I Want the United States to Lose
Deuteros
committed a monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a countless number
of war crimes.
So let's be completely clear, and restate it once more for emphasis. We
invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
threat to us. Our government has murdered more than half a million
innocent Iraqis -- and destroyed an entire nation. Our government has also
murdered and maimed tens of thousands of Americans.
But in the moral sense -- in the sense of destroying human life with no
justification whatsoever -- we certainly deserve to lose. It would only be
just, and it would be minimal justice at that. We have committed a
monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a countless number of war
crimes. If you care at all about the sanctity of an individual human life,
and if you still give a damn, that should matter to you. Nothing in the
world is more important.
So, yes, in the sense I have described, I want us to lose. We already
have. There is no forgiveness for what we have done. Do I want American
soldiers to die? Of course not. I never wanted them to be sent to Iraq in
the first place. If we had never begun this catastrophe, those who have
died would be alive today -- as would over half a million Iraqis.
One might hope that we've learned something from our indecent and immoral
acts, and that we will be more careful in our future actions. In a tragedy
beyond measure, it is already entirely clear that we have learned
absolutely nothing -- just as we learned nothing from Vietnam. All of the
forces that led to more than a century of unending war are still in place.
We have learned nothing.
John C. Randolph
> We
> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
> threat to us.
Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
obligations to provide mutual defense.
-jcr
CB
"John C. Randolph" <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
news:2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
It doesn't matter, he's so lost that he probably thinks of John Walker Lindh
as a hero
David W. Barnes
Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
So you are the guy who still believes that.
David W. Barnes
<a...@if.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:04:49 -0800, John C. Randolph
> <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
> >
> >> We
> >> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
> >> threat to us.
> >
> >Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us,
>
> Iraq was never a credible threat to the USA and there was never any
> evidence of such, only lies.
In fact, they could almost be called an ally. Saddam Hussein was an
enemy of Al Qaeda. He hated them.
>
> > but
> >also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
> >obligations to provide mutual defense.
>
> What's this -the 85th attempt to respin the reason the USA is there
> and troops dying to empower the Ayatollahs?
>
Michael Gray
That is an outright lie.
--
Michael Gray
<dwba...@barnsco.com> wrote:
- Refer: <280120071942366894%dwba...@barnsco.com>
There are a few others under lock and key in an institution for the
mentally deficient, I believe.
Not even Dubya believes it any more, assuming that he was ever that
ignorant.
--
Don W. McCollough
"Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:KM598W6...@ussr.sov...
Right on. The sad part...I, as a citizen of the USA don't feel that all
this death and destruction has lessened the chance that some crazed Saudi
Arabians wont plan and execute another 9/11.
This "war on terror" is complete sham.
Bush should be impeached and imprisoned.
David W. Barnes
<mike...@newsguy.com> wrote:
But the Right Wing fanatics still repeat the lie.
ouroboros rex
"John C. Randolph" <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
news:2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
Simply a lie.
rsp...@operamail.com
I always MTFO for this anti-crossposting technique.
CB
"David W. Barnes" <dwba...@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:290120070747305811%dwba...@barnsco.com...
Joe Wilson: Clueless Liar
By Christopher Hitchens
Slate | April 19, 2006
Nobody appears to dispute what I wrote in last week's Slate to the effect
that in February 1999, Saddam Hussein dispatched his former envoy to the
International Atomic Energy Agency, and former delegate to non-proliferation
conferences at the United Nations, to Niger. Wissam al-Zahawie was, at the
time of his visit, the accredited ambassador of Iraq to the Vatican: a more
senior post than it may sound, given that the Vatican was almost the only
full European embassy that Iraq then possessed. And nobody has proposed an
answer to my question: Given the fact that Niger is synonymous with uranium
(and was Iraq's source of "yellowcake" in 1981), and given that Zahawie had
been Iraq's main man in nuclear diplomacy, what innocent explanation can be
found for his trip?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22113
Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was
not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
CB
"ouroboros rex" <c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:epl505$hd0$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Joe Wilson has been proven the liar. Because of Wilson's lies you Dim Libs
have built a house of cards.
Joe Wilson: Clueless Liar
By Christopher Hitchens
Slate | April 19, 2006
Nobody appears to dispute what I wrote in last week's Slate to the effect
that in February 1999, Saddam Hussein dispatched his former envoy to the
International Atomic Energy Agency, and former delegate to non-proliferation
conferences at the United Nations, to Niger. Wissam al-Zahawie was, at the
time of his visit, the accredited ambassador of Iraq to the Vatican: a more
senior post than it may sound, given that the Vatican was almost the only
full European embassy that Iraq then possessed. And nobody has proposed an
answer to my question: Given the fact that Niger is synonymous with uranium
(and was Iraq's source of "yellowcake" in 1981), and given that Zahawie had
been Iraq's main man in nuclear diplomacy, what innocent explanation can be
found for his trip?
...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22113
--
CB
http://www.democrap.com/mambo/
Click to play the clip, Islamofascist call on American Useful Idiots
>
CB
"Moderator" <a...@if.com> wrote in message
news:ot0sr2pj5q8m06moq...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:09:25 -0500, "rjbjr" <rjbu...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Excuse me.
>>
>>We were attacked on 9/11 by people who grew up in a part of the world
>>where
>>the rich, the despots, live in luxury and where the poor have no hope.
>
> Yes-Saudi Aabia where the despots were business partners of George
> Bush and the Bin Ladens were entertained at his Crawford ranch.
>
>
>
>
>> TheUS did a noble thing to try to give the masses in that region a
>> different
>>model of government and a different way to live. The hope was that
>>freedom
>>would be more attractive than terrorism as a way of life. If nothing
>>changes in the region, we in the US will be vulnerable to more 9/11s for
>>generations to come.
>
> So *noble* the Nuremburg Tribunal called such activities " the supreme
> international crime".
>
> the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of
> aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of
> aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
> international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
> contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
You miss Saddamn, Uday and Qusay don't you.
It's not the same without them is it?
Need a tissue?
ouroboros rex
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
news:45be2138$0$27092$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
rofl It's lying crissy again. Why did you bother?
ouroboros rex
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
>
> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:epl505$hd0$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>
>> "John C. Randolph" <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
>>> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>>
>>>> We
>>>> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
>>>> threat to us.
