
>>> We didn't care about his or the Baath
>>>parties actions.
>>
>>So why did we take him out?
>>
>
>It benefitted us.
Good answer, I like it.
> How many malevolent dictators are in power today
>commiting genocide?
Moot point, how many people did we liberate from Soddem's abuses?
>>>If you can't acknowledge that we supported you aren't a
>>>very honest person.
>>
>>Crap.
>>
>>We took the best bet in a loser game, and then we doubled down - deal
>>with it.
>
>We supported somebody that by your own words was genocidal.
We let the UN and a buncha woosies keep him around 12 years too long,
nice to see someone finally said "enough"!
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
What's to reconcile?
>>>>> Can you answer the question?
>>>>
>>>>I have.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Still haven't. I sense you are afraid to.
>>>
>
>Maybe so heh?
And maybe not so.
>>>>>>>At least that's what you
>>>>>>>called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Surprise, he turned out to be a creep, now he's history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Deal with it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ahh a revisionist.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing to revise, he turned out to be just that - a creep.
>>>>
>>>
>>>He was a "creep" when we supported him in his war with Iran.
>>
>>Nah, he was not even half the ass hole he turned into back then.
>>
>
>He was the same brutal leader.
No, he was not, he and his evil sons got much worse over time, grow
up.
> It just served us to have him fight Iran.
I think that's another rat's nest that needs a good cleaning, don't
you?
>>>>> The US supported him when he served it's purpose.
>>>>
>>>>Sometime the best bet is still a loser.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The US supported a genocidal despot by your logic.
>>
>>We took the best bet in a loser's game - deal with it.
>>
>
>You need to deal with the fact that the US supports genocidal despots.
You need to deal with the fact that in some parts of the world there
simply aren't any "good" choices...
>>>>>He's always been the same person.
>>>>
>>>>No, he got a lot worse over the years.
>>>
>>>Irrelevant,
>>
>>No you ass-burp it IS NOT irrelevant!
>>
>
>Yeah it is.
No it is NOT!
> He was ruling by fear and intimidation since he rose to
>power.
And he graduated up into wholesale genocide and complete victimization
of his people.
>>>he commited attrocities when we supported him.
>>
>>He did worse after,and his sons too!
>>
>>Screw you.
>>
>
>No thanks. Does it hurt to realize that members of the current
>administration had business relations with Iraq and supported them in
>their war with Iran?
No, not a bit. We still have to work with the realities of the region,
it's mineral resources, and make the best calls possible. Not an easy
job given the nut cases who live there. And obviously not a job a
witless ideologue like you could ever manage to carry off.
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
Oh fer crissakes, no wonder you've got such a detachment from reality!
> I just hate people that can't think for themselves. I'm not
>stupid, I know that the adminstration lied to justify the war.
Did they now...
Did they lie when they said we needed to remove him because he's:
1. a regional terror sponsor
2. a vile genocidal despot?
> Little boy
>is finishing the job that Daddy should've.
And the one the gutless UN neutered for 12 long years...so?
> The only people that should've
>toppled Saddam are the Iraqi's.
Now how you figger they were gonna do that?
How many secret police agencies did he have?
How tight was his control?
Well?
> How stupid are you? The USA contributed
>1%, that's not 0%.
BFD.
Donald L Ferrt
Nope = we make Saddam and put him in power:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html
Und:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,776844,00.html
US helped as Saddam plotted chemical attacks, report says
David Teather, New York
Monday August 19, 2002
The Guardian
The US conducted a covert military campaign to help Iraq during its
war with Iran, despite knowing that Baghdad intended to use chemical
weapons in a number of battles, according to a report in the New York
Times.
The report says the programme was carried out during the Reagan
administration, at a time when the White House was publicly condemning
Iraq for its use of lethal gas.
President George Bush and the his national security adviser,
Condoleezza Rice, have repeatedly cited Iraq's use of gas during the
1981-1988 conflict as justification for a potential attack on the
country.
The report quotes senior officers with direct knowledge of the secret
programme.
The sources said that US aid was given in the form of critical battle
planning assistance.
It has long been known that the US provided intelligence to the Iraqis
from satellite photography to help them see where Iranian forces were
massing against them.
But the highly classified programme is said to have involved more than
60 defence intelligence agency officers who secretly provided
information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles,
plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments.
The allegations may embarrass the secretary of state, Colin Powell,
who was Ronald Reagan's national security adviser.
Through a spokesman, he described the report as "dead wrong".
During the war the US wanted to see Iran thwarted, fearing that it
would overrun other oil producing states and possibly spread its
Islamic revolution.
Frank Carlucci, a former defence secretary, said he understood that
Iraq was given "general order-of-battle information, not operational
intelligence". He added: "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the
war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical
weapons."
The officers cited said that although Iraq did not share its plans to
use chemical weapons, it had become increasingly evident that they
were part of the nation's arsenal.
Colonel Walter Lang, who was a senior defence intelligence official at
the time, said the defence intelligence agency and the CIA were
"desperate" to make sure that Iraq did not lose the war with Iran.
"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of
deep strategic concern," he told the Times.
Another veteran of the programme said the Pentagon "wasn't so
horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing
people - whether by bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any
difference."
Jason Bowen
At least you agree that we don't act as moral agents absolutely.
>>>> We didn't care about his or the Baath
>>>>parties actions.
>>>
>>>So why did we take him out?
>>>
>>
>>It benefitted us.
>
>Good answer, I like it.
>
Think you're Sam Kinison?
>> How many malevolent dictators are in power today
>>commiting genocide?
>
>Moot point, how many people did we liberate from Soddem's abuses?
>
Quite a point. Why don't we make efforts to free ALL people?
>
>>>>If you can't acknowledge that we supported you aren't a
>>>>very honest person.
>>>
>>>Crap.
>>>
>>>We took the best bet in a loser game, and then we doubled down - deal
>>>with it.
>>
>>We supported somebody that by your own words was genocidal.
>
>We let the UN and a buncha woosies keep him around 12 years too long,
>nice to see someone finally said "enough"!
Bullshit, George I told our military to stand down and let the Iraqi army
brutally slaughter a rebellion because we decided that wasn't part of the
plan. You are a revisionist.
Jason Bowen
The US supported a genocidal despot. You are pretty slow.
>>>>>> Can you answer the question?
>>>>>
>>>>>I have.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Still haven't. I sense you are afraid to.
>>>>
>>
>>Maybe so heh?
>
>And maybe not so.
>
You aren't very good at being coy. The best you can do is to try to
shout down people that don't agree with you.
>>>>>>>>At least that's what you
>>>>>>>>called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Surprise, he turned out to be a creep, now he's history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Deal with it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ahh a revisionist.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing to revise, he turned out to be just that - a creep.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He was a "creep" when we supported him in his war with Iran.
>>>
>>>Nah, he was not even half the ass hole he turned into back then.
>>>
>>
>>He was the same brutal leader.
>
>No, he was not, he and his evil sons got much worse over time, grow
>up.
>
You grow up. Did the US military sit by and let Iraqi gun ships slaughter
a rebellion?
>> It just served us to have him fight Iran.
>
>I think that's another rat's nest that needs a good cleaning, don't
>you?
>
I think Countries should defend themselves.
>>>>>> The US supported him when he served it's purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sometime the best bet is still a loser.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The US supported a genocidal despot by your logic.
>>>
>>>We took the best bet in a loser's game - deal with it.
>>>
>>
>>You need to deal with the fact that the US supports genocidal despots.
>
>You need to deal with the fact that in some parts of the world there
>simply aren't any "good" choices...
>
Getting the f**k out is a good one. Making yourself dependent on an
unstable region is really stupid, unless you happen to make good money off
of it.
>>>>>>He's always been the same person.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he got a lot worse over the years.
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant,
>>>
>>>No you ass-burp it IS NOT irrelevant!
>>>
>>
>>Yeah it is.
>
>No it is NOT!
>
Yeah it is. Did George I let Iraqi gunships slaughter those trying to
rebel after instigating them to rise up?
>> He was ruling by fear and intimidation since he rose to
>>power.
>
>And he graduated up into wholesale genocide and complete victimization
>of his people.
>
He did this from the beginning.
>>>>he commited attrocities when we supported him.
>>>
>>>He did worse after,and his sons too!
>>>
>>>Screw you.
>>>
>>
>>No thanks. Does it hurt to realize that members of the current
>>administration had business relations with Iraq and supported them in
>>their war with Iran?
>
>No, not a bit. We still have to work with the realities of the region,
>it's mineral resources, and make the best calls possible. Not an easy
>job given the nut cases who live there. And obviously not a job a
>witless ideologue like you could ever manage to carry off.
>
At least you acknowledge sleeping with the enemy.
Jason Bowen
The classic attack the messenger instead of the message tactic. Going to
that already? The US did contribute, it's well known.
>> I just hate people that can't think for themselves. I'm not
>>stupid, I know that the adminstration lied to justify the war.
>
>Did they now...
>
>Did they lie when they said we needed to remove him because he's:
>
>1. a regional terror sponsor
>
>2. a vile genocidal despot?
>
The biggest case was made for WMD. Personally the region and the people
there need to take care of there own affairs. You'll note that regional
terrror sponsors and vile genocial despots do well in areas that aren't
important to us. Get over your moral impetus.
> >> Little boy
>>is finishing the job that Daddy should've.
>
>And the one the gutless UN neutered for 12 long years...so?
>
Who let the Iraqi gunships slaughter the rebellion? Why did we not
advance to Baghdad? You can stop blaiming the UN, they didn't control us.
