What We Are fighting Against
Chive Mynde
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
is a right not present in Iraq.
--
KC
HITLER FORESHADOWED SADDAM'S DECEPTION
As the U.S. government moves closer to a decision on war with Saddam
Hussein, I hear echoes from the past -- Europe and America in the 1930s.
The carnage of World War I had resulted in almost an obsession in Europe
to prevent any further war. The political leaders of Britain and France
were so vehement in avoiding another war they ignored and deluded
themselves about the major threat to European peace: Adolf Hitler.
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain believed Herr Hitler was a man they
could deal or negotiate with. Any revelations and signs of the true nature
of Hitler were either ignored or downplayed the first concentration camps
in Germany, the anti-semitic laws, the oppression of any political
opposition, the secret build-up of the German armed forces, the propaganda
and lies used against future victims of Nazi invasion, i.e.,
Czechoslovakia, Poland.
I see echoes of those perilous times in our present. There are political
leaders in America and Europe who believe or want to believe Saddam
Hussein is a man the world can negotiate with. They ignore the reality
behind the smiles of Saddam: the one-man/one-party dictatorship in Iraq;
the political prisons and torture chambers of Iraq; the use of mustard gas
on Iraqi Kurdish men, women and children; the invasion of Iran; the use of
poison gas on Iranian soldiers; the invasion and occupation of Kuwait; the
missile attacks on Israel in the 1991 Gulf War; sanctuary for Abu Nidal,
the notorious world terrorist, and now al-Qaida terrorists; the years of
lies and deception to hide his program to create nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons.
Is this a man the world can have honest negotiations with?
Ted Taba
Chive Mynde
Original Author: gar...@Tchernobogreincarnate.com
Danny Kodicek
"Chive Mynde" <chive...@california.usa.com> wrote in message
news:550844e9.03030...@posting.google.com...
> From Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser 2-18-03
> http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
>
> To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
> really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
> is a right not present in Iraq.
This argument always irritates me. 'You have free speech, and you should be
so grateful that you should never exercise it'
And incidentally, Saddam is *not* the leader that is invading sovereign
nations unprovoked right now. Hasn't been for quite some time. If you're
going to make parallels to Hitler (and I thought we weren't supposed to do
that on Usenet ;) ), then it might just as well be closer to home.
Danny
Matt Giwer
> From Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser 2-18-03
> http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
> To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
> really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
> is a right not present in Iraq.
The guy is an idiot. So what? Only an idiot or a total ignoramous could compare
the most modern and largest army in Europe in 1939 with an army of 1970s
hardware and 2/3rds inoperable for lack of spare parts. There are only about 12
million people over 15 in Iraq.
BTW: I can say Bush is an idiot. So can any Iraqi.
If you want comparison, try Germany's preemptive war against Poland in 1939 and
America's preemptive war against Iraq in 2003.
--
The group which runs a country is the group which
cannot be named as running the country.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2484
PeteM
Mynde <chive...@california.usa.com> gans
>From Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser 2-18-03
>http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
>
>To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
>really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
>is a right not present in Iraq.
>
People often say this, but I can never work out why they think it is
relevant to the conclusions they wish us to draw from it.
Can anyone enlighten me as to how the proposition "The government of
country X does not allow its people to protest against waging war" is
logically related to the proposition "We should attack country X"?
--
PeteM
Matt Giwer
> From Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser 2-18-03
> http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
> To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
> really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
> is a right not present in Iraq.
How in practical terms, not in law, do you distinguish a government controlled
press from the American press?
--
Support American troops. Bring them home.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2455
Blair P. Houghton
>Can anyone enlighten me as to how the proposition "The government of
>country X does not allow its people to protest against waging war" is
>logically related to the proposition "We should attack country X"?
Because it's closely related to "The government of country X
has weapons that it will use against us in a terror campaign."
Oh wait. No it isn't closely related. So forget the first
reason and stick with mine.
--Blair
"Always a good plan."
Viper
"Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iQO8a.92883$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
some reasonable comparisons can be drawn between Bush and Hitler. The first
thing that comes to mind, is John Ashcroft asking Americans to spy on each
other in much the same way that Himmler requested that of the German people.
In quite a few ways you could say that Ashcroft is Bush's Himmler. Thomas
Jefferson said it best, " a people willing to sacrifice their freedoms for
security deserve neither ". And Bush's attitude towards Iraq doesn't
surprise me at all. This is a man that likes to kill shit. This is a guy
that was proud of the fact that as governor of Texas, he signed more death
warrants than the previous five governors before him. He found his niche in
this thing. The real reason he wants to go after Iraq, is that he likes to
kill shit and there was nothing left to kill in Afghanistan. And as long as
Bush can kill shit, then he's going to let Ashcroft take all the freedoms
from Americans that he can.
Within the next five years, should you decide to take a drive from wherever
you live to Las Vegas, as you cross each state line, there WILL be a man
there, he will look at you, stop you and ask you for your travel papers.
You will live in a perfectly safe America, but you know what? That's not the
America I grew up in and it's not one that I want to live in.
Matt Giwer
> PeteM <Pe...@arcadia.net> wrote:
>>Can anyone enlighten me as to how the proposition "The government of
>>country X does not allow its people to protest against waging war" is
>>logically related to the proposition "We should attack country X"?
> Because it's closely related to "The government of country X
> has weapons that it will use against us in a terror campaign."
Country X is clearly not Iraq save to redneck biblethumpers.
> Oh wait. No it isn't closely related. So forget the first
> reason and stick with mine.
What might that be?
--
The wisdom of Born Agains like Bush
"Yeah, I wanna tell you that the cause of this problem is the fucking
medieval Arabs and their wish to enslave us all -- and I tell you that
it is because we want to save the Jews from the fucking savage Arabs
who want to throw them into the sea that we are about to fuck Saddam."
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2488
Matt Giwer
>>Chive Mynde wrote:
> http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
I haven't seen one person in this administration who does not have a
counterpart in totalitarian regimes we have come to know and dislike intensely.
Fact of life is people are being arrested pursuant to the Patriot Act. That
means people in this country are disappearing.
--
2003 February 21: Israel murders three Palestinians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2505
wolfklan
Mynde) wrote:
>From Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser 2-18-03
>http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
>
>To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
>really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
>is a right not present in Iraq.
The thing that sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that Bush
keeps saying that he is attacking to prevent the terrorism that Saddam
may do. However there are a couple of problems with this reason.
1st thing is that Saddam is not active in terrorism against the US.
That's the domain of Libya, Sudan, and Saudi Arabian clerics.
2nd thing that bugs me is that we are attacking on the pretext of what
Saddam may do in the future. When Bush is done over there and has
vanquished the axis of evil where is he going to find other targets
for his righteous condemnation? Anyone that has a gun can climb a
water tower. Methinks there are more Ruby ridges in the offing when we
start going after people for what they might do.
3rd thing is Korea has nukes but no resources. Iraq MIGHT have nasty
weapons but they also have all that oil and Bush is upset because he
hasn't been able to figure out how his oil got under their sand heh
As a footnote, the oil industry is currently set up in US dollars. Oil
companies need to keep large quantities of green backs in their vaults
to pay for oil. Iraq,and a couple of other OPEC nations are talking
about switching their currency to Euros. If this happens, there will
be billions of dollars dumped on the market to get Euros. If this
happens, the US economy will crash.
Chive Mynde
> "Chive Mynde" <chive...@california.usa.com> wrote in message
> news:550844e9.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > From Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser 2-18-03
> > http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
> >
> > To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
> > really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
> > is a right not present in Iraq.
>
> This argument always irritates me. 'You have free speech, and you should be
> so grateful that you should never exercise it'
That's not the argument. gar...@Tchernobogreincarnate.com wrote this
post on hawaii.politics. I forwarded it to your group.
His argument is clear. The Iraqi people are unable to protest against
their
leader without fear of deadly reprisals, while we are lucky enough to
protest against a war that will give the people the freedom to
protest? You fail to see this clear irony? Are you on drugs?
> And incidentally, Saddam is *not* the leader that is invading sovereign
> nations unprovoked right now. Hasn't been for quite some time. If you're
> going to make parallels to Hitler (and I thought we weren't supposed to do
> that on Usenet ;) ), then it might just as well be closer to home.