>>>
>>> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
>>> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
>>> obligations to provide mutual defense.
>>
>> Simply a lie.
>
> Joe Wilson has been proven the liar.
Nope.
Because of Wilson's lies you Dim Libs
> have built a house of cards.
You lost. Get over it.
ouroboros rex
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
Ah, the depth of republican thought. rofl
CB
Ah, the depth of Dim Libs 'actions' to have America lose, just like in
Vietnam
First-2-Die
> committed a monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a countless number
> of war crimes.
Madame Speaker - they're ready for you in the conference room.
Red White and Blue
John C. Randolph
Do the words "invasion of Kuwait" ring a bell with you? How about
"ceasefire treaty obligations", like Saddam's duty to destroy his
weapons program and provide the proof of having done so to the weapons
inspectors? Sucks for him that he decided to bluff, but at least the
Iraqis got their chance to hang him.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
> the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of
> aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of
> aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
> international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
> contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
You're glossing over a few salient facts here, the main one being that
Saddam was under certain obligations as a condition of a cease-fire in
a war which he had started by invading Kuwait. There was no peace
treaty, and resumption of hostilities at any time was entirely legal,
even after the US and the rest of the world had given him an extra
decade to pursue his program of murderous kleptocracy.
Of course he should have been killed a decade ago, and leaving the
Kurds and the marsh Arabs to get slaughtered by the Baathists was a
terrible betrayal, but better late than never.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
Oh, you're just so *precious* and clever. I'll bet all the undergrad
girls love you in your Che t-shirt, don't they?
-jcr
Denis Loubet
> committed a monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a countless number
> of war crimes.
We've already lost, all that remains is to determine the magnitude of the
loss.
The bizarre thing is that we're in complete control over how badly we want
to lose.
According to the administration efforts, we want to lose REALLY big.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
ouroboros rex
"John C. Randolph" <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
news:2007012911513316807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
> On 2007-01-28 19:42:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <dwba...@barnsco.com>
> said:
>
>> In article <2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>, John C.
>> Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>>
>>>> We
>>>> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
>>>> threat to us.
>>>
>>> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
>>> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
>>> obligations to provide mutual defense.
>>
>> So you are the guy who still believes that.
>
> Do the words "invasion of Kuwait" ring a bell with you?
See '1991'.
How about
> "ceasefire treaty obligations", like Saddam's duty to destroy his weapons
> program and provide the proof of having done so to the weapons inspectors?
Destroyed in 1991, records not demanded till after the fact.
> Sucks for him that he decided to bluff,
Still NO operational WMDs found in Iraq.
ouroboros rex
"John C. Randolph" <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
news:2007012912015750073-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
It's OK, you can probably finsd a walking Adam's Apple like Coulter to
snuggle up to - I know there's not much female companionship there in the
fantasy world you're in.
In the meantime, how about identifying ONE actual threat to the US from
Iraq.
Thundercleets
just shut the hell up.
TMT
On Jan 28, 8:33 pm, "Deuteros" <deute...@xrs.net> wrote:
> It would only be just, and it would be minimal justice at that. We have
> committed a monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a countless number
> of war crimes.
>
> So let's be completely clear, and restate it once more for emphasis. We
> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
> threat to us. Our government has murdered more than half a million
> innocent Iraqis -- and destroyed an entire nation. Our government has also
> murdered and maimed tens of thousands of Americans.
>
> But in the moral sense -- in the sense of destroying human life with no
> justification whatsoever -- we certainly deserve to lose. It would only be
> just, and it would be minimal justice at that. We have committed a
> monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a countless number of war
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>
>On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>
>> We
>> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
>> threat to us.
>
>Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
>also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
>obligations to provide mutual defense.
Really! So, how come Turkey had not massed troops on its border? Answer:
Turkey, Iraq's next-door-neighbor did NOT consider Iraq a 'threat'.
QED
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<2007012911513316807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>
It's fairly easy with Google or any othr decent web-search engine to discover
that those weapons inspectors were all of the opinion that SH didn't have any
WMD.
That, of course, completely skips past the fact that you and BushCo demanded SH
'prove a negative', something you would have learned in logic class (had you
ever taken one) is impossible.
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<2007012912004775249-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>
>You're glossing over a few salient facts here, the main one being that
>Saddam was under certain obligations as a condition of a cease-fire in
>a war which he had started by invading Kuwait.
My recollection is that SH was doing a pretty good job of accomodating the UN
weapons inspectors before we announced we were going to begin indiscriminate
bombing -- which prompted the weapons inspectors to pack up and book.
The 'obligation' which SH failed to fulfill was to prove to the US President
that he no longer had WMD. Alas, it is impossible to prove a negative, so
missing that 'obligation' was a foregone conclusion.
But you already knew that, didn't you?
° Shanghai Lil °
> On 2007-01-29 06:49:15 -0800, Moderator <a...@if.com> said:
>
>> the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of
>> aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of
>> aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the
>> supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in
>> that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
>
> You're glossing over a few salient facts here, the main one being that
> Saddam was under certain obligations as a condition of a cease-fire in
> a war which he had started by invading Kuwait. There was no peace
> treaty, and resumption of hostilities at any time was entirely legal,
ONLY by the COALITION of DESERT STORM ALLIES, via
a UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY authorizing
a resumption of war, asshole.
Not any rogue country that decides, unilaterally, that THEY are going
to invade Iraq.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
John C. Randolph
> John C. Randolph wrote:
>> On 2007-01-29 06:49:15 -0800, Moderator <a...@if.com> said:
>>
>>> the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of
>>> aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of
>>> aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the
>>> supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in
>>> that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
>>
>> You're glossing over a few salient facts here, the main one being that
>> Saddam was under certain obligations as a condition of a cease-fire in
>> a war which he had started by invading Kuwait. There was no peace
>> treaty, and resumption of hostilities at any time was entirely legal,
>
> ONLY by the COALITION of DESERT STORM ALLIES, via
> a UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY authorizing
> a resumption of war, asshole.
All caps doesn't make it so, sweetie.
> Not any rogue country that decides, unilaterally, that THEY are going
> to invade Iraq.
Why do you hate Iraqis so much that you want them to live under a dictatorship?
-jcr
First-2-Die
> committed a monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a countless number
> of war crimes.