>> The only people that should've
>>toppled Saddam are the Iraqi's.
>
>
>Now how you figger they were gonna do that?
>
It's not up to me or you to plan for them. We helped supply Osama quite
well in Afghanistan did we not?
>How many secret police agencies did he have?
>
>How tight was his control?
>
>Well?
>
It was so tight that a lot of those people welcomed us. Saddam obviously
had insiders giving us information as to his locations. He was smart
enough to start going to his aides one by one to set up meetings and when
those meeting places were bombed he knew that the had betrayed him and
they were killed. If a people want freedrom they will fight and die for
it, even against those odds.
>> How stupid are you? The USA contributed >>1%, that's
not 0%. > >BFD.
Your points keep getting refuted an all can do is make inane comments.
Must be a conservative moron whose agenda is based on not destroying his
vision of what the world is. You sir are an asshole, and shouldn't even
try to associate yourself with conservatives as the conservative I know
base their arguments on facts and logic, not the tripe you spew.
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
I prefer catfish misself....
> The best you can do is to try to
>shout down people that don't agree with you.
Morons git what they earn, deal with it.
>>>>>>>>>At least that's what you
>>>>>>>>>called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Surprise, he turned out to be a creep, now he's history.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Deal with it!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ahh a revisionist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nothing to revise, he turned out to be just that - a creep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He was a "creep" when we supported him in his war with Iran.
>>>>
>>>>Nah, he was not even half the ass hole he turned into back then.
>>>>
>>>
>>>He was the same brutal leader.
>>
>>No, he was not, he and his evil sons got much worse over time, grow
>>up.
>>
>
>You grow up.
Bite me.
> Did the US military sit by and let Iraqi gun ships slaughter
>a rebellion?
Did the UN back us out prematurely and then spend 12 years playing
shell games?
Your revisionism is showing big time.
>>> It just served us to have him fight Iran.
>>
>>I think that's another rat's nest that needs a good cleaning, don't
>>you?
>>
>
>I think Countries should defend themselves.
We do.
>>>>>>> The US supported him when he served it's purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sometime the best bet is still a loser.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The US supported a genocidal despot by your logic.
>>>>
>>>>We took the best bet in a loser's game - deal with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You need to deal with the fact that the US supports genocidal despots.
>>
>>You need to deal with the fact that in some parts of the world there
>>simply aren't any "good" choices...
>>
>
>Getting the f**k out is a good one.
Not without a credible energy replacement strategy, nope.
> Making yourself dependent on an
>unstable region is really stupid, unless you happen to make good money off
>of it.
When it runs down, they'll be the ones who lose out.
>>>>>>>He's always been the same person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, he got a lot worse over the years.
>>>>>
>>>>>Irrelevant,
>>>>
>>>>No you ass-burp it IS NOT irrelevant!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah it is.
>>
>>No it is NOT!
>>
>
>Yeah it is.
No it is not.
> Did George I let Iraqi gunships slaughter those trying to
>rebel after instigating them to rise up?
Did the UN "coalition" partners back us out to soon?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
"LADY THATCHER marked the 10th anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait
yesterday by saying allied forces should have pressed on into Iraq to
crush Saddam Hussein for good.
She told the Telegraph: "I only wish that I had stayed on to finish
the job properly. Perhaps then we wouldn't be where we are today with
this cruel and terrible man still securely in power."
John Major, standing a few yards away, may well have overheard his
predecessor's pronouncement. He certainly lost no time rebutting the
views of Lady Thatcher, with whom, minutes earlier, he had planted a
ceremonial victory tree. Choosing his words carefully, he said:."I
know of no senior military or political leader of the time in question
who was in favour of our forces pushing on into Iraq."
He said: "I could give you half a dozen good reasons why we did not do
so, starting with the fact that the UN mandate under which allied
forces were operating made no allowance for that whatsoever."
According to Mr Major, the Arab nations that took part in Operation
Desert Storm would never have gone along with an invasion of Iraq.
He said: "It would have split the whole coalition wide open at a time
when unity was crucial."
>>> He was ruling by fear and intimidation since he rose to
>>>power.
>>
>>And he graduated up into wholesale genocide and complete victimization
>>of his people.
>>
>
>He did this from the beginning.
No, he got worse with time.
>>>>>he commited attrocities when we supported him.
>>>>
>>>>He did worse after,and his sons too!
>>>>
>>>>Screw you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No thanks. Does it hurt to realize that members of the current
>>>administration had business relations with Iraq and supported them in
>>>their war with Iran?
>>
>>No, not a bit. We still have to work with the realities of the region,
>>it's mineral resources, and make the best calls possible. Not an easy
>>job given the nut cases who live there. And obviously not a job a
>>witless ideologue like you could ever manage to carry off.
>>
>
>At least you acknowledge sleeping with the enemy.
I may have voted for a Democrat or two in my life, but we all make
mistakes.
Jason Bowen
At least you don't deny it.
>>>>>>>> Can you answer the question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Still haven't. I sense you are afraid to.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Maybe so heh?
>>>
>>>And maybe not so.
>>>
>>
>>You aren't very good at being coy.
>
>I prefer catfish misself....
>
>> The best you can do is to try to
>>shout down people that don't agree with you.
>
>Morons git what they earn, deal with it.
>
You're correct. You're a moron and that's the best a moron can do with
what they've earned.
>>>>>>>>>>At least that's what you
>>>>>>>>>>called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Surprise, he turned out to be a creep, now he's history.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Deal with it!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ahh a revisionist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nothing to revise, he turned out to be just that - a creep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He was a "creep" when we supported him in his war with Iran.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nah, he was not even half the ass hole he turned into back then.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He was the same brutal leader.
>>>
>>>No, he was not, he and his evil sons got much worse over time, grow
>>>up.
>>>
>>
>>You grow up.
>
>Bite me.
>
Ohhh witty rejoinder.
>> Did the US military sit by and let Iraqi gun ships slaughter
>>a rebellion?
>
>Did the UN back us out prematurely and then spend 12 years playing
>shell games?
>
George I instigated a rebellion and didn't support it.
>Your revisionism is showing big time.
>
No revisionism. If George was gonna instigate something he should've
backed it up.
>
>>>> It just served us to have him fight Iran.
>>>
>>>I think that's another rat's nest that needs a good cleaning, don't
>>>you?
>>>
>>
>>I think Countries should defend themselves.
>
>We do.
>
>>>>>>>> The US supported him when he served it's purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sometime the best bet is still a loser.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The US supported a genocidal despot by your logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>We took the best bet in a loser's game - deal with it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You need to deal with the fact that the US supports genocidal despots.
>>>
>>>You need to deal with the fact that in some parts of the world there
>>>simply aren't any "good" choices...
>>>
>>
>>Getting the f**k out is a good one.
>
>Not without a credible energy replacement strategy, nope.
>
I'm sure we are capable of it but there are forces that would work against
that. Any economic transition causes pain, is our involvement in the
middle east better than the pain? You can tell your absolutely moral God
that there was no other choice when you meet him.
>> Making yourself dependent on an
>>unstable region is really stupid, unless you happen to make good money off
>>of it.
>
>When it runs down, they'll be the ones who lose out.
>
There will be economic pain in the transition, no invention comes without
change.
>>>>>>>>He's always been the same person.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, he got a lot worse over the years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Irrelevant,
>>>>>
>>>>>No you ass-burp it IS NOT irrelevant!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah it is.
>>>
>>>No it is NOT!
>>>
>>
>>Yeah it is.
>
>No it is not.
>
Yeah it is.
>> Did George I let Iraqi gunships slaughter those trying to
>>rebel after instigating them to rise up?
>
>Did the UN "coalition" partners back us out to soon?
>
George should'nt have instigated rebellion that would fail without help.
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
>
>"LADY THATCHER marked the 10th anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait
>yesterday by saying allied forces should have pressed on into Iraq to
>crush Saddam Hussein for good.
>
>She told the Telegraph: "I only wish that I had stayed on to finish
>the job properly. Perhaps then we wouldn't be where we are today with
>this cruel and terrible man still securely in power."
>
>John Major, standing a few yards away, may well have overheard his
>predecessor's pronouncement. He certainly lost no time rebutting the
>views of Lady Thatcher, with whom, minutes earlier, he had planted a
>ceremonial victory tree. Choosing his words carefully, he said:."I
>know of no senior military or political leader of the time in question
>who was in favour of our forces pushing on into Iraq."
>
>He said: "I could give you half a dozen good reasons why we did not do
>so, starting with the fact that the UN mandate under which allied
>forces were operating made no allowance for that whatsoever."
>According to Mr Major, the Arab nations that took part in Operation
>Desert Storm would never have gone along with an invasion of Iraq.
>
>He said: "It would have split the whole coalition wide open at a time
>when unity was crucial."
>
Who else in the coaltion encouraged rebellion without support?
>
>>>> He was ruling by fear and intimidation since he rose to
>>>>power.
>>>
>>>And he graduated up into wholesale genocide and complete victimization
>>>of his people.
>>>
>>
>>He did this from the beginning.
>
>No, he got worse with time.
>
So tell me the scale the US works on. At what point do they not suport
the dictator since you think you have a firm grasp on this subject?
>>>>>>he commited attrocities when we supported him.
>>>>>
>>>>>He did worse after,and his sons too!
>>>>>
>>>>>Screw you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No thanks. Does it hurt to realize that members of the current
>>>>administration had business relations with Iraq and supported them in
>>>>their war with Iran?