Um, you seem to be very ignorant about Iraq. Not only are the
parallels apt, they are accurate as well. You might want to educate
yourself before posting again.
___ _ o _ _ _
)) ))_ _ __ _ __ )\/,)__ _ _ _ __)) __
((__((`( (( \(/'((' ((`(( \(/'((\( ((_( (('
)
The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.
- Socrates (B.C.469-399)
Chive Mynde
> The guy is an idiot.
So says Usenet's biggest idiot, "Matt Giwer". BTW, Giwer I DARE YOU
to call the original poster who wrote that comment, an "idiot".
He's on hawaii.politics if you're interested.
> So what? Only an idiot or a total ignoramous could compare
> the most modern and largest army in Europe in 1939 with an army of 1970s
> hardware
No such comparison was made, idiot.
Chive Mynde
> The guy is an idiot.
So says Usenet's biggest idiot, "Matt Giwer". Hey Giwer, I DARE YOU
to call the original author of that comment an "idiot". He's on
hawaii.politics. I dare you.
> So what? Only an idiot or a total ignoramous could compare
> the most modern and largest army in Europe in 1939 with an army of 1970s
> hardware
No such comment was made, idiot.
Chive Mynde
> I haven't seen one person in this administration who does not have a
> counterpart in totalitarian regimes we have come to know and dislike
> intensely
More examples of Giwer's delusions.
Giwer equates slavery with freedom, again.
Giwer, don't you have a Klan meeting to attend?
Chive Mynde
> I haven't seen one person in this administration who does not have a
> counterpart in totalitarian regimes we have come to know and dislike
Xcott Craver
> "Danny Kodicek" <dra...@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> This argument always irritates me. 'You have free speech, and you
>> should be so grateful that you should never exercise it'
> His argument is clear. The Iraqi people are unable to protest against
> their leader without fear of deadly reprisals, while we are lucky
> enough to protest against a war that will give the people the freedom
> to protest?
You are committing a false dichotomy fallacy.
Assuming, of course, that war will change anything, you are
assuming that war is the only course of action that will.
People are protesting war, not the installation of democracy.
Meanwhile, what about the oppressed people of other nations
which we have no intention of invading? Don't you feel for them?
-X
Chive Mynde
> The thing that sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that Bush
> keeps saying that he is attacking to prevent the terrorism that Saddam
> may do.
That is certainly one of the primary reasons, but there are many
secondary and tertiary reasons which have great importance. Remember,
one of the things you don't hear from the major media outlets is that
the Iraqi people are in *favor* of a US-led invasion force which will
oust Saddam.
> However there are a couple of problems with this reason.
It's not the only reason. The entire region needs to be brought into
the 21st century.
___ _ o _ _ _
Hänsel Schuster
> And incidentally, Saddam is *not* the leader that is invading sovereign
> nations unprovoked right now. Hasn't been for quite some time.
So much evil to do, so little time in which to do it...
1. Who needs to invade when you have millions to murder and oppress at
home.
2. If he isn't planning on invading anyone, then why is he building
long range missiles? Why did these missiles not exist until we found
them? Why is he hiding thousands of gallons of VX and Anthrax? Why
did the warheads not exist until we found them?
3. Lets lift the sanctions, give him time to arm, and see how long he
stays at home.
4. I certainly don't see him buying candy for street children... well,
maybe perhaps, to lure them into his car... what am I thinking, if he
wants a boy to rape, he just has his guards kidnap a couple.
If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
human shield.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<iQO8a.92883$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>> The guy is an idiot.
> So says Usenet's biggest idiot, "Matt Giwer". BTW, Giwer I DARE YOU
> to call the original poster who wrote that comment, an "idiot".
> He's on hawaii.politics if you're interested.
Is that a double dog or a triple dog dare?
>>So what? Only an idiot or a total ignoramous could compare
>>the most modern and largest army in Europe in 1939 with an army of 1970s
>>hardware
> No such comparison was made, idiot.
So the comparison with Hitler is something only made by an idiot.
QED
--
2003 February 11: Latest bin Laden tape calls for the
overthrow of Iraq.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2460
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<mdU8a.93236$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>> I haven't seen one person in this administration who does not have a
>>counterpart in totalitarian regimes we have come to know and dislike
>>intensely
> More examples of Giwer's delusions.
>
> Giwer equates slavery with freedom, again.
>
> Giwer, don't you have a Klan meeting to attend?
Ad hominem had been formally identified as a fallacy for some 2300 years.
All educated people know that which explains why you do not know it.
--
Bush Sr. united the world against Iraq.
Bush Jr. united the world against the US.
He didn't do things like this when he
was drinking.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2467
Matt Giwer
> "Danny Kodicek" <dra...@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9TH8a.9681$Vx2.720507@wards>...
>
>>"Chive Mynde" <chive...@california.usa.com> wrote in message
>>news:550844e9.03030...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>From Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser 2-18-03
>>>http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
>>>
>>>To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
>>>really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
>>>is a right not present in Iraq.
>>
>>This argument always irritates me. 'You have free speech, and you should be
>>so grateful that you should never exercise it'
> That's not the argument. gar...@Tchernobogreincarnate.com wrote this
> post on hawaii.politics. I forwarded it to your group.
> His argument is clear. The Iraqi people are unable to protest against
> their leader without fear of deadly reprisals, while we are lucky enough to
> protest against a war that will give the people the freedom to
> protest? You fail to see this clear irony? Are you on drugs?
Do you fail to see the irony of using as an excuse for Americans to murder Iraqis?
>>And incidentally, Saddam is *not* the leader that is invading sovereign
>>nations unprovoked right now. Hasn't been for quite some time. If you're
>>going to make parallels to Hitler (and I thought we weren't supposed to do
>>that on Usenet ;) ), then it might just as well be closer to home.
> Um, you seem to be very ignorant about Iraq. Not only are the
> parallels apt, they are accurate as well. You might want to educate
> yourself before posting again.
You are invited to name any country neighboring Iraq which considers Iraq to be
a danger. As there are none it is clearly you who is in need of an education on
Iraq.
--
The mid-February terror alert just shows how stupid
the people in charge.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2471
Matt Giwer
> "Danny Kodicek" <dra...@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9TH8a.9681$Vx2.720507@wards>...
>
>>"Chive Mynde" <chive...@california.usa.com> wrote in message
>>news:550844e9.03030...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>From Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser 2-18-03
>>>http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
>>>
>>>To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
>>>really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
>>>is a right not present in Iraq.
>>This argument always irritates me. 'You have free speech, and you should be
>>so grateful that you should never exercise it'
> That's not the argument. gar...@Tchernobogreincarnate.com wrote this
> post on hawaii.politics. I forwarded it to your group.
> His argument is clear. The Iraqi people are unable to protest against
> their leader without fear of deadly reprisals, while we are lucky enough to
> protest against a war that will give the people the freedom to
> protest? You fail to see this clear irony? Are you on drugs?
As the US has announced it intends to install an American as the military
dictator of Iraq how many Iraqis do you imagine will have the freedom to tell
him take his orders and sod off?
--
An estimated 4 million Americans believe they were abducted
by aliens and they show symptoms of post-traumatic stress
disorder. Still no difference from holocaust survivors save
there are more of them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2485
Matt Giwer
> <snip>
>>And incidentally, Saddam is *not* the leader that is invading sovereign
>>nations unprovoked right now. Hasn't been for quite some time.
> So much evil to do, so little time in which to do it...
> 1. Who needs to invade when you have millions to murder and oppress at
> home.
Just like China, Korea and Cuba to name three.
Unlike those three, Iraq has only one law regarding who can own handguns and
rifles. They have to be adults. Iraqis are better armed than Americans. If they
didn't want to put up with it they would do something about it.
How does that justified a crime against peace by Bush which is has been a
hanging offense since Nuremberg?
> 2. If he isn't planning on invading anyone, then why is he building
> long range missiles? Why did these missiles not exist until we found
> them?
They were included in the original declaration months ago.
> Why is he hiding thousands of gallons of VX and Anthrax?
Because he isn't.
> Why did the warheads not exist until we found them?
Fact is they were dug up by Iraq to show the inspectors they had been destroyed
AS THE US and BRITAIN have known since 1995.
> 3. Lets lift the sanctions, give him time to arm, and see how long he
> stays at home.