Who is John Murtha for $800.
Red White and Blue
John C. Randolph
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:00:47 -0800, John C. Randolph
> <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com>
> wrote:
> <2007012912004775249-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>
>
>> You're glossing over a few salient facts here, the main one being that
>> Saddam was under certain obligations as a condition of a cease-fire in
>> a war which he had started by invading Kuwait.
>
> My recollection is that SH was doing a pretty good job of accomodating the UN
> weapons inspectors before we announced we were going to begin indiscriminate
> bombing -- which prompted the weapons inspectors to pack up and book.
Your recollection is faulty. He spent a decade jerking them around and
playing hide-and-seek. At the very end, as they were leaving, he made
statements to the effect of "wait, wait! I'll be good!", but he had
pulled that trick many times before. See Richard Butler's book. The
first one, I think it was.
> The 'obligation' which SH failed to fulfill was to prove to the US President
> that he no longer had WMD. Alas, it is impossible to prove a negative, so
> missing that 'obligation' was a foregone conclusion.
Not at all. Libya proved the abandoment of their WMD program to
everyone's satisfaction. Saddam was determined to play the "tough guy"
and bluffed his way to the gallows.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
<c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> said:
> It's OK, you can probably finsd a walking Adam's Apple like Coulter
> to snuggle up to - I know there's not much female companionship there
> in the fantasy world you're in.
Ah, you think I fit into one of your pigeon holes, do you? Guess again.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
>
>> Sucks for him that he decided to bluff,
>
> Still NO operational WMDs found in Iraq.
Interesting qualifier there, but the cease-fire didn't limit Saddam's
obligation to turning over or destroying only "operational" WMDs. It
required him to dismantle his entire WMD stockpiles *and* development
program, and show his compliance to the inspectors. Their job was
never to go chasing around the country turning over rocks.
Of course, that whole circus only occured because Bush senior failed to
remove Saddam from power, and betrayed the Iraqis who rose up against
Saddam. That was as rotten as Kennedy abandoning the Cubans in the
Bay of Pigs invasion.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:51:33 -0800, John C. Randolph
> <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com>
> wrote:
> <2007012911513316807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>
>
>> On 2007-01-28 19:42:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <dwba...@barnsco.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>, John C.
>>> Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> We
>>>>> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
>>>>> threat to us.
>>>>
>>>> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
>>>> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
>>>> obligations to provide mutual defense.
>>>
>>> So you are the guy who still believes that.
>>
>> Do the words "invasion of Kuwait" ring a bell with you? How about
>> "ceasefire treaty obligations", like Saddam's duty to destroy his
>> weapons program and provide the proof of having done so to the weapons
>> inspectors? Sucks for him that he decided to bluff, but at least the
>> Iraqis got their chance to hang him.
>
> It's fairly easy with Google or any othr decent web-search engine to discover
> that those weapons inspectors were all of the opinion that SH didn't have any
> WMD.
Excuse me? Ever heard of Richard Butler?
-jcr
John C. Randolph
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:04:49 -0800, John C. Randolph
> <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com>
> wrote:
> <2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>
>
>> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>
>>> We
>>> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
>>> threat to us.
>>
>> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
>> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
>> obligations to provide mutual defense.
>
> Really! So, how come Turkey had not massed troops on its border?
Probably because Turkey was confident that NATO would fulfil their
treaty if Saddam attacked them. That was not the case for Kuwait or
Iran.
-jcr
David W. Barnes
Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> On 2007-01-29 13:01:46 -0800, "ouroboros rex"
> <c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> said:
> >
> >> Sucks for him that he decided to bluff,
> >
> > Still NO operational WMDs found in Iraq.
>
> Interesting qualifier there, but the cease-fire didn't limit Saddam's
> obligation to turning over or destroying only "operational" WMDs. It
> required him to dismantle his entire WMD stockpiles *and* development
> program, and show his compliance to the inspectors. Their job was
> never to go chasing around the country turning over rocks.
And that gives the Bush White House the right to invade, how?
David W. Barnes
Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
And this good enough for you.
David W. Barnes
Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
Sounds like you are giving up. Good strategy.
David W. Barnes
Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> On 2007-01-28 19:42:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <dwba...@barnsco.com> said:
>
> > In article <2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>, John C.
> > Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
> >>
> >>> We
> >>> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
> >>> threat to us.
> >>
> >> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
> >> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
> >> obligations to provide mutual defense.
> >
> > So you are the guy who still believes that.
>
> Oh, you're just so *precious* and clever. I'll bet all the undergrad
> girls love you in your Che t-shirt, don't they?
They love me, but not for the shirt.
David W. Barnes
Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> On 2007-01-28 19:42:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <dwba...@barnsco.com> said:
>
> > In article <2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>, John C.
> > Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
> >>
> >>> We
> >>> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
> >>> threat to us.
> >>
> >> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
> >> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
> >> obligations to provide mutual defense.
> >
> > So you are the guy who still believes that.
>
> Do the words "invasion of Kuwait" ring a bell with you? How about
> "ceasefire treaty obligations", like Saddam's duty to destroy his
> weapons program and provide the proof of having done so to the weapons
> inspectors? Sucks for him that he decided to bluff, but at least the
> Iraqis got their chance to hang him.
At a U.S. Taxpayer cost of $378 billion, and rising. Sucks for us.
Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
news:2007012916142938165-jcrnospam@nospammaccom:
Wrong. The Turks did move troops to the border as soon as Saddam's rule
was destroyed because they were then facing the very real threat of a
Kurdish uprising. The Turks were very happy that Saddam kept the Kurds
very firmly suppressed. If you believe that the Turks would sit on their
behinds hoping that Nato would come to their aid when they were facing an
external threat, you know absolutely nothing about the Turks.
Klazmon.
> -jcr
>
Ray Fischer
>On 2007-01-29 13:01:46 -0800, "ouroboros rex"
><c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> said:
>>
>>> Sucks for him that he decided to bluff,
>>
>> Still NO operational WMDs found in Iraq.
>
>Interesting qualifier there, but the cease-fire didn't limit Saddam's
>obligation to turning over or destroying only "operational" WMDs.
Nor did the cease fire give the United States ANY authority to invade
Iraq.
> It
>required him to dismantle his entire WMD stockpiles *and* development
>program, and show his compliance to the inspectors.