>>>
>>>No, not a bit. We still have to work with the realities of the region,
>>>it's mineral resources, and make the best calls possible. Not an easy
>>>job given the nut cases who live there. And obviously not a job a
>>>witless ideologue like you could ever manage to carry off.
>>>
>>
>>At least you acknowledge sleeping with the enemy.
>
>I may have voted for a Democrat or two in my life, but we all make
>mistakes.
>
George I supporting rebellion without the proper support was a big
mistake.
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
How could any human?
>>>>> We didn't care about his or the Baath
>>>>>parties actions.
>>>>
>>>>So why did we take him out?
>>>>
>>>
>>>It benefitted us.
>>
>>Good answer, I like it.
>>
>
>Think you're Sam Kinison?
Or maybe Bennet Cerf...
>>> How many malevolent dictators are in power today
>>>commiting genocide?
>>
>>Moot point, how many people did we liberate from Soddem's abuses?
>>
>
>Quite a point. Why don't we make efforts to free ALL people?
Impossible to do at one time - duh...
>>
>>>>>If you can't acknowledge that we supported you aren't a
>>>>>very honest person.
>>>>
>>>>Crap.
>>>>
>>>>We took the best bet in a loser game, and then we doubled down - deal
>>>>with it.
>>>
>>>We supported somebody that by your own words was genocidal.
>>
>>We let the UN and a buncha woosies keep him around 12 years too long,
>>nice to see someone finally said "enough"!
>
>Bullshit, George I told our military to stand down and let the Iraqi army
>brutally slaughter a rebellion because we decided that wasn't part of the
>plan. You are a revisionist.
Try again, the UN and the coalition queered that deal, then set about
12 years of shell games.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
"The recent bombing raids near Baghdad by British and American
aircraft were "totally justified". She said: "It was legal, it was
within the law and nobody could say anything against it."
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
Nah, I've just heard this isolationist crap from one to many
libertopians is all...
> Going to
>that already? The US did contribute, it's well known.
The big money just went to buy off Fwonce, Russia, and Red China and
Germany in the UN - but I guess that didn't make your radar either.
>>> I just hate people that can't think for themselves. I'm not
>>>stupid, I know that the adminstration lied to justify the war.
>>
>>Did they now...
>>
>>Did they lie when they said we needed to remove him because he's:
>>
>>1. a regional terror sponsor
>>
>>2. a vile genocidal despot?
>>
>
>The biggest case was made for WMD.
That was by no means the only case, don't presume to overstate. And
don't presume that he wasn't solid plenty of illegal chemicals and
weapons systems by the stinking Euros.
The President cited several key reasons:
1.) U Sec. violations
2.) Regional terror sponsor
3.) WMDs
4.) Possible links to al Qaeda
> Personally the region and the people
>there need to take care of there own affairs. You'll note that regional
>terrror sponsors and vile genocial despots do well in areas that aren't
>important to us. Get over your moral impetus.
Get over what fuels our nation you dipstick.
>> >> Little boy
>>>is finishing the job that Daddy should've.
>>
>>And the one the gutless UN neutered for 12 long years...so?
>>
>
>Who let the Iraqi gunships slaughter the rebellion?
Who busted the President's chops to kill the invasion of Iraq?
> Why did we not
>advance to Baghdad?
The coalition members.
> You can stop blaiming the UN, they didn't control us.
Yer gonna keep seeing this until it makes yer eyes bleed, asshole.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
"The recent bombing raids near Baghdad by British and American
aircraft were "totally justified". She said: "It was legal, it was
within the law and nobody could say anything against it."
John Major, standing a few yards away, may well have overheard his
predecessor's pronouncement. He certainly lost no time rebutting the
views of Lady Thatcher, with whom, minutes earlier, he had planted a
ceremonial victory tree. Choosing his words carefully, he said:."I
know of no senior military or political leader of the time in question
who was in favour of our forces pushing on into Iraq."
He said: "I could give you half a dozen good reasons why we did not do
so, starting with the fact that the UN mandate under which allied
forces were operating made no allowance for that whatsoever."
According to Mr Major, the Arab nations that took part in Operation
Desert Storm would never have gone along with an invasion of Iraq.
He said: "It would have split the whole coalition wide open at a time
when unity was crucial."
>>> The only people that should've
>>>toppled Saddam are the Iraqi's.
>>
>>
>>Now how you figger they were gonna do that?
>>
>
>It's not up to me or you to plan for them.
No answer - so noted.
I didn't ask you to "plan for them" you moron, I asked you how they
might have accomp-lished it.
Pay attention liar.
> We helped supply Osama quite
>well in Afghanistan did we not?
Oh yer all over the road ain't ya?
We helped the mujahadin fight the Soviets.
>>How many secret police agencies did he have?
>>
>>How tight was his control?
>>
>>Well?
>>
>
>It was so tight that a lot of those people welcomed us.
It was so tight that the record of Iraqis who popped off disappearing
in the middle of the day goes on forever. You're a damn liar kid.
> Saddam obviously
>had insiders giving us information as to his locations. He was smart
>enough to start going to his aides one by one to set up meetings and when
>those meeting places were bombed he knew that the had betrayed him and
>they were killed. If a people want freedrom they will fight and die for
>it, even against those odds.
Gee, worked real well didn't it?
> >> How stupid are you? The USA contributed >>1%, that's
>not 0%. > >BFD.
>
>Your points keep getting refuted an all can do is make inane comments.
You are DOA on this post too kid - go on and tel us again how the
coalition didn't cause Bush to pull off in exchange for a cease fire.
Jeezis but you lie.
>Must be a conservative moron whose agenda is based on not destroying his
>vision of what the world is.
I'm not going to destroy our standard of living to suit your witless
isolationism, that much i pledge!
> You sir are an asshole, and shouldn't even
>try to associate yourself with conservatives as the conservative I know
>base their arguments on facts and logic, not the tripe you spew.
You are lower than a liberal, and that's saying something - go p[lay
your isolationist fantasies out by yourself, libertoonian.
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
We were into Noriega too, shit happens.
>>>>>>>>> Can you answer the question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Still haven't. I sense you are afraid to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe so heh?
>>>>
>>>>And maybe not so.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You aren't very good at being coy.
>>
>>I prefer catfish misself....
>>
>>> The best you can do is to try to
>>>shout down people that don't agree with you.
>>
>>Morons git what they earn, deal with it.
>>
>
>You're correct.
Thank you.
> You're a moron and that's the best a moron can do with
>what they've earned.
Nice try, you got what you earned though - moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>At least that's what you
>>>>>>>>>>>called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Surprise, he turned out to be a creep, now he's history.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Deal with it!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ahh a revisionist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nothing to revise, he turned out to be just that - a creep.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He was a "creep" when we supported him in his war with Iran.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nah, he was not even half the ass hole he turned into back then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He was the same brutal leader.
>>>>
>>>>No, he was not, he and his evil sons got much worse over time, grow
>>>>up.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You grow up.
>>
>>Bite me.
>>
>
>Ohhh witty rejoinder.
Yer even par now.
>>> Did the US military sit by and let Iraqi gun ships slaughter
>>>a rebellion?
>>
>>Did the UN back us out prematurely and then spend 12 years playing
>>shell games?
>>
>
>George I instigated a rebellion and didn't support it.
Can't answer the hard truth, here it comes agin!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
"John Major, standing a few yards away, may well have overheard his
predecessor's pronouncement. He certainly lost no time rebutting the
views of Lady Thatcher, with whom, minutes earlier, he had planted a
ceremonial victory tree. Choosing his words carefully, he said:."I
know of no senior military or political leader of the time in question
who was in favour of our forces pushing on into Iraq."
He said: "I could give you half a dozen good reasons why we did not do
so, starting with the fact that the UN mandate under which allied
forces were operating made no allowance for that whatsoever."
According to Mr Major, the Arab nations that took part in Operation
Desert Storm would never have gone along with an invasion of Iraq.
He said: "It would have split the whole coalition wide open at a time
when unity was crucial."
>>Your revisionism is showing big time.
>>
>
>No revisionism. If George was gonna instigate something he should've
>backed it up.
He had a coalition to deal with - reviser!
>>
>>>>> It just served us to have him fight Iran.
>>>>
>>>>I think that's another rat's nest that needs a good cleaning, don't
>>>>you?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think Countries should defend themselves.
>>
>>We do.
>>
>>>>>>>>> The US supported him when he served it's purpose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sometime the best bet is still a loser.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The US supported a genocidal despot by your logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We took the best bet in a loser's game - deal with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You need to deal with the fact that the US supports genocidal despots.
>>>>
>>>>You need to deal with the fact that in some parts of the world there
>>>>simply aren't any "good" choices...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Getting the f**k out is a good one.
>>
>>Not without a credible energy replacement strategy, nope.
>>
>
>I'm sure we are capable of it but there are forces that would work against
>that.
Not the President who signed funding for hydrogen fuel cells...
>Any economic transition causes pain, is our involvement in the
>middle east better than the pain?
If the pain kills our economy or hobbles our nation to a depression -
YES.
> You can tell your absolutely moral God
>that there was no other choice when you meet him.
Be glad to.
Course I never said the was "no other choice" - just that isolationism
ain't the right one.
>>> Making yourself dependent on an
>>>unstable region is really stupid, unless you happen to make good money off
>>>of it.
>>
>>When it runs down, they'll be the ones who lose out.
>>
>
>There will be economic pain in the transition, no invention comes without
>change.
Invention drives change.