Good idea. That will be test of the precognative abilities of the redneck
alcoholic from Texas.
> 4. I certainly don't see him buying candy for street children... well,
> maybe perhaps, to lure them into his car... what am I thinking, if he
> wants a boy to rape, he just has his guards kidnap a couple.
I see the same of you. Does that justify someone choosing to murder you?
> If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
> repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
> human shield.
How does any of that justify Americans murdering Iraqis in a war of aggression?
--
Given the countries the born again Bush has designated as evil
the rational strategy for them is to attack American forces in
every manner possible the moment the Iraq war starts. Iran and
Syria and Korea have the assets and US forces are massed in a
small area.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2495
Matt Giwer
> wolfklan <cadell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<08786v8qvefs6k9vd...@4ax.com>...
>>The thing that sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that Bush
>>keeps saying that he is attacking to prevent the terrorism that Saddam
>>may do.
> That is certainly one of the primary reasons, but there are many
> secondary and tertiary reasons which have great importance.
As Iraq is not involved in any terrorism against the US or any other country
there is a reason only for the ignorant masses.
> Remember,
> one of the things you don't hear from the major media outlets is that
> the Iraqi people are in *favor* of a US-led invasion force which will
> oust Saddam.
You do not hear about it because you made it up as there is no way to know.
>>However there are a couple of problems with this reason.
> It's not the only reason. The entire region needs to be brought into
> the 21st century.
How does that justify Americans murdering Iraqis?
--
It is strange the US electorate cannot act upon the
knowledge that elections and laws are purchased.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2516
wolfklan
wrote:
>Chive Mynde wrote:
>> wolfklan <cadell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<08786v8qvefs6k9vd...@4ax.com>...
>
>>>The thing that sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that Bush
>>>keeps saying that he is attacking to prevent the terrorism that Saddam
>>>may do.
>
>> That is certainly one of the primary reasons, but there are many
>> secondary and tertiary reasons which have great importance.
>
> As Iraq is not involved in any terrorism against the US or any other country
>there is a reason only for the ignorant masses.
>
>> Remember,
>> one of the things you don't hear from the major media outlets is that
>> the Iraqi people are in *favor* of a US-led invasion force which will
>> oust Saddam.
>
> You do not hear about it because you made it up as there is no way to know.
Whenever the US media asks locals if they support Saddam, the answer
is irrelevent. If the person says that they support him they are
dismissed as being afraid of Saddam's police.
>
>>>However there are a couple of problems with this reason.
>
>> It's not the only reason. The entire region needs to be brought into
>> the 21st century.
>
> How does that justify Americans murdering Iraqis?
It doesn't. Did you know that Saddam has instituted free education for
the Iraqi people. 20% of all oil revenues go to education programs to
get the people into the 20th century. If a kid has the grades, he can
apply to any university in the world and if accepted the Iraq
government picks up the tab. No loans it's free.
Danny Kodicek
"Hänsel Schuster" <doublezer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:71b02131.03030...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
>
> > And incidentally, Saddam is *not* the leader that is invading sovereign
> > nations unprovoked right now. Hasn't been for quite some time.
>
> So much evil to do, so little time in which to do it...
>
> 1. Who needs to invade when you have millions to murder and oppress at
> home.
And therefore the analogy with 1939 falls down. Hitler was murdering and
oppressing his people but no-one suggested invasion of Germany. We went to
war because he was empire-building by invading other nations. Also, if
Saddam's destruction of his own people is the issue, why are the politicians
saying he can avoid war by disarming?
>
> 2. If he isn't planning on invading anyone, then why is he building
> long range missiles? Why did these missiles not exist until we found
> them? Why is he hiding thousands of gallons of VX and Anthrax? Why
> did the warheads not exist until we found them?
Is Pakistan planning on invading anyone? Or Israel? Or Germany? Or any of
the other countries (apart from the US and Britain, of course) which hold
long-range missiles?
Plus, Saddam's long-range missiles were only a paltry fraction over the
allowed range *and* this was when they were tested without warheads. When
armed, they wouldn't even be over the allowed range.
And the most recent reports show that Saddam appears to have no working
biological or chemical weapons.
>
> 3. Lets lift the sanctions, give him time to arm, and see how long he
> stays at home.
And if he invades another country, we can do something about it
>
> 4. I certainly don't see him buying candy for street children... well,
> maybe perhaps, to lure them into his car... what am I thinking, if he
> wants a boy to rape, he just has his guards kidnap a couple.
And you base this assertion on what exactly? Besides, who is claiming Saddam
is a nice guy? None of the anti-war protestors I know are pro-Saddam, most
of them are in favour of deposing him in favour of a democratic regime. We
just don't see that war is the only route to this goal.
>
> If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
> repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
> human shield.
I don't care a jot for Saddam. If he died tomorrow the world would be well
rid of him.
Danny
Chive Mynde
> > Why is he hiding thousands of gallons of VX and Anthrax?
>
> Because he isn't.
Wrong, Giwer.
> > If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
> > repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
> > human shield.
>
> How does any of that justify Americans murdering Iraqis in a war
> of aggression?
Americans are not murdering anyone, Giwer, unlike your friends in the
Bath party.
Giwer, did you remember to iron your SS uniform today?
Chive Mynde
> Chive Mynde wrote:
> > Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<mdU8a.93236$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
> >> I haven't seen one person in this administration who does not have a
> >>counterpart in totalitarian regimes we have come to know and dislike
> >>intensely
>
> > More examples of Giwer's delusions.
> >
> > Giwer equates slavery with freedom, again.
> >
> > Giwer, don't you have a Klan meeting to attend?
>
> Ad hominem had been formally identified as a fallacy for some 2300 years.
>
> All educated people know that which explains why you do not know it.
1. No ad hominem argument was made.
2. Every one of your posts consists of nothing but an ad hominem.
3. I am genuinely interested in whether or not you have a Klan
meeting to attend to since you seem to be posting on Usenet quite
regularly.
4. Does the Klan/WAR/whatever consider your Usenet posting "outreach"?
___ _ o _ _ _
Chive Mynde
>
> As Iraq is not involved in any terrorism against the US or any other
> country
More lies from Giwer.
> How does that justify Americans murdering Iraqis?
Americans are not murdering Iraqis. However, Iraqis *are* murdering
Iraqis and other people.
Giwer, are you just performing outreach for the Klan?
Chive Mynde
> Chive Mynde wrote:
> > Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<iQO8a.92883$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
> >> The guy is an idiot.
>
> > So says Usenet's biggest idiot, "Matt Giwer". BTW, Giwer I DARE YOU
> > to call the original poster who wrote that comment, an "idiot".
> > He's on hawaii.politics if you're interested.
>
> Is that a double dog or a triple dog dare?
It's your ad hominem, Giwer, not mine.
> >>So what? Only an idiot or a total ignoramous could compare
> >>the most modern and largest army in Europe in 1939 with an army of 1970s
> >>hardware
>
> > No such comparison was made, idiot.
>
> So the comparison with Hitler is something only made by an idiot.
Ad hominem noted.
Chive Mynde
> Chive Mynde wrote:
>
> > From Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser 2-18-03
> > http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
>
> > To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
> > really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
> > is a right not present in Iraq.
>
> press from the American press?
The original author (who wrote the statement in question) did not
mention
the distinction, Giwer. I suggest you take your medication for your
delusions, which appear to be growing daily.
However, I am willing to answer your fallacious leading question for
you.
The United States has a relatively free press in comparison to Iraq,
where dissidents are routinely murdered, and their children are
tortured, poisoned, and killed.
The irony of course, is that you are free to spout your nonsense on
the Usenet, while in your beloved Iraq you would have been killed long
ago.
I really wish you would put your money where your mouth is Giwer, and
travel to Iraq as a human shield.
Chive Mynde
> BTW: I can say Bush is an idiot. So can any Iraqi.
More lies from Giwer. Anyone who calls Saddam an idiot is murdered.
Chive Mynde
> If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
> repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
> human shield.
Let's setup a pay-pal account to send Giwer to Iraq.
zayton
"Chive Mynde" <chive...@california.usa.com> wrote in message
news:550844e9.03030...@posting.google.com...
news:<71b02131.03030...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
> > repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
> > human shield.
>
> Let's setup a pay-pal account to send Giwer to Iraq.