The UN inspectors who 1) didn't find any WMD, 2) said that US
intelligence was garbage, and 3) were forced to leave Iraq because of
Bush.
>Of course, that whole circus only occured because Bush senior failed to
>remove Saddam from power, and betrayed the Iraqis who rose up against
Neocons think that killing people is the solution to every problem.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
CB
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45beb901$0$80094$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> John C. Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>On 2007-01-29 13:01:46 -0800, "ouroboros rex"
>><c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> said:
>>>
>>>> Sucks for him that he decided to bluff,
>>>
>>> Still NO operational WMDs found in Iraq.
>>
>>Interesting qualifier there, but the cease-fire didn't limit Saddam's
>>obligation to turning over or destroying only "operational" WMDs.
>
> Nor did the cease fire give the United States ANY authority to invade
> Iraq.
The UN did you ignoramus, so did the Senate by unanimous vote!!!
>
>> It
>>required him to dismantle his entire WMD stockpiles *and* development
>>program, and show his compliance to the inspectors.
>
> The UN inspectors who 1) didn't find any WMD, 2) said that US
> intelligence was garbage, and 3) were forced to leave Iraq because of
> Bush.
You're a liar. The inspectors left because they were being obstructed from
their duties. While they could inspect known weapons depots they were turned
away at Saddamn's palaces. Some taking up the size of Disney World! 27
square miles.
"Papers not in order. No instection for you"
>
>>Of course, that whole circus only occured because Bush senior failed to
>>remove Saddam from power, and betrayed the Iraqis who rose up against
>
> Neocons think that killing people is the solution to every problem.
Especially those who have a record of wholesale murder and thumb their
tyrannical nose at 17 resolutions that call for disarmament by the UN.
--
CB
http://www.democrap.com/mambo/
Click to play the clip, Islamofascist call on American Useful Idiots, like
you
CB
"ouroboros rex" <c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:eplnfm$nkd$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Saddamn, by not cooperating with UN inspectors held the potentual for
passing his known but missing WMD over to el Qaeda, moron.
President Bush wasn't about to allow that threat to escalate into an
imminent threat, moron
--
CB
http://www.democrap.com/mambo/
Click to play the clip, Islamofascist call on American Useful Idiots, that
means you
° Shanghai Lil °
> "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> wrote in message
> news:KM598W6...@ussr.sov...
>> It would only be just, and it would be minimal justice at that. We
>> have committed a monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a
>> countless number of war crimes.
>
> the loss.
>
> The bizarre thing is that we're in complete control over how badly we
> want to lose.
>
> According to the administration efforts, we want to lose REALLY big.
The U$A is a nation of losers and cowards, so it's apropos.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> wrote in message
> news:KM598W6...@ussr.sov...
> > It would only be just, and it would be minimal justice at that. We have
> > committed a monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a countless number
> > of war crimes.
> >
> > So let's be completely clear, and restate it once more for emphasis. We
> > invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
> > threat to us. Our government has murdered more than half a million
> > innocent Iraqis -- and destroyed an entire nation. Our government has also
> > murdered and maimed tens of thousands of Americans.
> >
> > But in the moral sense -- in the sense of destroying human life with no
> > justification whatsoever -- we certainly deserve to lose. It would only be
> > just, and it would be minimal justice at that. We have committed a
> > monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a countless number of war
> > crimes. If you care at all about the sanctity of an individual human life,
> > and if you still give a damn, that should matter to you. Nothing in the
> > world is more important.
> >
> > So, yes, in the sense I have described, I want us to lose. We already
> > have. There is no forgiveness for what we have done. Do I want American
> > soldiers to die? Of course not. I never wanted them to be sent to Iraq in
> > the first place. If we had never begun this catastrophe, those who have
> > died would be alive today -- as would over half a million Iraqis.
> >
> > One might hope that we've learned something from our indecent and immoral
> > acts, and that we will be more careful in our future actions. In a tragedy
> > beyond measure, it is already entirely clear that we have learned
> > absolutely nothing -- just as we learned nothing from Vietnam. All of the
> > forces that led to more than a century of unending war are still in place.
> > We have learned nothing.
>
> Right on. The sad part...I, as a citizen of the USA don't feel that all
> this death and destruction has lessened the chance that some crazed Saudi
> Arabians wont plan and execute another 9/11.
>
> This "war on terror" is complete sham.
>
> Bush should be impeached and imprisoned.
And hanged, in a rope too short.
--
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
"If guns kill, do pencils cause spelling errors?"
Denis Loubet
"° Shanghai Lil °" <Li...@Shanghai.cn> wrote in message
news:45be893b$0$1864$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>> "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> wrote in message
>> news:KM598W6...@ussr.sov...
>>> It would only be just, and it would be minimal justice at that. We
>>> have committed a monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a
>>> countless number of war crimes.
>>
>> We've already lost, all that remains is to determine the magnitude of
>> the loss.
>>
>> The bizarre thing is that we're in complete control over how badly we
>> want to lose.
>>
>> According to the administration efforts, we want to lose REALLY big.
>
> The U$A is a nation of losers and cowards, so it's apropos.
I wouldn't go that far.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
First-2-Die
"° Shanghai Lil °" <Li...@Shanghai.cn> wrote in message
news:45be893b$0$1864$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>> "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> wrote in message
>> news:KM598W6...@ussr.sov...
>>> It would only be just, and it would be minimal justice at that. We
>>> have committed a monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a
>>> countless number of war crimes.
>>
>> We've already lost, all that remains is to determine the magnitude of
>> the loss.
>>
>> The bizarre thing is that we're in complete control over how badly we
>> want to lose.
>>
>> According to the administration efforts, we want to lose REALLY big.
>
> The U$A is a nation of losers and cowards, so it's apropos.
What country are you proud to call home?
Red White and Blue
Ray Fischer
>>>>> Sucks for him that he decided to bluff,
>>>>
>>>> Still NO operational WMDs found in Iraq.
>>>
>>>Interesting qualifier there, but the cease-fire didn't limit Saddam's
>>>obligation to turning over or destroying only "operational" WMDs.
>>
>> Nor did the cease fire give the United States ANY authority to invade
>> Iraq.
>
>The UN did you ignoramus,
They did not. Bush couldn't even get the UN security council to go
along with his invasion.