>>>>>>>>>He's always been the same person.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, he got a lot worse over the years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Irrelevant,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No you ass-burp it IS NOT irrelevant!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah it is.
>>>>
>>>>No it is NOT!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah it is.
>>
>>No it is not.
>>
>
>Yeah it is.
No it is not.
>>> Did George I let Iraqi gunships slaughter those trying to
>>>rebel after instigating them to rise up?
>>
>>Did the UN "coalition" partners back us out to soon?
>>
>
>George should'nt have instigated rebellion that would fail without help.
Who the fuck cares, talk about water under the dam!
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
>>
>>"LADY THATCHER marked the 10th anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait
>>yesterday by saying allied forces should have pressed on into Iraq to
>>crush Saddam Hussein for good.
>>
>>She told the Telegraph: "I only wish that I had stayed on to finish
>>the job properly. Perhaps then we wouldn't be where we are today with
>>this cruel and terrible man still securely in power."
>>
>>John Major, standing a few yards away, may well have overheard his
>>predecessor's pronouncement. He certainly lost no time rebutting the
>>views of Lady Thatcher, with whom, minutes earlier, he had planted a
>>ceremonial victory tree. Choosing his words carefully, he said:."I
>>know of no senior military or political leader of the time in question
>>who was in favour of our forces pushing on into Iraq."
>>
>>He said: "I could give you half a dozen good reasons why we did not do
>>so, starting with the fact that the UN mandate under which allied
>>forces were operating made no allowance for that whatsoever."
>>According to Mr Major, the Arab nations that took part in Operation
>>Desert Storm would never have gone along with an invasion of Iraq.
>>
>>He said: "It would have split the whole coalition wide open at a time
>>when unity was crucial."
>>
>
>Who else in the coaltion encouraged rebellion without support?
Do yer own research junior, damn but yer a dim bulb!
>>
>>>>> He was ruling by fear and intimidation since he rose to
>>>>>power.
>>>>
>>>>And he graduated up into wholesale genocide and complete victimization
>>>>of his people.
>>>>
>>>
>>>He did this from the beginning.
>>
>>No, he got worse with time.
>>
>
>So tell me the scale the US works on. At what point do they not suport
>the dictator since you think you have a firm grasp on this subject?
Cost/benefit, the point of crucial instability, the point of the bad
outweighing the good.
>>>>>>>he commited attrocities when we supported him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He did worse after,and his sons too!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Screw you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No thanks. Does it hurt to realize that members of the current
>>>>>administration had business relations with Iraq and supported them in
>>>>>their war with Iran?
>>>>
>>>>No, not a bit. We still have to work with the realities of the region,
>>>>it's mineral resources, and make the best calls possible. Not an easy
>>>>job given the nut cases who live there. And obviously not a job a
>>>>witless ideologue like you could ever manage to carry off.
>>>>
>>>
>>>At least you acknowledge sleeping with the enemy.
>>
>>I may have voted for a Democrat or two in my life, but we all make
>>mistakes.
>>
>
>George I supporting rebellion without the proper support was a big
>mistake.
And Carter not knowing that choppers with bad sand filters won't fly
was one too, Klintoon bombing aspirin factories didn't work, yer
point? You think leadership is divinely perfect on either side of the
table?
We have the Soddems out of power - try looking on the bright side!
alohacyberian
lived in fantasy that the Iraqi people could have toppled Saddam. KM
alohacyberian
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:<qZHWa.84355$0v4.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > >
>
> US helped as Saddam plotted chemical attacks, report says
>
> David Teather, New York
> Monday August 19, 2002
> The Guardian
>
> The US conducted a covert military campaign to help Iraq during its
> war with Iran, despite knowing that Baghdad intended to use chemical
> weapons in a number of battles, according to a report in the New York
> Times.
>
above. Look, I realize you're an unvarnished America-hater, but, your
hysteria isn't going to change the facts or the minds of people outside the
lunatic fringe. Nor is your hyperbole going to reinstate the Baath Party or
bring back your heroes, Saddam, Uday and Qusay Hussein. KM
alohacyberian
>
> We supported somebody that by your own words was genocidal.
>
So please explain why you did such a horrible thing! Did it cause you to be
the bed-wetting crybaby malcontent you are now, or have you always been that
way and that's what caused you to and the mysterious, unnamed person/people
to do such a thing? KM
Donald L Ferrt
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/editorial/6424570.htm
Posted on Thu, Jul. 31, 2003
Career officer does eye-opening stint inside Pentagon
By Karen Kwiatkowski, a recently retired Air Force Lieutenant colonel.
After eight years of Bill Clinton, many military officers breathed a
sigh of relief when George W. Bush was named president. I was in that
plurality. At one time, I would have believed the administration's
accusations of anti-Americanism against anyone who questioned the
integrity and good faith of President Bush, Vice President Cheney or
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
However, while working from May 2002 through February 2003 in the
office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Near East South
Asia and Special Plans (USDP/NESA and SP) in the Pentagon, I observed
the environment in which decisions about post-war Iraq were made.
Those observations changed everything.
What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and
discipline. If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of
``intelligence'' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the
post-Hussein occupation has been distinguished by confusion and false
steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of
the Secretary of Defense. I can identify three prevailing themes.
• Functional isolation of the professional corps. Civil service and
active-duty military professionals assigned to the USDP/NESA and SP
were noticeably uninvolved in key areas of interest to Undersecretary
for Policy Douglas Feith, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and
Rumsfeld. These included Israel, Iraq and to a lesser extent, Saudi
Arabia.
When the New York Times broke the story last summer of Richard Perle's
invitation of Laurent Muraviec to brief the Defense Policy Board on
Saudi Arabia as the next enemy of the United States, this briefing was
news to the Saudi desk officer. He even had some difficulty getting a
copy of it, while receiving assignments related to it.
In terms of Israel and Iraq, all primary staff work was conducted by
political appointees, in the case of Israel a desk officer appointee
from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and in the case of
Iraq, Abe Shulsky and several other appointees. These personnel may be
exceptionally qualified; Shulsky authored a 1993 textbook Silent
Warfare: Understanding the World of Intelligence.
But the human resource depth made possible through broad-based
teamwork with the professional policy and intelligence corps was never
established, and apparently, never wanted by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld
organization.
• Cross-agency cliques: Much has been written about the role of the
founding members of the Project for a New American Century, the Center
for Security Policy and the American Enterprise Institute and their
new positions in the Bush administration. Certainly, appointees
sharing particular viewpoints are expected to congregate, and an
overwhelming number of these appointees having such organizational
ties is neither conspiratorial nor unusual. What is unusual is the way
this network operates solely with its membership across the various
agencies -- in particular the State Department, the National Security
Council and the Office of the Vice President.
Within the Central Intelligence Agency, it was less clear to me who
the appointees were, if any. This might explain the level of interest
in the CIA taken by the Office of the Vice President. In any case, I
personally witnessed several cases of staff officers being told not to
contact their counterparts at State or the National Security Council
because that particular decision would be processed through a
different channel. This cliquishness is cause for amusement in such
movies as Never Been Kissed or The Hot Chick. In the development and
implementation of war planning it is neither amusing nor beneficial
for American security because opposing points of view and information
that doesn't ``fit'' aren't considered.
• Groupthink. Defined as ``reasoning or decision-making by a group,
often characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to
prevailing points of view,'' groupthink was, and probably remains, the
predominant characteristic of Pentagon Middle East policy development.
The result of groupthink is the elevation of opinion into a kind of
accepted ``fact,'' and uncritical acceptance of extremely narrow and
isolated points of view.
The result of groupthink has been extensively studied in the history
of American foreign policy, and it will have a prominent role when the
history of the Bush administration is written. Groupthink, in this
most recent case leading to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, will
be found, I believe, to have caused a subversion of constitutional
limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large
segment of the Congress.
I am now retired. Shortly before my retirement I was allowed to return
to my primary office of assignment, having served in NESA as a desk
officer backfill for 10 months. The transfer was something I had
sought, but my wish was granted only after I made a particular comment
to my superior, in response to my reading of a February Secretary of
State cable answering a long list of questions from a Middle Eastern
country regarding U.S. planning for the aftermath in Iraq. The answers
had been heavily crafted by the Pentagon, and to me, they were
remarkably inadequate, given the late stage of the game. I suggested
to my boss that if this was as good as it got, some folks on the
Pentagon's E-ring may be sitting beside Hussein in the war crimes
tribunals.
Hussein is not yet sitting before a war crimes tribunal. Nor have the
key decision-makers in the Pentagon been forced to account for the odd
set of circumstances that placed us as a long-term occupying force in
the world's nastiest rat's nest, without a nation-building plan,
without significant international support and without an exit plan.
Neither may ever be required to answer their accusers, thanks to this
administration's military as well as publicity machine, and the
disgraceful political compromises already made by most of the
Congress. Ironically, only Saddam Hussein, buried under tons of rubble
or in hiding, has a good excuse.
Jason Bowen
It's easy really, unless you want to blame your actions on others.
>>>>>> We didn't care about his or the Baath
>>>>>>parties actions.
>>>>>
>>>>>So why did we take him out?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It benefitted us.
>>>
>>>Good answer, I like it.
>>>
>>
>>Think you're Sam Kinison?
>
>Or maybe Bennet Cerf...
>
>>>> How many malevolent dictators are in power today
>>>>commiting genocide?
>>>
>>>Moot point, how many people did we liberate from Soddem's abuses?
>>>
>>
>>Quite a point. Why don't we make efforts to free ALL people?