>
even Saddam isn't evil enough to deserve having Giwer sent against him.
Joe
Clave
news:550844e9.03030...@posting.google.com...
news:<71b02131.03030...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
> > repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
> > human shield.
>
> Let's setup a pay-pal account to send Giwer to Iraq.
You'd get more action if the deal was to send you both.
Jim
Chive Mynde
> Do you fail to see the irony of using as an excuse for Americans
> to murder Iraqis?
More lies from neo-nazi, Matt Giwer:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/5290201.htm
President Bush? Europeans may disdain him, but he's "a great man,"
says Iraqi maintenance engineer Hayder Hamid, 40. "I feel he wants to
do something for the Iraqi people this time."
The looming invasion of Iraq by a massive Western war machine? "I see
it as... the glimmer of hope we've been waiting for," says medical
student Sama Hadad.
While much of world opinion opposes war, there is an almost opposite
point of view among those with a very personal stake in the outcome -
the ordinary Iraqis who left their homeland because of Hussein's
brutality.
An estimated four million have fled Iraq because of Hussein; 350,000
of them are in the United Kingdom.
Look through their eyes, and Hussein is an unspeakably evil murderer
and torturer who must be stopped.
In a way he is worse than Hitler, because in addition to killing
others, "he fights his own people, kills his people, every day," says
former Iraqi teacher Alya, 52, a London community worker who asked
that only her first name be used.
> You are invited to name any country neighboring Iraq which considers
> Iraq to be a danger.
Matt Giwer lives in a fantasy world.
Iran, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain (among others)
consider Iraq a threat and have asked Hussein to step down.
Add to the fact that 90 nations support the war against Iraq, that
leaves Matt Giwer in his lonely fantasy world.
I sense there are wrinkles in your SS uniform, Matt. Get to that
ironing.
Chive Mynde
> Chive Mynde wrote:
> > "Danny Kodicek" <dra...@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> This argument always irritates me. 'You have free speech, and you
> >> should be so grateful that you should never exercise it'
>
> > His argument is clear. The Iraqi people are unable to protest against
> > their leader without fear of deadly reprisals, while we are lucky
> > enough to protest against a war that will give the people the freedom
> > to protest?
>
> You are committing a false dichotomy fallacy.
I have committed nothing of the sort. And neither has the original
author who wrote the statement in question.
> Assuming, of course, that war will change anything, you are
> assuming that war is the only course of action that will.
Nonsense. The author's original statement merely demonstrates the
irony of protesting a war that will give the people of Iraq the
freedom to protest.
And yes, toppling Hussein is the only course of action that will
enable the Iraqi people to embrace democratic reforms. There is no
other course of action that will promote reforms. Other course of
actions have been tried, time and time again. You pretend that they
haven't.
> People are protesting war, not the installation of democracy.
Blair said it best:
"There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about
the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his
rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which, if he is
left in power, will be left in being."
> Meanwhile, what about the oppressed people of other nations
> which we have no intention of invading? Don't you feel for them?
Your fallacy of irrelevancy is noted.
Chive Mynde
> Did you know that Saddam has instituted free education for
> the Iraqi people.
The propaganda machine has eaten your brain.
Posted on Sat, Mar. 01, 2003
Iraqi exiles take hope in war buildup
By Fawn Vrazo
Inquirer Staff Writer
MANCHESTER, England - Peace marches? Iraqi businessman Ali al Bayati,
46, dismisses them as PR fodder for Saddam Hussein and points to his
TV. Sure enough, Hussein's satellite station is showing scenes of last
month's huge marches, again and again.
President Bush? Europeans may disdain him, but he's "a great man,"
says Iraqi maintenance engineer Hayder Hamid, 40. "I feel he wants to
do something for the Iraqi people this time."
The looming invasion of Iraq by a massive Western war machine? "I see
it as... the glimmer of hope we've been waiting for," says medical
student Sama Hadad.
While much of world opinion opposes war, there is an almost opposite
point of view among those with a very personal stake in the outcome -
the ordinary Iraqis who left their homeland because of Hussein's
brutality.
An estimated four million have fled Iraq because of Hussein; 350,000
of them are in the United Kingdom.
Look through their eyes, and Hussein is an unspeakably evil murderer
and torturer who must be stopped.
In a way he is worse than Hitler, because in addition to killing
others, "he fights his own people, kills his people, every day," says
former Iraqi teacher Alya, 52, a London community worker who asked
that only her first name be used.
Alya was imprisoned for 40 days in Iraq because she and her husband
were active in Iraq's Communist Party.
She points to the false front teeth that replaced real ones punched
out by police, points to her damaged left ear, and finally to her left
hip and leg - broken when, after she was released from prison,
Hussein's people ran her down with a car.
Still, she and others admit, war is a difficult choice and not to be
applauded outright.
"Almost all Iraqi people feel like me - they want Saddam gone," Alya
said in a west London community center this week as other Iraqi women
engaged in energetic aerobics nearby. "But if the war happens, it will
kill innocent people. But Saddam needs to go. How? How?"
"We will pray for a minimum of casualties; war is never clean," said
Yasser Alaskary, 22, a London medical student. But still, he said, the
prospect of U.S. and British forces invading Iraq and toppling Hussein
seems "too good to be true."
Alaskary, his fellow medical student Hadad and other young Iraqis
formed a group called Iraqi Prospect a year ago in an attempt to get
the exile point of view across to the world.
In Manchester, businessman Bayati has done the same, leading a group
called Iraqi Exiles in Britain that has sent its concerns to British
Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Iraqis here are distressed to see that as the issue of the war fills
newspapers and television screens every day, nearly all groups but
Iraqis are asked their opinions about it.
"It is hurting and disturbing and not pleasant that someone other than
your own people" is debating your country's fate, says London fashion
importer Kawa Besarani.
Recently, the efforts to inject exile and refugee voices into the
debate have had some success. In speeches, Blair has begun citing
exile concerns when stressing the humanitarian argument for an
invasion of Iraq.
As 750,000 antiwar marchers massed in London on Feb. 15, the prime
minister told a Labor Party conference in Glasgow: "There will be no
march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of
children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous
anger over the torture chambers which, if he is left in power, will be
left in being."
On Wednesday, as Blair faced a politically crippling debate and vote
in Parliament over the war, Sama Hadad could be seen on British
television delivering a petition to No. 10 Downing Street "urging the
international community to remove Saddam by any means necessary... .
[I]t is hoped that the voice of Iraqis will make an impact on the
ministerial vote and will shift it in favor of military intervention
and will pressurize the prime minister to commit to democracy
post-Saddam."
Iraqis are as diverse as any other people, though, and despite a
generally shared hatred of Hussein, the exiles' support for the war
varies, as do their opinions about President Bush's intentions.
London fashion importer Besarani agrees with many that peace marchers
saw only one side of the argument. While they were genuine in saying
stop the war, he said, "you need to have a balance. I could call this
the most brutal regime the world has ever seen, and sometimes they
miss that point."
Still, Besarani, who fled Iraq as a young man when his opposition work
put him in mortal danger, desperately wants an alternative to war -
perhaps U.N. "humanitarian inspectors" who would roam Iraq like
weapons inspectors.
Even many who support war, he said, question Bush's motives. "They
think the U.S. approach is not necessarily to help the Iraqi people,"
he said.
Yasser Alaskary of Iraqi Prospect agrees. "It's for American
interests, not our interests, and we all know it's that. But the
result is the same - Saddam is removed."
Sama Hadad, 22, left Iraq when she was 12 hours old. Police came to
her family's home with guns drawn and ordered her mother, who had just
given birth, and other family members to leave immediately.
Their crime: They were deemed suspicious for being too religious and
attending mosque too often.
The family fled to Iran and finally to London, one grandfather dying
on the way. Hadad dreams now of returning to a post-Hussein Iraq as a
doctor, to help her people recover and rebuild from the death and
destruction caused by a monster.
She favors war as the only apparent way to end Hussein's rule. Her
hatred for him is so deep, she says, that "there are no words to
describe it. The most horrific words would not be descriptive enough."
Contact staff writer Fawn Vrazo at 215-854-2405 or
for...@phillynews.com.
Hänsel Schuster
> >>And incidentally, Saddam is *not* the leader that is invading sovereign
> >>nations unprovoked right now. Hasn't been for quite some time.