>>> It
>>>required him to dismantle his entire WMD stockpiles *and* development
>>>program, and show his compliance to the inspectors.
>>
>> The UN inspectors who 1) didn't find any WMD, 2) said that US
>> intelligence was garbage, and 3) were forced to leave Iraq because of
>> Bush.
>
>You're a liar. The inspectors left because they were being obstructed from
>their duties.
AP) U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out
of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum
for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.
...
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N.
inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N.
observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S.
threats to launch war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml
>>>Of course, that whole circus only occured because Bush senior failed to
>>>remove Saddam from power, and betrayed the Iraqis who rose up against
>>
>> Neocons think that killing people is the solution to every problem.
>
>Especially those who have a record of wholesale murder and thumb their
>tyrannical nose at 17 resolutions that call for disarmament by the UN.
People like Bush, who lied to the world, thumbed his nose at the UN,
and waged a war which has caused the deaths of half a million people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
And you, being a right-wing nutcase, have the potential for getting a
rifle and killing innocent people.
Therefore you should be in prison.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
CB
"The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief
inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."
-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
"To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors
once visited before they were kicked out four years ago."
--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons
inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with
inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered
its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"
--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98
"As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from
Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors
after kicking them out four years ago."
--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02
"The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad
today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to
cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes."
--AP, 12/16/98
"Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N.
weapons inspectors in 1998."
--AP, 9/7/02
"Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler
ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq."
--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98
"It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities
since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the
regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make
weapons."
--Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02
"The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of
Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector
Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the
inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's
failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes."
--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98
"If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the
inspectors to hide all of them."
--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02
"This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face
of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back.
Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up
equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter
of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to
Bahrain."
--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98
"What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple
fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian
Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons
inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors
were kicked out."
--John King, CNN, 8/18/02
"Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating
inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the
Security Council."
--USA Today, 12/17/98
"Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being
U.S. spies."
--USA Today, 9/4/02
"But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler's quick withdrawal from Iraq on
Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council
permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the
American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with
Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh."
--New York Times, 12/18/98
"America's goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all
unconventional weapons.... To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United
Nations arms inspectors four years ago."
--New York Times editorial, 8/3/02
"Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a
military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the
Security Council had yet to receive his report."
--Washington Post, 12/18/98
"Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly
been working to build more chemical and biological weapons."
--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02
"Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after
handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to
cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Newsday, 12/17/98
"The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed
years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever
weapons they found. That's disingenuous."
--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123
You were saying?
Saddamn got what was coming to him. A lesson still to be learned for those
who try and obstruct America's President from his oath to 'protect'
American's from Terrorism AND THOSE WHO SPONSOR Terrorism.
The sooner the lesson is learned, the sooner everyone can go home.
CB
Fortunately for me I have the law on my side and can say most anything
because I live in the greatest country on Earth. The Iraqi people could
never debate Saddamn's worth as human trash.
You say I should be in prison, what a fascist wannabe you are. Are you
Wahabi as well?
Ray Fischer
>inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."
>-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
Did you even notice the date, lunatic?
>"To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors
>once visited before they were kicked out four years ago."
>--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
"Four years ago".
You neocons are nothing if not stupid assholes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John C. Randolph
Giving up what, exactly? What do you imagine you have accomplished by
trying and failing to get my goat by mentioning a random conservative
pundit?
-jcr
Ray Fischer
Like Iraq.
>and can say most anything
>because I live in the greatest country on Earth.
A country which you want to see turned into a fascist dictatorship.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John C. Randolph
Somehow, I find the opinion of the man who was the chief UN weapons
inspector in Iraq for most of a decade rather more convincing that your
hand-waving, yes.
-jcr
CB
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45bf87a8$0$80118$742e...@news.sonic.net...
CB
Like this...?
"And you, being a right-wing nutcase, have the potential for getting a rifle
and killing innocent people."
"Therefore you should be in prison."
--Ray Fischer
Who's the fascist? You are
What potential I have is rooted in my right to bare arms and implemented in
my CWP and Kel-Tec 32.
What Fascist country do you live in where the only people able to defend
them selves are criminals?
CB
Begemot2
>[...]
>What potential I have is rooted in my right to bare arms...
[...]
Does Shari'a law, strictly interpreted to hide women under formless
tents, infringe your right to enjoy bare female arms?
Is there a group seeking to ban access to innoculations?
(There are the thimerosal=autism hucksters, but I think they rely on
hysteria rather than outright bans.)
--Begemot2
Deuteros
news:kutsr2ph2incitv5t...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:51:33 -0800, John C. Randolph
> <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> <2007012911513316807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>
>
>> On 2007-01-28 19:42:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <dwba...@barnsco.com>
>> said:
>>
>>> In article <2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>, John C.
>>> Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> We invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that
>>>>> was no threat to us.
>>>>
>>>> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
>>>> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
>>>> obligations to provide mutual defense.
>>>
>>> So you are the guy who still believes that.
>>
>> Do the words "invasion of Kuwait" ring a bell with you? How about
>> "ceasefire treaty obligations", like Saddam's duty to destroy his
>> weapons program and provide the proof of having done so to the weapons
>> inspectors? Sucks for him that he decided to bluff, but at least the
>> Iraqis got their chance to hang him.
>
> It's fairly easy with Google or any othr decent web-search engine to
> discover that those weapons inspectors were all of the opinion that SH
> didn't have any WMD.
>
> That, of course, completely skips past the fact that you and BushCo
> demanded SH 'prove a negative', something you would have learned in
> logic class (had you ever taken one) is impossible.
No, it's not impossible. If you have an empty box and I ask you to prove
that there's nothing in the box, you can easily do so by opening it and
showing me.
Deuteros
news:2007012911513316807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom:
> On 2007-01-28 19:42:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <dwba...@barnsco.com>
> said:
>
>> In article <2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>, John C.
>> Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>>
>>>> We invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that
>>>> was no threat to us.
>>>
>>> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
>>> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
>>> obligations to provide mutual defense.
>>
>> So you are the guy who still believes that.
>
> Do the words "invasion of Kuwait" ring a bell with you? How about
> "ceasefire treaty obligations", like Saddam's duty to destroy his
> weapons program and provide the proof of having done so to the weapons
> inspectors? Sucks for him that he decided to bluff, but at least the
> Iraqis got their chance to hang him.