>
>Impossible to do at one time - duh...
>
Make up a list and sort them by priority.
>>>
>>>>>>If you can't acknowledge that we supported you aren't a
>>>>>>very honest person.
>>>>>
>>>>>Crap.
>>>>>
>>>>>We took the best bet in a loser game, and then we doubled down - deal
>>>>>with it.
>>>>
>>>>We supported somebody that by your own words was genocidal.
>>>
>>>We let the UN and a buncha woosies keep him around 12 years too long,
>>>nice to see someone finally said "enough"!
>>
>>Bullshit, George I told our military to stand down and let the Iraqi army
>>brutally slaughter a rebellion because we decided that wasn't part of the
>>plan. You are a revisionist.
>
>Try again, the UN and the coalition queered that deal, then set about
>12 years of shell games.
>
George II didn't have any problem going in without UN support. George I
must've been a wimp. He instigated rebellion without providing support.
Jason Bowen
No, it's a classic weak point attack.
>> Going to
>>that already? The US did contribute, it's well known.
>
>The big money just went to buy off Fwonce, Russia, and Red China and
>Germany in the UN - but I guess that didn't make your radar either.
>
The US did contribute, nothing you say changes that.
>>>> I just hate people that can't think for themselves. I'm not
>>>>stupid, I know that the adminstration lied to justify the war.
>>>
>>>Did they now...
>>>
>>>Did they lie when they said we needed to remove him because he's:
>>>
>>>1. a regional terror sponsor
>>>
>>>2. a vile genocidal despot?
>>>
>>
>>The biggest case was made for WMD.
>
>That was by no means the only case, don't presume to overstate. And
>don't presume that he wasn't solid plenty of illegal chemicals and
>weapons systems by the stinking Euros.
>
>The President cited several key reasons:
>
>1.) U Sec. violations
>
>2.) Regional terror sponsor
>
>3.) WMDs
>
>4.) Possible links to al Qaeda
>
Since Osama hated Saddam that's one of the funnier ones. Saddam was a
socialist infidel and the Iraqi people need to rise up and form an Islamic
goverment.
>> Personally the region and the people
>>there need to take care of there own affairs. You'll note that regional
>>terrror sponsors and vile genocial despots do well in areas that aren't
>>important to us. Get over your moral impetus.
>
>Get over what fuels our nation you dipstick.
>
Yeah that makes sense.
>>> >> Little boy
>>>>is finishing the job that Daddy should've.
>>>
>>>And the one the gutless UN neutered for 12 long years...so?
>>>
>>
>>Who let the Iraqi gunships slaughter the rebellion?
>
>Who busted the President's chops to kill the invasion of Iraq?
>
Who instigated rebellion that he wouldn't provide support for?
>> Why did we not
>>advance to Baghdad?
>
>The coalition members.
>
>> You can stop blaiming the UN, they didn't control us.
>
>Yer gonna keep seeing this until it makes yer eyes bleed, asshole.
>
If they control us explain the latest war. George I instigated rebellion
and did nothing to support it.
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
>
>"The recent bombing raids near Baghdad by British and American
>aircraft were "totally justified". She said: "It was legal, it was
>within the law and nobody could say anything against it."
>
>John Major, standing a few yards away, may well have overheard his
>predecessor's pronouncement. He certainly lost no time rebutting the
>views of Lady Thatcher, with whom, minutes earlier, he had planted a
>ceremonial victory tree. Choosing his words carefully, he said:."I
>know of no senior military or political leader of the time in question
>who was in favour of our forces pushing on into Iraq."
>
>He said: "I could give you half a dozen good reasons why we did not do
>so, starting with the fact that the UN mandate under which allied
>forces were operating made no allowance for that whatsoever."
>According to Mr Major, the Arab nations that took part in Operation
>Desert Storm would never have gone along with an invasion of Iraq.
>
>He said: "It would have split the whole coalition wide open at a time
>when unity was crucial."
>
>>>> The only people that should've
>>>>toppled Saddam are the Iraqi's.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now how you figger they were gonna do that?
>>>
>>
>>It's not up to me or you to plan for them.
>
>No answer - so noted.
>
I answered, you're really slow. Do you think Saddam's internal aides that
were acting as informants were trying to accomplish the fall of Saddam?
>I didn't ask you to "plan for them" you moron, I asked you how they
>might have accomp-lished it.
>
>Pay attention liar.
>
What abuse have you suffered in your life? You've obviously been beaten
down and feel the need to empower yourself this way.
>> We helped supply Osama quite
>>well in Afghanistan did we not?
>
>Oh yer all over the road ain't ya?
>
The Soviets pulled out, Osama was a leader supplied with weapons from us,
we have helped in a situation like this before.
>We helped the mujahadin fight the Soviets.
>
>>>How many secret police agencies did he have?
>>>
>>>How tight was his control?
>>>
>>>Well?
>>>
>>
>>It was so tight that a lot of those people welcomed us.
>
>It was so tight that the record of Iraqis who popped off disappearing
>in the middle of the day goes on forever. You're a damn liar kid.
>
I didn't lie about anything, and that irks you.
>> Saddam obviously
>>had insiders giving us information as to his locations. He was smart
>>enough to start going to his aides one by one to set up meetings and when
>>those meeting places were bombed he knew that the had betrayed him and
>>they were killed. If a people want freedrom they will fight and die for
>>it, even against those odds.
>
>Gee, worked real well didn't it?
>
Hmmm, you said how they gonna do that... I just gave an example. Are you
this stupid in real life or just on usenet?
>> >> How stupid are you? The USA contributed >>1%, that's
>>not 0%. > >BFD.
>>
>>Your points keep getting refuted an all can do is make inane comments.
>
>You are DOA on this post too kid - go on and tel us again how the
>coalition didn't cause Bush to pull off in exchange for a cease fire.
>Jeezis but you lie.
>
Go on and pretend that George I didn't instigate rebellion that he didn't
provide support for.
>>Must be a conservative moron whose agenda is based on not destroying his
>>vision of what the world is.
>
>I'm not going to destroy our standard of living to suit your witless
>isolationism, that much i pledge!
>
I've never argued isolationism. I think you have a very narrow range of
what you think people believe.
>> You sir are an asshole, and shouldn't even
>>try to associate yourself with conservatives as the conservative I know
>>base their arguments on facts and logic, not the tripe you spew.
>
>You are lower than a liberal, and that's saying something - go p[lay
>your isolationist fantasies out by yourself, libertoonian.
>
Must be more that you came up with in home room.
Jason Bowen
You've talked about "God's law" more than once? Do you consider yourself
religous? Do you think your suprereme being is going to say, "yeah, you
had to associate with murders, thieves, genocidal despots. Really you had
no choice."
>>>>>>>>>> Can you answer the question? >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Still haven't. I sense you are afraid to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe so heh?
>>>>>
>>>>>And maybe not so.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You aren't very good at being coy.
>>>
>>>I prefer catfish misself....
>>>
>>>> The best you can do is to try to
>>>>shout down people that don't agree with you.
>>>
>>>Morons git what they earn, deal with it.
>>>
>>
>>You're correct.
>
>Thank you.
>
Well admitting you're a moron took courage.
>> You're a moron and that's the best a moron can do with
>>what they've earned.
>
>Nice try, you got what you earned though - moron.
>
You're such a spokesperson for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>At least that's what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>called him and we threw money and weapons his way in the past.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Surprise, he turned out to be a creep, now he's history.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Deal with it!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ahh a revisionist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nothing to revise, he turned out to be just that - a creep.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He was a "creep" when we supported him in his war with Iran.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nah, he was not even half the ass hole he turned into back then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He was the same brutal leader.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he was not, he and his evil sons got much worse over time, grow
>>>>>up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You grow up.
>>>
>>>Bite me.
>>>
>>
>>Ohhh witty rejoinder.
>
>Yer even par now.
>
Come up with that one in home room?
>>>> Did the US military sit by and let Iraqi gun ships slaughter
>>>>a rebellion?
>>>
>>>Did the UN back us out prematurely and then spend 12 years playing
>>>shell games?
>>>
>>
>>George I instigated a rebellion and didn't support it.
>
>Can't answer the hard truth, here it comes agin!
>
George I instigated a rebeliion and didn't support it, he went along with
the UN.
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
>
>"John Major, standing a few yards away, may well have overheard his
>predecessor's pronouncement. He certainly lost no time rebutting the
>views of Lady Thatcher, with whom, minutes earlier, he had planted a
>ceremonial victory tree. Choosing his words carefully, he said:."I
>know of no senior military or political leader of the time in question
>who was in favour of our forces pushing on into Iraq."
>
>He said: "I could give you half a dozen good reasons why we did not do
>so, starting with the fact that the UN mandate under which allied
>forces were operating made no allowance for that whatsoever."
>According to Mr Major, the Arab nations that took part in Operation
>Desert Storm would never have gone along with an invasion of Iraq.
>
>He said: "It would have split the whole coalition wide open at a time
>when unity was crucial."
>
>>>Your revisionism is showing big time.
>>>
>>
>>No revisionism. If George was gonna instigate something he should've
>>backed it up.
>
>He had a coalition to deal with - reviser!
>
Why did he instigate something he wouldn't back up? I'm not revising
anything, he instigated something and did nothing to support it. I guess
George II has bigger balls.
>>>
>>>>>> It just served us to have him fight Iran.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think that's another rat's nest that needs a good cleaning, don't
>>>>>you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think Countries should defend themselves.