>
> > So much evil to do, so little time in which to do it...
>
> > 1. Who needs to invade when you have millions to murder and oppress at
> > home.
>
> Just like China, Korea and Cuba to name three.
Looks like Korea is next on the list.
> Unlike those three, Iraq has only one law regarding who can own
> handguns and rifles. They have to be adults. Iraqis are better armed than
> Americans. If they didn't want to put up with it they would do something
> about it.
The tool of poverty provides Suddam with the ability to buy
information from anyone that has it, and this happens every day. Why
do you think his opponents keep getting shot in the street or just
disappearing? I suggest you go live there, commit to disent against
him, and see how long you survive.
> How does that justified a crime against peace by Bush which is has been
> a hanging offense since Nuremberg?
I don't support Bush, that was your astute assumption. His desire to
do away with Suddam is the lessor of the two evils.
> > 2. If he isn't planning on invading anyone, then why is he building
> > long range missiles? Why did these missiles not exist until we found
> > them?
>
> They were included in the original declaration months ago.
Right along with the declaration that they had been destroyed.
>
> > Why is he hiding thousands of gallons of VX and Anthrax?
>
> Because he isn't.
You know this precisely how?
> > Why did the warheads not exist until we found them?
>
> Fact is they were dug up by Iraq to show the inspectors they had been
> destroyed AS THE US and BRITAIN have known since 1995.
Yeah, they were dug up, just like the entrance to the underground
bunker where they were hidden. If they were already destroyed, then
why did they need to redestroyed? They were intact, otherwise it
never would have made the news, along with photographs of what were
obviously warheads.
> > 3. Lets lift the sanctions, give him time to arm, and see how long he
> > stays at home.
>
> Good idea. That will be test of the precognative abilities of the redneck
> alcoholic from Texas.
Where precisely did you obtain your credentials? The University of
Bagdad? Which makes me wonder, what third world toilet do you live
in? Your opinions reflect a nationalist of a country that has at one
point been put in it's place by the U.S. or you are simply angry over
a failure to obtain a green card.
>
> > 4. I certainly don't see him buying candy for street children... well,
> > maybe perhaps, to lure them into his car... what am I thinking, if he
> > wants a boy to rape, he just has his guards kidnap a couple.
>
> I see the same of you. Does that justify someone choosing to murder you?
If I were a child molester, yes. The murder of any such predater is
justified simply by human decency and should be advertised to the
world as a deterrent.
> > If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
> > repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
> > human shield.
>
> How does any of that justify Americans murdering Iraqis in a war of
> aggression?
I don't support the murder of innocent civilians from any country.
What the U.S. should do is a special ops insert and assassinate Suddam
and his upper circle, then call it a day.
If you are such a fan of Suddam's then I suggest you observe a few
moments of silence, because he is going the way of the dinosaur.
Chive Mynde
> > Remember,
> > one of the things you don't hear from the major media outlets is that
> > the Iraqi people are in *favor* of a US-led invasion force which will
> > oust Saddam.
>
> You do not hear about it because you made it up as there is no way
> to know.
More lies from moronic imbecile, "Matt Gwier".
------------
http://www.paknews.com/flash.php?id=7&date1=2003-02-22
Iraqi American Pleads For World Support
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: Feb 22 (PNS)- An Iraqi American activist has
urged the international community to come forward with a due
cooperation in "restoring the long-denied democratic rights of Iraqi
people."
Rend Rahim Francke, who heads pro-democracy Washington-based Iraq
Foundation, pleaded at a video conference arranged by the American
Centre that the world should realize that there is opposition to
President Saddam in the country.
The democrats in Iraq, she contended, are ready to materialize Iraq's
transition to democracy.
"Besides foreign-based Iraqi intellectuals, who have been striving for
a change in the destiny of Iraqi people, there are a lot of people in
Iraq who are opposed to Saddam's policies," she told questioners from
Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi on Thursday night.
Franche advocated that the Iraqi nation wants democracy and the world
should not succumb to the impressions being propagated to the
contrary.
"Iraqi people are for democracy, they had democratic institutions in
the past, the democratic experience may have remained flawed but that
should not mean that Iraqi people should be denied their basic right
to democratic freedom."
The activist, who worked in Northern Iraq and undertook travels to
Kurdish regions, opined that the only peaceful resolution of the Iraqi
standoff lies in President Saddam's leaving the country.
She feared that President Saddam might use weapons of mass
destruction, saying his invasion of Kuwait in early 1990 proves that.
The Executive Director of the Iraq Foundation expressed the view that
President Saddam has gained "heavy control over the region through
heavy weaponization."
The majority of the questions pertained to Iraqi public opinion with
participants enquiring about any worthwhile expression of support for
change in the Iraqi leadership.
The social activist contested the views and said Iraqi people need the
world support for open expression of their opposition to the current
Iraqi rulers.
-----------------
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/5290201.htm
--------------------
PeteM
<chive...@california.usa.com> gans
>> news:550844e9.03030...@posting.google.com...
>> > http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
>> >
>> > To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
>> > really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
>> > is a right not present in Iraq.
>>
>> so grateful that you should never exercise it'
>
>post on hawaii.politics. I forwarded it to your group.
>
>their
>leader without fear of deadly reprisals, while we are lucky enough to
>protest against a war that will give the people the freedom to
Irony's not an argument, it's a rhetorical device. I too am unable to
see any point in what you are saying.
So how about skipping the irony and re-phrasing your point as a logical
inference, with assumptions, deductive steps and conclusions?
That way we might be able to get somewhere in analysing its value.
--
PeteM
Chive Mynde
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Nu29a.94405$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
> > > one of the things you don't hear from the major media outlets is that
> > > the Iraqi people are in *favor* of a US-led invasion force which will
> > > oust Saddam.
> >
> > You do not hear about it because you made it up as there is no way
> > to know.
>
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/01_03_03/art26.aspb
Lebanese news
Exiles look ahead to life after Saddam
Intellectuals stress risks of american occupation
Dissidents offer vision of democratic, nonsectarian and pluralistic
state but insist UN provide any interim force
Mona Ziade
Daily Star staff
BEIRUT: Self-exiled Iraqi intellectuals, aspiring for a "regime
change" and a transition to democracy in their motherland, have
accelerated their campaign to secure international guarantees that
would prevent a US occupation of post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
But, despite US President George W. Bush's repeated pledges that his
forces would not remain "a day more" than necessary in the event of an
invasion, Iraqi exiles fear an occupation would tear the nation apart
and dash hopes for democracy.
These fears have inspired Iraqi intellectuals to present their own
scenario for "the day after," which prevents occupation and provides
"international guarantees."
According to Mehdi Hafedh, an Iraqi economist and former regional
director of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization,
war is inevitable, but it need not be a protracted conflict.
"There is no doubt that there will be war," said Hafedh, current
president of the nongovernmental organization, the Arab Society for
Economic Research. "But there may be surprises in the first days, such
as a military coup d'etat, or he (Saddam) may bow out."
Rejecting widespread belief that Saddam would rather die than step
down, Hafedh said the Iraqi leader was showing signs of "weakening."
He said this change was evident in recent televised interviews, where
Saddam "was not as arrogant as he used to be."
"All these totalitarian regimes produce surprises," said Hafedh in an
interview Thursday with The Daily Star. "You cannot feel the emergence
of this unless there's a shock. Iraq needs shock therapy."
Hafedh explained how the Iraqi exiles began their regime change
campaign last month, when they produced a petition bearing the
signatures of impressive personalities spanning Iraq's political,
religious and ethnic spectra.
They called on Saddam to voluntarily leave power and for the rise of a
transitional administration under an international umbrella.
"We had been in contact for many years. We reached a conviction that
we have to suggest an alternative to the policies before us. The
petition was a reflection of common concern about the future of Iraq,"
Hafedh said.
He admitted that "for the time being, there's no option but the
American policy."
The United States, Hafedh said, "is calling for a new government
formed by a new occupation force and the opposition forces" a
reference to the largely Kurdish and Shiite groups, struggling to set
up a government-in-exile.
"In our opinion, this has to be examined in a different way," Hafedh
said. "The main point here is that the occupation has to be blocked,
and an administration formed to pave the way for free elections.