Sorry if I don't believe that giving Iraqis the chance to hang one man was
worth over 3000 American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and
hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars.
Deuteros
> On 2007-01-29 13:01:46 -0800, "ouroboros rex"
> <c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> said:
>
>>> Sucks for him that he decided to bluff,
>>
>> Still NO operational WMDs found in Iraq.
>
> Interesting qualifier there, but the cease-fire didn't limit Saddam's
> obligation to turning over or destroying only "operational" WMDs. It
> required him to dismantle his entire WMD stockpiles *and* development
> program, and show his compliance to the inspectors. Their job was
> never to go chasing around the country turning over rocks.
>
> Of course, that whole circus only occured because Bush senior failed to
> remove Saddam from power, and betrayed the Iraqis who rose up against
> Saddam.
And as we can see from current events in Iraq, Bush 41 is a lot wiser than
his son.
Deuteros
news:45bed5c7$0$28179$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
And how many UN resolutions has the United States ignored?
Deuteros
news:45bf7f47$0$28086$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
Except that invading Iraq had nothing to do with protecting America from
terrorism.
Deuteros
news:45bed754$0$24486$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:eplnfm$nkd$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>> "John C. Randolph" <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:2007012912015750073-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
>>
>>> On 2007-01-28 19:42:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <dwba...@barnsco.com>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>, John C.
>>>> Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that
>>>>>> was no threat to us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
>>>>> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
>>>>> obligations to provide mutual defense.
>>>>
>>>> So you are the guy who still believes that.
>>>
>>> Oh, you're just so *precious* and clever. I'll bet all the undergrad
>>> girls love you in your Che t-shirt, don't they?
>>
>> It's OK, you can probably finsd a walking Adam's Apple like Coulter to
>> snuggle up to - I know there's not much female companionship there in
>> the fantasy world you're in.
>>
>> In the meantime, how about identifying ONE actual threat to the US
>> from Iraq.
>
> Saddamn, by not cooperating with UN inspectors held the potentual for
> passing his known but missing WMD over to el Qaeda, moron.
And you have the potential to use your kitchen knife to kill your neighbor,
so would I be justified in killing you?
Deuteros
news:45bf92e4$0$28095$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
You totally missed the point.
It's bad policy to invade countries and overthrow governments on the basis
of their potential to do harm. Otherwise, we might as well just go attack
China and Russia because they have all those nukes.
Deuteros
news:280120072002022436%dwba...@barnsco.com:
> In article <64rqr2ta09insq9rb...@4ax.com>, Moderator
> <a...@if.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:04:49 -0800, John C. Randolph
>> <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>>
>>>> We
>>>> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was
>>>> no threat to us.
>>>
>>> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us,
>>
>> Iraq was never a credible threat to the USA and there was never any
>> evidence of such, only lies.
>
> In fact, they could almost be called an ally. Saddam Hussein was an
> enemy of Al Qaeda. He hated them.
The US already has a bad habit of getting buddy-buddy with dictatorships.
Deuteros
news:2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom:
> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>
>> We invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was
>> no threat to us.
>
> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
> obligations to provide mutual defense.
George Washington had good reason when he warned of entangling alliances.
Deuteros
news:45be22f5$0$8962$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:epl505$hd0$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>> "John C. Randolph" <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
>>
>>> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>>
>>>> We invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that
>>>> was no threat to us.
>>>
>>> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
>>> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
>>> obligations to provide mutual defense.
>>
>> Simply a lie.
>
> Joe Wilson has been proven the liar. Because of Wilson's lies you Dim
> Libs have built a house of cards.
Who said anything about Joe Wilson?
Deuteros
news:45be23b4$0$27088$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> "Moderator" <a...@if.com> wrote in message
> news:ot0sr2pj5q8m06moq...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:09:25 -0500, "rjbjr" <rjbu...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Excuse me.
>>>
>>> We were attacked on 9/11 by people who grew up in a part of the world
>>> where the rich, the despots, live in luxury and where the poor have no
>>> hope.
>>
>> Yes-Saudi Aabia where the despots were business partners of George
>> Bush and the Bin Ladens were entertained at his Crawford ranch.
>>
>>> The US did a noble thing to try to give the masses in that region a
>>> different model of government and a different way to live. The hope
>>> was that freedom would be more attractive than terrorism as a way of
>>> life. If nothing changes in the region, we in the US will be
>>> vulnerable to more 9/11s for generations to come.
>>
>> So *noble* the Nuremburg Tribunal called such activities " the supreme
>> international crime".
>>
>> the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of
>> aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of
>> aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
>> international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
>> contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
>
> You miss Saddamn, Uday and Qusay don't you.
>
> It's not the same without them is it?
>
> Need a tissue?
And I guess Ronald Reagan had a hard-on for communism and the KGB because he
never invaded the Soviet Union.
Is this the extent of your logic?
Deuteros
news:45be3477$0$4923$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:epl9mp$j1b$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>> "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
>> news:45be23b4$0$27088$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> Ah, the depth of republican thought. rofl
>
> Ah, the depth of Dim Libs 'actions' to have America lose, just like in
> Vietnam
And just like Vietnam, you would keep sending Americans to fight and die
for a lost cause.
Deuteros
news:364tr21d92kgdqkjs...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:52:55 -0500, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ah, the depth of republican thought. rofl
>>
>> Ah, the depth of Dim Libs 'actions' to have America lose, just like in
>> Vietnam
>
> The "stakes" for loosing are much higher than in Vietnam though.
>
> Vietnam was a "civil" war. WW2 was a "unite Germany under one flag"
> (racist third reich) war.
>
> Iraq is none of those.
>
> Those that fight in Iraq are muslims. When they pull the trigger they
> say "Allah Akbar" (and not "Oil Nazi" as propagandist would like you
> to believe is the motive).
>
> Because of this, the war in Iraq is more important than Vietnam and it
> is more important than WW2.
Your hyperbole is a little thick.
> Iraq is about defeating an enemy that proclaims Allah himself says to
> conquer the world (not Adolph Hitler).
Iraq is about Iraqis getting pissed off about a foreign military occupying
their country.