>>>
>>>We do.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The US supported him when he served it's purpose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sometime the best bet is still a loser.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The US supported a genocidal despot by your logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We took the best bet in a loser's game - deal with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You need to deal with the fact that the US supports genocidal despots.
>>>>>
>>>>>You need to deal with the fact that in some parts of the world there
>>>>>simply aren't any "good" choices...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Getting the f**k out is a good one.
>>>
>>>Not without a credible energy replacement strategy, nope.
>>>
>>
>>I'm sure we are capable of it but there are forces that would work against
>>that.
>
>Not the President who signed funding for hydrogen fuel cells...
>
Ohh that happened in the last year, let's talk about the last 30 instead.
>
>>Any economic transition causes pain, is our involvement in the
>>middle east better than the pain?
>
>If the pain kills our economy or hobbles our nation to a depression -
>YES.
>
>> You can tell your absolutely moral God
>>that there was no other choice when you meet him.
>
>Be glad to.
>
You're full of shit if you really believe that.
>Course I never said the was "no other choice" - just that isolationism
>ain't the right one.
>
I never claimed isolationism.
>>>> Making yourself dependent on an
>>>>unstable region is really stupid, unless you happen to make good money off
>>>>of it.
>>>
>>>When it runs down, they'll be the ones who lose out.
>>>
>>
>>There will be economic pain in the transition, no invention comes without
>>change.
>
>Invention drives change.
>
What happened when whale oil became scarce? Nobody said...hmmm whales are
in short supply.
>>>>>>>>>>He's always been the same person.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, he got a lot worse over the years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Irrelevant,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No you ass-burp it IS NOT irrelevant!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>No it is NOT!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah it is.
>>>
>>>No it is not.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah it is.
>
>No it is not.
>
Yeah it is.
>>>> Did George I let Iraqi gunships slaughter those trying to
>>>>rebel after instigating them to rise up?
>>>
>>>Did the UN "coalition" partners back us out to soon?
>>>
>>
>>George should'nt have instigated rebellion that would fail without help.
>
>Who the fuck cares, talk about water under the dam!
>
Not for those people.
>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
>>>
>>>"LADY THATCHER marked the 10th anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait
>>>yesterday by saying allied forces should have pressed on into Iraq to
>>>crush Saddam Hussein for good.
>>>
>>>She told the Telegraph: "I only wish that I had stayed on to finish
>>>the job properly. Perhaps then we wouldn't be where we are today with
>>>this cruel and terrible man still securely in power."
>>>
>>>John Major, standing a few yards away, may well have overheard his
>>>predecessor's pronouncement. He certainly lost no time rebutting the
>>>views of Lady Thatcher, with whom, minutes earlier, he had planted a
>>>ceremonial victory tree. Choosing his words carefully, he said:."I
>>>know of no senior military or political leader of the time in question
>>>who was in favour of our forces pushing on into Iraq."
>>>
>>>He said: "I could give you half a dozen good reasons why we did not do
>>>so, starting with the fact that the UN mandate under which allied
>>>forces were operating made no allowance for that whatsoever."
>>>According to Mr Major, the Arab nations that took part in Operation
>>>Desert Storm would never have gone along with an invasion of Iraq.
>>>
>>>He said: "It would have split the whole coalition wide open at a time
>>>when unity was crucial."
>>>
>>
>>Who else in the coaltion encouraged rebellion without support?
>
>Do yer own research junior, damn but yer a dim bulb!
>
LOL, can't answer the question heh? George I was the only one to do that.
>>>
>>>>>> He was ruling by fear and intimidation since he rose to
>>>>>>power.
>>>>>
>>>>>And he graduated up into wholesale genocide and complete victimization
>>>>>of his people.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He did this from the beginning.
>>>
>>>No, he got worse with time.
>>>
>>
>>So tell me the scale the US works on. At what point do they not suport
>>the dictator since you think you have a firm grasp on this subject?
>
>Cost/benefit, the point of crucial instability, the point of the bad
>outweighing the good.
>
Source?
>>>>>>>>he commited attrocities when we supported him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He did worse after,and his sons too!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Screw you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No thanks. Does it hurt to realize that members of the current
>>>>>>administration had business relations with Iraq and supported them in
>>>>>>their war with Iran?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, not a bit. We still have to work with the realities of the region,
>>>>>it's mineral resources, and make the best calls possible. Not an easy
>>>>>job given the nut cases who live there. And obviously not a job a
>>>>>witless ideologue like you could ever manage to carry off.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At least you acknowledge sleeping with the enemy.
>>>
>>>I may have voted for a Democrat or two in my life, but we all make
>>>mistakes.
>>>
>>
>>George I supporting rebellion without the proper support was a big
>>mistake.
>
>And Carter not knowing that choppers with bad sand filters won't fly
>was one too, Klintoon bombing aspirin factories didn't work, yer
>point? You think leadership is divinely perfect on either side of the
>table?
>
Those don't invalidate anything that George did.
>We have the Soddems out of power - try looking on the bright side!
It really wasn't our place to take care of it.
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 12:55:18 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:34:05 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> >news:df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com...
> >> >> Ferrt) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >headline:
> >> >>
> >> >> 25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
> >> >> ferret-boy!
> >> >
being
> >> >slaughtered?
> >>
> >> A: None.
> >
> >You're saying
>
> None, period.
Oh, look who wants to erase from history the horrible spectacle of George
Herbert Walker Bush allowing Saddam to fly helicopter gunships in areas
occupied by US troops under generals "Stormin'" Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin
Powell to put down the very same Shia and Kurd uprisings incited by George I
himself. No wonder the Iraqis have no faith in any occupation by George II.
It happened, you usenet psycho-stalker, and you can't make it 'go away',
just like you can't make Gilly 'go away'.
Jason Bowen
alohacyberian <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>"Jason Bowen" <bow...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
>news:bgfmdo$fgg$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>>
>> We supported somebody that by your own words was genocidal.
>>
>We? "We" literally means you (Jason Bowen) and at least one other person.
>So please explain why you did such a horrible thing!
We in context means the US government. Is that the best you have?
>the bed-wetting crybaby malcontent you are now, or have you always been that
>way and that's what caused you to and the mysterious, unnamed person/people
>to do such a thing? KM
I'm not the malcontent who has the basis of his argument resting on name
calling.
Jason Bowen
There are millions who are going to die around the world, get over it. It
was proven that we did support him.
Gilly
> "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:bgbgck$cup$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> > news:df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com...
> > > On 30 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
> > > Ferrt) wrote:
> > >
> > > 25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
> > > ferret-boy!
> >
> > How many Iraqis did George I force our troops to stand by and watch
being
> >
>
> It's what happened in the end, dearie, that counts. Why didn't you ask
that
> question of William Jefferson Clinton? *Doh!* KM
What happened in the end was the Bush family lost all credibility with the
Iraqi people on both sides of the Ba'athist chasm, except for criminal
exiles like Chalabi in whom the Bush II administration placed way too much
credence. Hence the second-hand lies about the "certainty" of wmd's and
nuclear capability "in two weeks" and the non-existent al Qaida connection.
George II believed Chalabi because Chalabi and INC told him the lie he
wanted to hear. He then told the American public the lie they wanted to
hear: that war with Iraq was accurate retaliation against the terrorist
attacks on the World Trade Center.
The result is America is in just as much danger, if not more, of terrorist
attack, having been distracted to the tune of millions of scarce tax dollars
per day from the hunt for the real perpetrators and potential perpetrators
of terrorism.
Trying to blame Clinton for everything Bush does is just not a satisfactory
remedy and never has been. . . dearie.
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
That was another Bush.
> >>>>>>>>> Can you answer the question?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I have.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Still haven't. I sense you are afraid to.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Maybe so heh?
> >>>>
> >>>>And maybe not so.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>You aren't very good at being coy.
> >>
> >>I prefer catfish misself....
> >>
> >>> The best you can do is to try to
> >>>shout down people that don't agree with you.
> >>
> >>Morons git what they earn, deal with it.
> >>
> >
> >You're correct.
>
> Thank you.
You're entirely welcome to the earnings of a moron.
> > You're a moron and that's the best a moron can do with
> >what they've earned.
>
> Nice try, you got what you earned though - moron.
You already fell for that one. . . moron.
>miles of intellectual conservative, intellectual assertion-and-denial
snipped>
> >George I supporting rebellion without the proper support was a big
> >mistake.
>
> And Carter not knowing that choppers with bad sand filters won't fly
> was one too,
The defense industry routinely swindles taxpayers with armament that doesn't
do what it's supposed to. Witness the totally and completely bogus Star
Wars defense system that the GOP keeps resurrecting. The M-16 that jammed
regularly. Et cetera. The Pentagon budget has never been balanced and is
waived from the accounting requirements of the rest of government EVERY
FISCAL YEAR. There's no accountability to keep the defense contractors
honest. Carter didn't buy the worthless helicopters, he just expected them
to do their job. Carter was swindled right along with you and I and the
rest of the American public.
> Klintoon bombing aspirin factories didn't work, yer point?
There was FAR GREATER evidence of that "aspirin factory" being a chemical
munitions producer than anything found so far by the fine-tooth-combing of
Iraq. Evidence that the kook fringe continues to ignore because the big lie
sounds so cool. The truth is, Clinton came within an eyelash of getting bin
Laden on the same day that "aspirin factory" was destroyed. Clinton was in
the process of getting bin Laden covertly and had come much closer than Bush
has since. Bush terminated the Clinton's covert program and halted
deployment of the Predator--which Clinton had designed for the specific
purpose of bringing down the likes of bin Laden--immediately after taking
office. Bush's next bold step was to bungle oil pipeline negotiations with
the Taliban and then embroil us in two costly, utterly ineffective military
adventures in order to "wag the dog". The blame-Clinton mantra doesn't work
anymore. Get a new litany.