"A change of regime without democratic change would not solve Iraq's
problems," Hafedh said, alluding to tight international sanctions
stifling the country since Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and
Kurdish and Shiite rebellions, which, unless pacified, would lead to a
three-way split of Iraq.
The intellectuals have "no conflict" with the opposition groups, but
there are "some political differences, of course," he said. These
clearly stem from the intellectuals' concerns about a joint
US-opposition rule, which could kindle ethnic and religious
sentiments.
The most urgent priority, according to Hafedh, is to prevent
occupation. And whether Bush goes it alone, or leads a coalition into
Iraq, any transitional authority would have to be under the umbrella
of the United Nations.
This, he insisted, is the only scenario which would restore to Iraq
"stability and security."
"Iraqis feel they lack security. It is not a matter of only democratic
rights. It is the result of two decades of wars, repression and
absence of human rights," he said.
Hafedh said some of his Iraqi colleagues have been in contact with US
administration officials and have advised them that an appointment of
a military governor to oversee transition after Saddam's ouster "would
not be in the interest of the Iraqi people," and would be seen as an
American occupation.
The alternative is international tutelage for a short time until
elections can be held.
Hafedh agreed that a military onslaught would wreck what is left of
Iraq's economy, grappling with more than $90 billion in foreign debts
in addition to unpaid war reparations claims.
"There will be a cost. But no doubt the country needs shock therapy,"
Hafedh said
Since their emergence into the public eye with the widely circulated
petition, Iraq's exiled intellectuals, including former ministers and
academics, have been inundated with "hundreds" of requests by other
Iraqis wishing to join the effort, Hafedh said.
This has encouraged them to widen the circle of contacts to muster
domestic support for their vision of post-Saddam Iraq: an Arab
country, more actively engaged "in Arab causes, particularly the
Palestinian cause," a consolidation of a national identity, "with no
consideration for religious or ethnic backgrounds," and a system of
"democratic pluralism."
Karl Johanson
> Xcott Craver <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message
news:<PM0003B80...@BrainHz.bellatlantic.net>...
> > Chive Mynde wrote:
> > > "Danny Kodicek" <dra...@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This argument always irritates me. 'You have free speech, and you
> > >> should be so grateful that you should never exercise it'
> >
> > > His argument is clear. The Iraqi people are unable to protest against
> > > their leader without fear of deadly reprisals, while we are lucky
> > > enough to protest against a war that will give the people the freedom
> > > to protest?
> >
> > You are committing a false dichotomy fallacy.
>
> I have committed nothing of the sort. And neither has the original
> author who wrote the statement in question.
>
> > Assuming, of course, that war will change anything, you are
> > assuming that war is the only course of action that will.
>
> Nonsense. The author's original statement merely demonstrates the
> irony of protesting a war that will give the people of Iraq the
> freedom to protest.
Just like the Gulf war brought freedom of speech, democracy & widespread
human rights in Kuwait? At least they made sure the gold faucets were
replaced in the palace there.
> And yes, toppling Hussein is the only course of action that will
> enable the Iraqi people to embrace democratic reforms.
Not having sold him weapons in the first place might have helped.
Karl Johanson
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us
of their wisdom with:
I love watching two kooks go off on each other. Chive and Giwer deserve each
other.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy
Matt Giwer
> Xcott Craver <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message news:<PM0003B80...@BrainHz.bellatlantic.net>...
>
>>Chive Mynde wrote:
>>
>>>"Danny Kodicek" <dra...@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This argument always irritates me. 'You have free speech, and you
>>>>should be so grateful that you should never exercise it'
>>
>>
>>
>>>His argument is clear. The Iraqi people are unable to protest against
>>>their leader without fear of deadly reprisals, while we are lucky
>>>enough to protest against a war that will give the people the freedom
>>>to protest?
>>
>> You are committing a false dichotomy fallacy.
> I have committed nothing of the sort. And neither has the original
> author who wrote the statement in question.
>> Assuming, of course, that war will change anything, you are
>> assuming that war is the only course of action that will.
> Nonsense. The author's original statement merely demonstrates the
> irony of protesting a war that will give the people of Iraq the
> freedom to protest.
How many murdered Iraqis is it worth to "give" them something they have not
asked for?
> And yes, toppling Hussein is the only course of action that will
> enable the Iraqi people to embrace democratic reforms. There is no
> other course of action that will promote reforms. Other course of
> actions have been tried, time and time again. You pretend that they
> haven't.
Explain to me why Iraqis would want a government where laws are bought and
political office is purchased?
>> People are protesting war, not the installation of democracy.
> Blair said it best:
> "There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about
> the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his
> rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which, if he is
> left in power, will be left in being."
And there have been none for the half million dead (as of 1998) of the trade
sanctions but Mad Albright said their deaths were worth it. Why do you think a
half million are worth it?
>> Meanwhile, what about the oppressed people of other nations
>> which we have no intention of invading? Don't you feel for them?
> Your fallacy of irrelevancy is noted.
So how many murdered Iraqis is it worth?
--
Color coded alerts and other things to frighten children.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2478
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<fe29a.94137$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>> Do you fail to see the irony of using as an excuse for Americans
>>to murder Iraqis?
> More lies from neo-nazi, Matt Giwer:
> http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/5290201.htm
> President Bush? Europeans may disdain him, but he's "a great man,"
> says Iraqi maintenance engineer Hayder Hamid, 40. "I feel he wants to
> do something for the Iraqi people this time."
He is an alcoholic biblethumper.
> The looming invasion of Iraq by a massive Western war machine? "I see
> it as... the glimmer of hope we've been waiting for," says medical
> student Sama Hadad.
> While much of world opinion opposes war, there is an almost opposite
> point of view among those with a very personal stake in the outcome -
> the ordinary Iraqis who left their homeland because of Hussein's
> brutality.
> An estimated four million have fled Iraq because of Hussein; 350,000
> of them are in the United Kingdom.
>
> Look through their eyes, and Hussein is an unspeakably evil murderer
> and torturer who must be stopped.
>
> In a way he is worse than Hitler, because in addition to killing
> others, "he fights his own people, kills his people, every day," says
> former Iraqi teacher Alya, 52, a London community worker who asked
> that only her first name be used.
How does this justify Americans murdering Iraqis?
>> You are invited to name any country neighboring Iraq which considers
>>Iraq to be a danger.
> Matt Giwer lives in a fantasy world.
>
> Iran, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain (among others)
> consider Iraq a threat and have asked Hussein to step down.
They have all condemned the war on Iraq. Not one of them has said Iraq is a
threat.
> Add to the fact that 90 nations support the war against Iraq, that
> leaves Matt Giwer in his lonely fantasy world.
When was the UN vote where they registered their support?
> I sense there are wrinkles in your SS uniform, Matt. Get to that
> ironing.
How many Iraqis should Americans murder?
You advocate murder and question me.
--
Pity the little village in Texas that lost its idiot.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2487
Parse Tree
news:u09a6v4k95lbmc4d5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 21:21:33 GMT, "Clave"
<ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com>
> in accordance with The Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only"
availed us
> of their wisdom with:
>
> >"Chive Mynde" <chive...@california.usa.com> wrote in message
> >news:550844e9.03030...@posting.google.com...
> >> doublezer...@hotmail.com (Hänsel Schuster) wrote in message
> >news:<71b02131.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >> > If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
> >> > repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
> >> > human shield.
> >>
> >> Let's setup a pay-pal account to send Giwer to Iraq.
> >
> >You'd get more action if the deal was to send you both.
> >
> >Jim
>
> I love watching two kooks go off on each other. Chive and Giwer deserve
each
> other.
Pfft! There's no contest. Chive is powerful, whereas Giwer is weak.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<8p29a.94298$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>>>Why is he hiding thousands of gallons of VX and Anthrax?
>> Because he isn't.
> Wrong, Giwer.
They were dug up where they were buried after being destroyed and shown to the
inspectors last week. Read the news for the first time.
>>>If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
>>>repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
>>>human shield.
>>
>> How does any of that justify Americans murdering Iraqis in a war
>>of aggression?
> Americans are not murdering anyone, Giwer, unlike your friends in the
> Bath party.
An unprovoked war is murder and a hanging offence as a crime against peace
since Nuremberg.
> Giwer, did you remember to iron your SS uniform today?
How does attacking Poland in 1939 differ from attacking Iraq in 2003?