Deuteros
> On 2007-01-29 14:15:23 -0800, "° Shanghai Lil °" <Li...@Shanghai.cn>
> said:
>
>> John C. Randolph wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-01-29 06:49:15 -0800, Moderator <a...@if.com> said:
>>>
>>>> the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of
>>>> aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of
>>>> aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the
>>>> supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in
>>>> that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
>>>
>>> You're glossing over a few salient facts here, the main one being that
>>> Saddam was under certain obligations as a condition of a cease-fire in
>>> a war which he had started by invading Kuwait. There was no peace
>>> treaty, and resumption of hostilities at any time was entirely legal,
>>
>> ONLY by the COALITION of DESERT STORM ALLIES, via
>> a UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY authorizing
>> a resumption of war, asshole.
>
> All caps doesn't make it so, sweetie.
>
>> Not any rogue country that decides, unilaterally, that THEY are going
>> to invade Iraq.
>
> Why do you hate Iraqis so much that you want them to live under a
> dictatorship?
The US government does not have the legal or moral authority to dictate to
other countries how they should operate.
Deuteros
news:pj8tr25er0d923vjo...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:49:47 -0800, Moderator <a...@if.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:26:07 -0600, Zeno <Ze...@home.kom> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 06:49:15 -0800, Moderator <a...@if.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Excuse me.
>>>>>
>>>>>We were attacked on 9/11 by people who grew up in a part of the world
>>>>>where the rich, the despots, live in luxury and where the poor have
>>>>>no hope.
>>>>
>>>>Yes-Saudi Aabia where the despots were business partners of George
>>>>Bush and the Bin Ladens were entertained at his Crawford ranch.
>>>
>>>You seem to be unaware of nature of the Islamo-fascist movement.
>>>Perhaps these will help.
>>>
>>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6331994107023396223&q=obsession
>>>+islamic+film
>>
>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism
>>
>>Thanks for the reference to the nonsensical nature of this crude
>>manufactured neologism.
>>
>>"The idea that there is some kind of autonomous "Islamofascism" that
>>can be crushed, or that the west may defend itself against the
>>terrorists who threaten it by cultivating that eagerness to kill
>>militant Muslims which Christopher Hitchens urges upon us, is a
>>dangerous delusion.
>>
>> The symptoms that have led some to apply the label of "Islamofascism"
>>are not reasons to forget root causes.
>>
>>They are reasons for us to examine even more carefully what those root
>>causes actually are." He adds "'Saddam, Arafat and the Saudis hate the
>>Jews and want to see them destroyed' . . . or so says the right-wing
>>writer Andrew Sullivan.
>>
>> And he has a point. Does the western left really grasp the extent of
>>anti-Semitism in the Middle East? But does the right grasp the role of
>>Europeans in creating such hatred?"
>>
>>
>>None of which explainds why the socalled islamofascist Bin Laden
>>family was lounging around on George Bush's sofa or why they were
>>flown out of the country on Sep 11th instead of being interrogated.
>
> Once again, you seem to be unaware of nature of the Islamo-fascist
> movement.
Islamofascist is a meaningless term. Terrorists are not fascists.
° Shanghai Lil °
> "° Shanghai Lil °" <Li...@Shanghai.cn> wrote in message
> news:45be893b$0$1864$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>> Denis Loubet wrote:
>>> "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> wrote in message
>>> news:KM598W6...@ussr.sov...
>>>> It would only be just, and it would be minimal justice at that. We
>>>> have committed a monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a
>>>> countless number of war crimes.
>>>
>>> We've already lost, all that remains is to determine the magnitude
>>> of the loss.
>>>
>>> The bizarre thing is that we're in complete control over how badly
>>> we want to lose.
>>>
>>> According to the administration efforts, we want to lose REALLY big.
>>
>> The U$A is a nation of losers and cowards, so it's apropos.
>
> I wouldn't go that far.
And it's that lassitude that causes you suckers to habitually lose.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Denis Loubet
"° Shanghai Lil °" <Li...@Shanghai.cn> wrote in message
Like we did WWII?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
David W. Barnes
Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
His opinion was, he didnšt know for sure.
David W. Barnes
Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> On 2007-01-29 18:02:35 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <dwba...@barnsco.com> said:
>
> > In article <2007012916053477923-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>, John C.
> > Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-01-29 13:03:50 -0800, "ouroboros rex"
> >> <c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> said:
> >>
> >>> It's OK, you can probably finsd a walking Adam's Apple like Coulter to
> >>> snuggle up to - I know there's not much female companionship there in
> >>> the fantasy world you're in.
> >>
> >> Ah, you think I fit into one of your pigeon holes, do you? Guess again.
> >
> > Sounds like you are giving up. Good strategy.
>
> Giving up what, exactly? What do you imagine you have accomplished by
> trying and failing to get my goat by mentioning a random conservative
> pundit?
I didnšt do that at all.
David W. Barnes
wrote:
Agreed. But we shouldn¹t use that as an excuse to kill them later
claiming ³He is a dictator!²
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<2007012916114237709-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>
>On 2007-01-29 13:01:46 -0800, "ouroboros rex"
><c-b...@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> said:
>>
>>> Sucks for him that he decided to bluff,
>>
>> Still NO operational WMDs found in Iraq.
>
>Interesting qualifier there, but the cease-fire didn't limit Saddam's
>obligation to turning over or destroying only "operational" WMDs. It
>required him to dismantle his entire WMD stockpiles *and* development
>program, and show his compliance to the inspectors.
Those non-operational WMDs (whatever they were) seemed not to be a problem for
anyone except Bush...
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Frank Clarke
<epogdt$l75$5...@news.onet.pl>
>Frank Clarke <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
>news:kutsr2ph2incitv5t...@4ax.com:
>> That, of course, completely skips past the fact that you and BushCo
>> demanded SH 'prove a negative', something you would have learned in
>> logic class (had you ever taken one) is impossible.
>
>No, it's not impossible. If you have an empty box and I ask you to prove
>that there's nothing in the box, you can easily do so by opening it and
>showing me.
Except that that wasn't what was demanded. What was demanded was NOT proof that
there were not WMDs in --some particular spot--, but that there were not WMDs in
ANY spot (in Iraq). The two are entirely different problems.
It's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Frank Clarke
<45bed754$0$24486$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
>Saddamn, by not cooperating with UN inspectors held the potentual for
>passing his known but missing WMD over to el Qaeda, moron.