> You think leadership is divinely perfect on either side of the table?
This "nation-building" "regime-change" is just warmed over imperialist
garbage that has never worked and never will. It doesn't matter what "side
of the table" is trying to implement it. Get over your idiotic personality
fixation and start thinking in terms of principle. You cons haven't had one
since Goldwater died.
> We have the Soddems out of power - try looking on the bright side!
The Bush policy of nation-building devoid of any forethought is what gave us
the Saddam regime and it will continue to produce more Saddams, Qaddafys,
Batistas, Duartes, Duvaliers, Bokassas, Torrijos, Marcos, Pinochet,
Alfonsin, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc., etc., and that's the never-ending spiral of
bishop-killing kleptocrats it will CONTINUE to churn out. To wit: Chalabi,
the convicted global criminal being touted by the White House to run Iraq--a
carbon copy of Saddam if there ever was one.
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:02:39 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:33:00 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> >> On 25 Jul 2003 20:27:43 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
> >> >> Ferrt) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Chuck Wright <caw...@tde.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:<3f1fe01d$1...@tde03.tde.com>...
> >> >> >> Phil Earnhardt wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:33:26 -0600, Chuck Wright
<caw...@tde.com>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>Hooray!
> >> >> >> >>See the story at
> >> >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33693
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Here's the Million Dollar Question for Chuck:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Do you think the US authorities had 100% "Time and Place"
> >certainty
> >> >> >> > that the two sons would be at the compound when they attacked?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No. Why do you ask?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why the sons were killed and the Femur chopped off! =
> >> >>
> >> >> U R STUPID!
> >> >>
> >> >> Now shut up ferret head!
> >> >
> >> >Conservative intellectual thought.
> >>
> >> Careful, keep repeating that and you might just have one...
> >
> >ooh, ooh, I think a feel a conservative intellectual thought coming.
>
> Well don't let it split yer thick l;iberal skull wide open.
Another psycho conservative.
> > Um,
> >"ass-burp", "shaddup" " "moron". There, real free-market, family-values
> >ideas, eh? Original as hell, too.
>
> Nothing about you bears any need for originality.
Face it, you haven't got an ounce of originality to waste on anyone.
> >> >Ain't it grand?
> >>
> >> Tis indeed, not that a moron like you'd know...
> >
> >I suppose you get used to the smell after a while.
>
> Nah, you stink as bad as ever.
Um, "bite me" "ass-burp" "moron". Read the damn post, it's your own stench
you're admitting to.
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 12:59:24 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:35:04 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:43:30 -0600, Chuck Wright <caw...@tde.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >alohacyberian wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Chuck Wright" <caw...@tde.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>Oh good grief! I am totally opposed to the war in Iraq and our
> >> >occupation
> >> >> >>>of Iraq, and I morn for the countless innocent Iraq civilians and
US
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> soldiers
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>who have died, but at least a few good things have come of the
war
> >like
> >> >the
> >> >> >>>toppling of Saddam's government and the deaths of his sons. Too
> >Uday
> >> >and
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Qusay
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>could have chosen to surrender and live, but they chose to fight
it
> >out
> >> >> >>>and die instead. I shall not shed a tear for them.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>Chuck Wright
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nor do you ever seem to shed tears for the tens of thousands of
> >Iraqis
> >> >that
> >> >> >> were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered by the Saddam
Hussein
> >> >regime and
> >> >> >> family.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's a lie.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it ass hole?
> >> >>
> >> >> Care to try and make that case you POS?
> >> >>
> >> >> Prepare to be humiliated!
> >> >>
> >> >> C'mon, bring it!
> >> >>
> >> >> >> You'd rather bash Bush than give him credit for stopping
Hussein's
> >> >> >> atrocities. KM
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I give Bush credit for that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >By the way, have you read Cato Policy Analysis No. 464 "Why the
United
> >> >> >States Should Not Attack Iraq" by Ivan Eland and Bernard Gourley
yet?
> >> >>
> >> >> Fuck CATO!
> >> >>
> >> >> And Fuck YOU!
> >> >
> >> >Brilliant!
> >>
> >> Thank you!
> >
> >And then congratulate yourself.
>
> Why not, I'm worth it!
It's just that you know damn well nobody else will. You've got nothing but
lies, name-calling and obscenity to peddle. They don't have a Pulitzer for
those categories.
> >> > Do you vote Republican with the same mouth?
> >>
> >> I don't think I've ever had the option to vote that way. they do
> >> things differently where you are, moron?
> >
> >Is there still a literacy test to vote in your redneck county?
>
> Moron,
Yeah, yeah, "moron" "ass-burp" "bite me".
Gilly
"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:36:25 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> Amen brother.
> >> >
> >> >I don't think you have a brother,
> >>
> >> But you don't think period, so that comes as no surprise, moron.
> >
> >I was sure
>
> You ain't sure of anything, go crawl back in yer apartment spam-brain.
My apartment must be another fantasy for someone who crawls back and forth
between the bridge in Greeley and the computer at the public library.
Uncle Samuel
>
>"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>news:b2elivo1pjs1ea02a...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 12:55:18 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> >news:skmiiv8inrj634oak...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:34:05 -0500, "Gilly" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> >> >news:df8hivoo9o3glnsbk...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On 30 Jul 2003 07:31:52 -0700, wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L
>> >> >> Ferrt) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >headline:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 25 million Iraqis freed from genocidal despot - suck on that
>> >> >> ferret-boy!
>> >> >
>> >> >How many Iraqis did George I force our troops to stand by and watch
>being
>> >> >slaughtered?
>> >>
>> >> A: None.
>> >
>> >You're saying
>>
>> None, period.
>
>Oh, look who wants to erase from history
Not erase you moron, note why the colation forced him to abandon the
necessary push to Bagdad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
"For a moment, it was as if Lady Thatcher, surrounded by an admiring
throng of guests, was back at the helm. The recent bombing raids near
Baghdad by British and American aircraft were "totally justified". She
said: "It was legal, it was within the law and nobody could say
anything against it."
John Major, standing a few yards away, may well have overheard his
predecessor's pronouncement. He certainly lost no time rebutting the
views of Lady Thatcher, with whom, minutes earlier, he had planted a
ceremonial victory tree. Choosing his words carefully, he said:."I
know of no senior military or political leader of the time in question
who was in favour of our forces pushing on into Iraq."
He said: "I could give you half a dozen good reasons why we did not do
so, starting with the fact that the UN mandate under which allied
forces were operating made no allowance for that whatsoever."
According to Mr Major, the Arab nations that took part in Operation
Desert Storm would never have gone along with an invasion of Iraq.
He said: "It would have split the whole coalition wide open at a time
when unity was crucial."
History is a stren taskmaster Gilly - you'll not wander off from this
one again.
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
Nope, try again. You've no absolute moral means - none at all.
>>>>>>> We didn't care about his or the Baath
>>>>>>>parties actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So why did we take him out?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It benefitted us.
>>>>
>>>>Good answer, I like it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Think you're Sam Kinison?
>>
>>Or maybe Bennet Cerf...
>>
>>>>> How many malevolent dictators are in power today
>>>>>commiting genocide?
>>>>
>>>>Moot point, how many people did we liberate from Soddem's abuses?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Quite a point. Why don't we make efforts to free ALL people?
>>
>>Impossible to do at one time - duh...
>>
>
>Make up a list and sort them by priority.
It'd be a long list. I'm comfortable with letting the professionals
handle that one, as they have.
>>>>
>>>>>>>If you can't acknowledge that we supported you aren't a
>>>>>>>very honest person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We took the best bet in a loser game, and then we doubled down - deal
>>>>>>with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>We supported somebody that by your own words was genocidal.
>>>>
>>>>We let the UN and a buncha woosies keep him around 12 years too long,
>>>>nice to see someone finally said "enough"!
>>>
>>>Bullshit, George I told our military to stand down and let the Iraqi army
>>>brutally slaughter a rebellion because we decided that wasn't part of the
>>>plan. You are a revisionist.
>>
>>Try again, the UN and the coalition queered that deal, then set about
>>12 years of shell games.
>>
>
>George II didn't have any problem going in without UN support.
He knew the UN security council had been bought off with fat Iraqi oil
contracts. You don't like the facts do you?
>George I
>must've been a wimp.
It's all hindsight now.
> He instigated rebellion without providing support.
War is Hell.
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
>>
>>"The recent bombing raids near Baghdad by British and American
>>aircraft were "totally justified". She said: "It was legal, it was
>>within the law and nobody could say anything against it."
>>
>>John Major, standing a few yards away, may well have overheard his
>>predecessor's pronouncement. He certainly lost no time rebutting the
>>views of Lady Thatcher, with whom, minutes earlier, he had planted a
>>ceremonial victory tree. Choosing his words carefully, he said:."I
>>know of no senior military or political leader of the time in question
>>who was in favour of our forces pushing on into Iraq."
>>
>>He said: "I could give you half a dozen good reasons why we did not do
>>so, starting with the fact that the UN mandate under which allied
>>forces were operating made no allowance for that whatsoever."
>>According to Mr Major, the Arab nations that took part in Operation
>>Desert Storm would never have gone along with an invasion of Iraq.