--
2003 February 23: Israel murders ten Palestinians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2511
Clave
news:MW99a.2396$Xo3.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Perhaps Giwer's bathed more recently.
Jim
Matt Giwer
> <resnip>
>>>>And incidentally, Saddam is *not* the leader that is invading sovereign
>>>>nations unprovoked right now. Hasn't been for quite some time.
>>>So much evil to do, so little time in which to do it...
>>>1. Who needs to invade when you have millions to murder and oppress at
>>>home.
>>
>>Just like China, Korea and Cuba to name three.
> Looks like Korea is next on the list.
Korea will have nukes in a few weeks. There will be no war against Korea.
>>Unlike those three, Iraq has only one law regarding who can own
>>handguns and rifles. They have to be adults. Iraqis are better armed than
>>Americans. If they didn't want to put up with it they would do something
>>about it.
> The tool of poverty provides Suddam with the ability to buy
> information from anyone that has it, and this happens every day. Why
> do you think his opponents keep getting shot in the street or just
> disappearing? I suggest you go live there, commit to disent against
> him, and see how long you survive.
Why is it his secret police or whatever are not finding themselves dead in the
streets?
It does not matter really. The people are armed better than Americans. They can
get rid of him if they want to. It is their business not Bush's.
>>How does that justified a crime against peace by Bush which is has been
>>a hanging offense since Nuremberg?
> I don't support Bush, that was your astute assumption. His desire to
> do away with Suddam is the lessor of the two evils.
His desire is the only crime in this matter. Iraq is no threat to the US nor to
its neighbors. As this war is not justified by any reason it is a crime against
peace. As it does not have the color of self defense it will be the murder of
Iraqis defending their country from foreign invaders. They have every right to
defend their country and the US has no right or cause to invade.
>>>2. If he isn't planning on invading anyone, then why is he building
>>>long range missiles? Why did these missiles not exist until we found
>>>them?
>>They were included in the original declaration months ago.
> Right along with the declaration that they had been destroyed.
That is not true. The only quibble arose when Iraq volunteered the results of
tests showing the range without warheads. There are no SCUDS if that is what you
think you are talking about.
>>>Why is he hiding thousands of gallons of VX and Anthrax?
>>Because he isn't.
> You know this precisely how?
Because the disposal site was unearthed for the UN inspectors last week. Don't
you read the news?
>>>Why did the warheads not exist until we found them?
>>Fact is they were dug up by Iraq to show the inspectors they had been
>>destroyed AS THE US and BRITAIN have known since 1995.
> Yeah, they were dug up, just like the entrance to the underground
> bunker where they were hidden. If they were already destroyed, then
> why did they need to redestroyed? They were intact, otherwise it
> never would have made the news, along with photographs of what were
> obviously warheads.
The destruction was in 1991 as the US has known since 1995 and been lying about
ever since. Do you not read the news?
>>>3. Lets lift the sanctions, give him time to arm, and see how long he
>>>stays at home.
>>Good idea. That will be test of the precognative abilities of the redneck
>>alcoholic from Texas.
> Where precisely did you obtain your credentials? The University of
> Bagdad? Which makes me wonder, what third world toilet do you live
> in? Your opinions reflect a nationalist of a country that has at one
> point been put in it's place by the U.S. or you are simply angry over
> a failure to obtain a green card.
My statements represent the known facts. Bush has presented ZERO evidence.
Powell presented ZERO evidence at the UN.
There is no evidence which in any manner justifies Americans murdering Iraqis.
Iraq has not attacked the US. There is no indication of any imminent attack on
the US by Iraq. Anyone who thinks Iraq could possibly attack the US is an idiot.
>>>4. I certainly don't see him buying candy for street children... well,
>>>maybe perhaps, to lure them into his car... what am I thinking, if he
>>>wants a boy to rape, he just has his guards kidnap a couple.
>>I see the same of you. Does that justify someone choosing to murder you?
> If I were a child molester, yes. The murder of any such predater is
> justified simply by human decency and should be advertised to the
> world as a deterrent.
You might in the future be and therefore it is best to deal with you now. Bush
has used what Hussein might do in the future as a false justification for
murdering Iraqis.
>>>If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
>>>repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
>>>human shield.
>>How does any of that justify Americans murdering Iraqis in a war of
>>aggression?
> I don't support the murder of innocent civilians from any country.
I certainly do not support the US murdering either innocent civilians or
members of Iraqs army who will only be defending their country from foreign
invaders.
> What the U.S. should do is a special ops insert and assassinate Suddam
> and his upper circle, then call it a day.
That would also be murder.
> If you are such a fan of Suddam's then I suggest you observe a few
> moments of silence, because he is going the way of the dinosaur.
So did Poland in 1939. Poland would not yield to Germany's demands. There is no
difference.
--
It is strange the US electorate cannot act upon the
knowledge that elections and laws are purchased.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2516
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<h729a.94071$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
>>Chive Mynde wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<mdU8a.93236$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I haven't seen one person in this administration who does not have a
>>>>counterpart in totalitarian regimes we have come to know and dislike
>>>>intensely
>>
>>
>>
>>>More examples of Giwer's delusions.
>>>
>>>Giwer equates slavery with freedom, again.
>>>
>>>Giwer, don't you have a Klan meeting to attend?
>>
>> Ad hominem had been formally identified as a fallacy for some 2300 years.
>>
>> All educated people know that which explains why you do not know it.
>
>
> 1. No ad hominem argument was made.
And you are ignorant of what it means also.
--
The group which runs a country is the group which
cannot be named as running the country.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2484
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<iQO8a.92883$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>> BTW: I can say Bush is an idiot. So can any Iraqi.
> More lies from Giwer. Anyone who calls Saddam an idiot is murdered.
Why would an Iraqi be murdered for saying Bush is an idiot?
--
The free press in the US is indistinguishable from
a controlled press in a dictatorship.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2489
Hänsel Schuster
nor do I feel it is the place of the U.S. to police the world. An
invasion is going to get a lot of people killed, and nobody wants to
see that.
American citizens have no more control over the U.S. government than
the Iraqi's have over Suddam. Votes don't count ala the chad
conspiracy. Politicians lie to get elected, and prove that they lie
by reneging in the paltry promises they make.
Truth be told, both Iraq and the U.S. are plutocracies. The elitist
will do what the elitist pleases, as demonstrated by Suddam and Bush.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
Mynde) wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>And yes, toppling Hussein is the only course of action that will
>enable the Iraqi people to embrace democratic reforms. There is no
>other course of action that will promote reforms. Other course of
>actions have been tried, time and time again.
Kofi Annan could send him a really mean letter. I bet that would get
him to be nicer to his people.
--
V.G.
"Useful idiots follow suit. Artist my ass; I went to
grade school." - Allen L. Barker explains everything.
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>Chive Mynde wrote:
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<fe29a.94137$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
>>> Do you fail to see the irony of using as an excuse for Americans
>>>to murder Iraqis?
>
>> More lies from neo-nazi, Matt Giwer:
>
>> http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/5290201.htm
>
>> President Bush? Europeans may disdain him, but he's "a great man,"
>> says Iraqi maintenance engineer Hayder Hamid, 40. "I feel he wants to
>> do something for the Iraqi people this time."
>
> He is an alcoholic biblethumper.
Nice rebuttal.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
I'm in for $25.
Clave
news:9tqa6vos90lo410a3...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 21:21:33 GMT, "Clave"
> <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>
> >"Chive Mynde" <chive...@california.usa.com> wrote in message
> >news:550844e9.03030...@posting.google.com...
> >> doublezer...@hotmail.com (Hänsel Schuster) wrote in message
> >news:<71b02131.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >> > If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
> >> > repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
> >> > human shield.
> >>
> >> Let's setup a pay-pal account to send Giwer to Iraq.
> >
> >You'd get more action if the deal was to send you both.
> >
> >Jim
> >
>
> I'm in for $25.
It wouldn't even surprise me to find out that Giwer is just another one of
Devin's little sock friends.
Jim
Hänsel Schuster
>
> >>>>And incidentally, Saddam is *not* the leader that is invading sovereign
> >>>>nations unprovoked right now. Hasn't been for quite some time.
>
> >>>So much evil to do, so little time in which to do it...