Given that Osama binLaden had (several times) called upon the Iraqi people to
rise up and overthrow the evil secular dictator Saddam Hussein, what might lead
you to believe Hussein would want to do this?
Other than your vivid imagination, I mean.
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<2007012916142938165-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>
>On 2007-01-29 14:37:45 -0800, Frank Clarke <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> said:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:04:49 -0800, John C. Randolph
>> <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com>
>> wrote:
>> <2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>
>>
>>> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>>
>>>> We
>>>> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that was no
>>>> threat to us.
>>>
>>> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us, but
>>> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
>>> obligations to provide mutual defense.
>>
>> Really! So, how come Turkey had not massed troops on its border?
>
>Probably because Turkey was confident that NATO would fulfil their
>treaty if Saddam attacked them. That was not the case for Kuwait or
>Iran.
Good point! So.... would not NATO have acted similarly had Iraq attacked us,
another 9,000 miles further out than Turkey? If we can't be confident in our
NATO allies, we ought to think seriously about bailing, shouldn't we?
Ray Fischer
>It's never the subject, it's always something else
The fact is that the UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq and were
forced to leave because Bush wanted to invade.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:45bf87ef$0$80118$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> CB <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>news:45bf7bdb$0$80087$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>> CB <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "John C. Randolph" <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:2007012912015750073-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
>>>>>>> On 2007-01-28 19:42:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
>>>>>>> <dwba...@barnsco.com>
>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <2007012819044927544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>, John C.
>>>>>>>> Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2007-01-28 17:33:45 -0800, "Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>> invaded and occupied a country that hadn't attacked us, and that
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>> threat to us.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Point of order there, sunshine: it was a threat not only to us,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> also to several countries closer by to whom the USA has treaty
>>>>>>>>> obligations to provide mutual defense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> girls love you in your Che t-shirt, don't they?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> snuggle up to - I know there's not much female companionship there in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> fantasy world you're in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>>
>>>>>passing his known but missing WMD over to el Qaeda, moron.
>>>>
>>>> rifle and killing innocent people.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore you should be in prison.
>>>
>>>Fortunately for me I have the law on my side
>>
>> Like Iraq.
>>
>>>and can say most anything
>>>because I live in the greatest country on Earth.
>>
>> A country which you want to see turned into a fascist dictatorship.
>
>Like this...?
>
>"And you, being a right-wing nutcase, have the potential for getting a rifle
>and killing innocent people."
>"Therefore you should be in prison."
> --Ray Fischer
>
>Who's the fascist? You are
You're just an illiterate fascist who doesn't understand parody.
>What potential I have is rooted in my right to bare arms and implemented in
>my CWP and Kel-Tec 32.
Q.E.D.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
CB
> CB <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>It's never the subject, it's always something else
>
> The fact is that the UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq and were
> forced to leave because Bush wanted to invade.
You're delusional
Inspectors were not working, they never did and Saddamn never coorperated.
Bush wasn't about to play the shell game you Libs tolerated.
--
CB
The United Nations is a fine idea. Its members are more of a problem. A
membership that can elect Libya to be in charge of human rights and
seriously contemplate choosing Iraq to supervise disarmament is overstepping
the frontiers of credibility. Delving further into the past yields other
absurdities, prime among them the infamous resolution equating Zionism with
racism.
~~Charles Powell
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/866628/posts
This Cartoon says it all
http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/opinion/KofiAid80606.jpg
CB
> On 30 Jan 2007 18:00:08 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:>>>>>> John C. Randolph <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "ouroboros rex"
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sucks for him that he decided to bluff,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still NO operational WMDs found in Iraq.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Interesting qualifier there, but the cease-fire didn't limit Saddam's
>>>>>>>obligation to turning over or destroying only "operational" WMDs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>>The UN did you ignoramus,
>>>>
>>>> They did not. Bush couldn't even get the UN security council to go
>>>> along with his invasion.
>>>>
>>>>>>>required him to dismantle his entire WMD stockpiles *and* development
>>>>>>>program, and show his compliance to the inspectors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> intelligence was garbage, and 3) were forced to leave Iraq because of
>>>>>> Bush.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're a liar. The inspectors left because they were being obstructed
>>>>>from
>>>>>their duties.
>>>>
>>>> AP) U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out
>>>> of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum
>>>> for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.
>>>> ...
>>>> U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N.
>>>> inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N.
>>>> observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S.
>>>> threats to launch war.
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml
>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course, that whole circus only occured because Bush senior failed
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>remove Saddam from power, and betrayed the Iraqis who rose up against
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neocons think that killing people is the solution to every problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>Especially those who have a record of wholesale murder and thumb their
>>>>>tyrannical nose at 17 resolutions that call for disarmament by the UN.
>>>>
>>>> People like Bush, who lied to the world, thumbed his nose at the UN,
>>>> and waged a war which has caused the deaths of half a million people.
>>>
>>>
>>>inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."
>>>-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
>>
>>
>>>"To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N.
>>>inspectors
>>>once visited before they were kicked out four years ago."
>>>--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
>>
>>
>>You neocons are nothing if not stupid assholes.
>
> Ridiculous they to try to suggest the UN gives cover for their crimes
> when the Secretary-General if the UN clearly states it was a war crime
> totally contrary to the UN Charter.
>
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm
>
> Three Conclusions
>
>
> It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost
> international law experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's
> opinion is correct (i.e., true) because the Iraq War was, indeed,
> illegal; and
>
> (2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing's" leaders is
> incorrect (i.e., false) because their Iraq War was NOT legal.
>
> (3) Therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons'
> self-delusional groupthink mentality by learning to differentiate
> between fact and truth, which are all-too-easily confused.
>
> For instance, it's an undeniable fact that Messrs. Bush and Cheney
> have been arguing along the campaign trail that "The Iraq War was
> legal!" Nevertheless, the mere fact that they've been vehemently
> arguing that point certainly does NOT make it true!
>
> Their argument is flawed by a logical fallacy called an ipse dixit
> (i.e., "something asserted but not proved"). As we've already seen,
> their argument is just plain WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW! Therefore,
> Messrs. Bush and Cheney are making a false argument (i.e., deceptively
> asserting something that is untrue).
Goo goo?
CB
Resolution 1441, read it, eccept it, get over it