>>
>>He said: "It would have split the whole coalition wide open at a time
>>when unity was crucial."
>>
And your BS just got nuked - loser!
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
>In article <7N2Xa.82333$3o3.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>alohacyberian <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>"Jason Bowen" <bow...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bgfmdo$fgg$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>>>
>>> We supported somebody that by your own words was genocidal.
>>>
>>We? "We" literally means you (Jason Bowen) and at least one other person.
>>So please explain why you did such a horrible thing!
>
>We in context means the US government. Is that the best you have?
So you think the public gets to have input on *every* decision govt.
makes?
>>the bed-wetting crybaby malcontent you are now, or have you always been that
>>way and that's what caused you to and the mysterious, unnamed person/people
>>to do such a thing? KM
>
>I'm not the malcontent who has the basis of his argument resting on name
>calling.
Nah, yer the malcontent who got caught blaming Bush for pulling out
when it turned out the coalition support crumbled. Moron!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
It's a fact. You don't like it, too bad. Your isolationist ideology
precedes you.
>>> Going to
>>>that already? The US did contribute, it's well known.
>>
>>The big money just went to buy off Fwonce, Russia, and Red China and
>>Germany in the UN - but I guess that didn't make your radar either.
>>
>
>The US did contribute, nothing you say changes that.
We picked the best horse in a bad race, shit happens.
The rest of those Euro-whores sold off their UN security council votes
for oil contracts, bad news if you believe in the UN's "moral"
authority over anything...
>>>>> I just hate people that can't think for themselves. I'm not
>>>>>stupid, I know that the adminstration lied to justify the war.
>>>>
>>>>Did they now...
>>>>
>>>>Did they lie when they said we needed to remove him because he's:
>>>>
>>>>1. a regional terror sponsor
>>>>
>>>>2. a vile genocidal despot?
>>>>
>>>
>>>The biggest case was made for WMD.
>>
>>That was by no means the only case, don't presume to overstate. And
>>don't presume that he wasn't solid plenty of illegal chemicals and
>>weapons systems by the stinking Euros.
>>
>>The President cited several key reasons:
>>
>>1.) U Sec. violations
>>
>>2.) Regional terror sponsor
>>
>>3.) WMDs
>>
>>4.) Possible links to al Qaeda
>>
>
>Since Osama hated Saddam that's one of the funnier ones.
Since Soddem was supplying members of al Qaeda with airline fuselages
to train in, yeah, it's a friggin' hoot!
> Saddam was a
>socialist infidel and the Iraqi people need to rise up and form an Islamic
>goverment.
Ever hear of the concept - common enemy?
Yer not the sharpest tack in the wall jason.
>>> Personally the region and the people
>>>there need to take care of there own affairs. You'll note that regional
>>>terrror sponsors and vile genocial despots do well in areas that aren't
>>>important to us. Get over your moral impetus.
>>
>>Get over what fuels our nation you dipstick.
>>
>
>Yeah that makes sense.
Yes, it sure does.
>>>> >> Little boy
>>>>>is finishing the job that Daddy should've.
>>>>
>>>>And the one the gutless UN neutered for 12 long years...so?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Who let the Iraqi gunships slaughter the rebellion?
>>
>>Who busted the President's chops to kill the invasion of Iraq?
>>
>
>Who instigated rebellion that he wouldn't provide support for?
War is Hell, who turned on him at the last moment?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
>>> Why did we not
>>>advance to Baghdad?
>>
>>The coalition members.
>>
>>> You can stop blaiming the UN, they didn't control us.
>>
>>Yer gonna keep seeing this until it makes yer eyes bleed, asshole.
>>
>
>If they control us explain the latest war.
Nice try and cut and paste history!
So you think that the actions in '91 control everything in '03?
You are a total simpering idiot!
> George I instigated rebellion
>and did nothing to support it.
The coalition bailed on him.
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
>>
>>"The recent bombing raids near Baghdad by British and American
>>aircraft were "totally justified". She said: "It was legal, it was
>>within the law and nobody could say anything against it."
>>
>>John Major, standing a few yards away, may well have overheard his
>>predecessor's pronouncement. He certainly lost no time rebutting the
>>views of Lady Thatcher, with whom, minutes earlier, he had planted a
>>ceremonial victory tree. Choosing his words carefully, he said:."I
>>know of no senior military or political leader of the time in question
>>who was in favour of our forces pushing on into Iraq."
>>
>>He said: "I could give you half a dozen good reasons why we did not do
>>so, starting with the fact that the UN mandate under which allied
>>forces were operating made no allowance for that whatsoever."
>>According to Mr Major, the Arab nations that took part in Operation
>>Desert Storm would never have gone along with an invasion of Iraq.
>>
>>He said: "It would have split the whole coalition wide open at a time
>>when unity was crucial."
>>
>>>>> The only people that should've
>>>>>toppled Saddam are the Iraqi's.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now how you figger they were gonna do that?
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's not up to me or you to plan for them.
>>
>>No answer - so noted.
>>
>
>I answered, you're really slow.
That was no answer, it was an evasion - you LIE.
> Do you think Saddam's internal aides that
>were acting as informants were trying to accomplish the fall of Saddam?
I imagine some would have loved to, that's not uncommon, even Hitler
had his internal traitors. Is this like big news to you junior? The
name Rommel ring a bell?
>>I didn't ask you to "plan for them" you moron, I asked you how they
>>might have accomp-lished it.
>>
>>Pay attention liar.
>>
>
>What abuse have you suffered in your life?
What causes you to lie and evade answering my questions?
> You've obviously been beaten
>down and feel the need to empower yourself this way.
Transparent and rather stupid red herring.
Now answer the question, come on, do it now!
>>> We helped supply Osama quite
>>>well in Afghanistan did we not?
>>
>>Oh yer all over the road ain't ya?
>>
>
>The Soviets pulled out, Osama was a leader supplied with weapons from us,
>we have helped in a situation like this before.
He was just another mujahadin at the time, no more, no less.
>>We helped the mujahadin fight the Soviets.
>>
>>>>How many secret police agencies did he have?
>>>>
>>>>How tight was his control?
>>>>
>>>>Well?
>>>>
>>>
>>>It was so tight that a lot of those people welcomed us.
>>
>>It was so tight that the record of Iraqis who popped off disappearing
>>in the middle of the day goes on forever. You're a damn liar kid.
>>
>
>I didn't lie about anything, and that irks you.
No, you lie and it takes damn k little time to catch you at it. Care
to account for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who fell victim to
those secret police? Care to account to the eyewitness testimony of
expatriate Iraqis as to why they left? You lie.
>>> Saddam obviously
>>>had insiders giving us information as to his locations. He was smart
>>>enough to start going to his aides one by one to set up meetings and when
>>>those meeting places were bombed he knew that the had betrayed him and
>>>they were killed. If a people want freedrom they will fight and die for
>>>it, even against those odds.
>>
>>Gee, worked real well didn't it?
>>
>
>Hmmm, you said how they gonna do that... I just gave an example. Are you
>this stupid in real life or just on usenet?
You gave me all I needed, an example of how internal jockeying DID NOT
liberate the Iraqi people!
Damn kid, get a brain, rent one!
>>> >> How stupid are you? The USA contributed >>1%, that's
>>>not 0%. > >BFD.
>>>
>>>Your points keep getting refuted an all can do is make inane comments.
>>
>>You are DOA on this post too kid - go on and tel us again how the
>>coalition didn't cause Bush to pull off in exchange for a cease fire.
>>Jeezis but you lie.
>>
>
>Go on and pretend that George I didn't instigate rebellion that he didn't
>provide support for.
Go on, pretend he wasn't bailed on at the last minute by the coalition
members, we can dance this one all day long kid.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/26/wmag26.xml
>>>Must be a conservative moron whose agenda is based on not destroying his
>>>vision of what the world is.
>>
>>I'm not going to destroy our standard of living to suit your witless
>>isolationism, that much i pledge!
>>
>
>I've never argued isolationism. I think you have a very narrow range of
>what you think people believe.
It's a classic libertoonian platform constant, you want to back away
from that plank, be my guest.
But if I catch ya back on it, it's into the deep end with ya!
>>> You sir are an asshole, and shouldn't even
>>>try to associate yourself with conservatives as the conservative I know
>>>base their arguments on facts and logic, not the tripe you spew.
>>
>>You are lower than a liberal, and that's saying something - go p[lay
>>your isolationist fantasies out by yourself, libertoonian.
>>
>
>Must be more that you came up with in home room.
Lost another round, this is like shooting ducks in a barrel.
Uncle Samuel
Bowen) wrote:
Oh, now isn't that special...
I guess it all comes down to which millions YOU want to save then,
right Jason?
> It
>was proven that we did support him.
And that we took the SOB out - capisce?
Uncle Samuel
Another lying liberal.
>> > Um,
>> >"ass-burp", "shaddup" " "moron". There, real free-market, family-values
>> >ideas, eh? Original as hell, too.
>>
>> Nothing about you bears any need for originality.
>
>Face it, you haven't got an ounce of originality to waste on anyone.
Face it, apartment life has left you a stunted and bitter liberal.
>> >> >Ain't it grand?
>> >>
>> >> Tis indeed, not that a moron like you'd know...
>> >
>> >I suppose you get used to the smell after a while.
>>
>> Nah, you stink as bad as ever.
>
>Um, "bite me" "ass-burp" "moron".
No thanks, can I cancel your your Sunday Times though?
> Read the damn post, it's your own stench
>you're admitting to.
Nah, it's your SPAM sewage I decry.