>
> >>>1. Who needs to invade when you have millions to murder and oppress at
> >>>home.
> >>
> >>Just like China, Korea and Cuba to name three.
>
> > Looks like Korea is next on the list.
>
> Korea will have nukes in a few weeks. There will be no war against Korea.
They keep lighting up our jets and there will be.
> >>Unlike those three, Iraq has only one law regarding who can own
> >>handguns and rifles. They have to be adults. Iraqis are better armed than
> >>Americans. If they didn't want to put up with it they would do something
> >>about it.
>
> > The tool of poverty provides Suddam with the ability to buy
> > information from anyone that has it, and this happens every day. Why
> > do you think his opponents keep getting shot in the street or just
> > disappearing? I suggest you go live there, commit to disent against
> > him, and see how long you survive.
>
> Why is it his secret police or whatever are not finding themselves dead in the streets?
It's his secret police that do the killing, and they certainly aren't
going to leave corpses in the street for bleeding heart journalists to
photograph. These people are subjected to poverty (and illiteracy) so
how can they even hope to form an organized effort against a man with
"a thousand eyes." The poverty itself, is a guarantee that
information about the most dangerous detractors can be bought.
Knowing that this danger exists is a form of oppression in itself,
because if you do not know who to trust, organization is impossible.
> It does not matter really. The people are armed better than Americans. They can
> get rid of him if they want to. It is their business not Bush's.
I don't disagree, it is their business, but America has appointed
itself the world cop. I have no more say over what Bush does, than
"Mohummad Doe" has over Suddam.
> >>How does that justified a crime against peace by Bush which is has been
> >>a hanging offense since Nuremberg?
>
> > I don't support Bush, that was your astute assumption. His desire to
> > do away with Suddam is the lessor of the two evils.
>
> His desire is the only crime in this matter. Iraq is no threat to the US nor to
> its neighbors. As this war is not justified by any reason it is a crime against
> peace. As it does not have the color of self defense it will be the murder of
> Iraqis defending their country from foreign invaders. They have every right to
> defend their country and the US has no right or cause to invade.
By what token are they no threat? Their neigbors include Kuwait,
Turkey, and Israel, all of whom are allies of the U.S, and are all in
range of the (operational) longer range missiles that were recently
discovered. Yes, they do have a right to defend themselves and they
will. This is a sad fact of war. Don't misinterpret my feelings
about what is coming... I don't want to see civilians or soldiers
killed. I do want to see Suddam removed, and unfortunately, he won't
leave without a fight.
Now granted, our enemies and allies change radically over time, and
this is largely due to economics. Right now, Iraq has oil, and Bush
wants it. Suddam has forbidden weapons, and is lying, so we are using
this as an excuse to exercise an overseas version of "eminent domain"
to confiscate their oil. I don't for a moment approve of this, but I
am certain that George W. could give a rat's ass how I feel.
> >>>2. If he isn't planning on invading anyone, then why is he building
> >>>long range missiles? Why did these missiles not exist until we found
> >>>them?
>
> >>They were included in the original declaration months ago.
>
> > Right along with the declaration that they had been destroyed.
>
> That is not true. The only quibble arose when Iraq volunteered the results of
> tests showing the range without warheads. There are no SCUDS if that is what you
> think you are talking about.
I was referring to the Al-Samoud 2 missiles. There were 120 of them,
and regardless of how little they exceed the banned range of +93
miles, they still exceeded that range, which made them illegal.
Suddam lied about them, so how can we trust anything he says?
>
> >>>Why is he hiding thousands of gallons of VX and Anthrax?
>
> >>Because he isn't.
>
> > You know this precisely how?
>
> Because the disposal site was unearthed for the UN inspectors last week. Don't
> you read the news?
The residual chemical evidence has quantifiably demonstrated that a
mere portion of the documented stockpiles were present. It is the
same scam as robbing a bank and burning some of the money to try and
convince the authorities that all the "booty" is gone. Besides,
Suddam's continuous lying is what is imperiling his country. All
those unaccounted chemicals have to be somewhere, and he certainly
cannot be trusted to provide a full disclosure.
> >>>Why did the warheads not exist until we found them?
>
> >>Fact is they were dug up by Iraq to show the inspectors they had been
> >>destroyed AS THE US and BRITAIN have known since 1995.
>
> > Yeah, they were dug up, just like the entrance to the underground
> > bunker where they were hidden. If they were already destroyed, then
> > why did they need to redestroyed? They were intact, otherwise it
> > never would have made the news, along with photographs of what were
> > obviously warheads.
>
> The destruction was in 1991 as the US has known since 1995 and been lying about
> ever since. Do you not read the news?
I read the reports and saw the photographs of forbidden devices that
were completely intact. I also read the propaganda provided by both
the U.S. and Iraqi governments. I believe that with Suddam's penchant
for lying, his past history of aggressive behavior, and his present
passive aggressive actions are proof that he is worse for the world
than Bush. Hey, in a perfect world, neither of these idiots would be
in power.
> >>>3. Lets lift the sanctions, give him time to arm, and see how long he
> >>>stays at home.
>
> >>Good idea. That will be test of the precognative abilities of the redneck
> >>alcoholic from Texas.
>
> > Where precisely did you obtain your credentials? The University of
> > Bagdad? Which makes me wonder, what third world toilet do you live
> > in? Your opinions reflect a nationalist of a country that has at one
> > point been put in it's place by the U.S. or you are simply angry over
> > a failure to obtain a green card.
>
> My statements represent the known facts. Bush has presented ZERO evidence.
> Powell presented ZERO evidence at the UN.
So the dual use aluminum tubing doesn't count? The destroyed warheads
that were not destroyed don't count? The destroyed missiles that they
never had in the first place, but we found don't count. Do you trust
Suddam?
> There is no evidence which in any manner justifies Americans murdering Iraqis.
> Iraq has not attacked the US. There is no indication of any imminent attack on
> the US by Iraq. Anyone who thinks Iraq could possibly attack the US is an idiot.
Iraq can attack our allies, whom we are bound by treaty to defend. If
Iraq attacks Israel then it is no different from attacking the U.S.
The same goes for Turkey or Kuwait.
> >>>4. I certainly don't see him buying candy for street children... well,
> >>>maybe perhaps, to lure them into his car... what am I thinking, if he
> >>>wants a boy to rape, he just has his guards kidnap a couple.
>
> >>I see the same of you. Does that justify someone choosing to murder you?
>
> > If I were a child molester, yes. The murder of any such predater is
> > justified simply by human decency and should be advertised to the
> > world as a deterrent.
>
> You might in the future be and therefore it is best to deal with you now. Bush
> has used what Hussein might do in the future as a false justification for
> murdering Iraqis.
I have never demonstrated that I am a danger to children. Suddam has
a proven history of being a menace... perhaps not to children, but
obviously to Kuwait, to his own people, to the Kurds in the North, to
our allies in the immediate vicinity.
> >>>If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
> >>>repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
> >>>human shield.
>
> >>How does any of that justify Americans murdering Iraqis in a war of
> >>aggression?
>
> > I don't support the murder of innocent civilians from any country.
>
> I certainly do not support the US murdering either innocent civilians or
> members of Iraqs army who will only be defending their country from foreign
> invaders.
As I said earlier, I don't disagree with the concept of the Iraqi
military defending their nation.
> > What the U.S. should do is a special ops insert and assassinate Suddam
> > and his upper circle, then call it a day.
>
> That would also be murder.
Then I plead guilty to facilitating a capitol crime. I am for
removing Suddam, be it dead or alive. I see no profit in debating
this point, as I don't think we could ever reach a concensus. Let's
just agree to disagree on this one.
> > If you are such a fan of Suddam's then I suggest you observe a few
> > moments of silence, because he is going the way of the dinosaur.
>
> So did Poland in 1939. Poland would not yield to Germany's demands. There is no
> difference.
Since I was not alive, and our books have been polluted by revisionist
historian propaganda, I am not qualified to offer comment on this.
I'm not evading the point, I simply don't know what you are talking
about on this one.
My question to you is this: Do you trust Suddam?
Xcott Craver
> Xcott Craver <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message
>>
>> assuming that war is the only course of action that will.
>
> Nonsense. The author's original statement merely demonstrates the
> irony of protesting a war that will give the people of Iraq the
> freedom to protest.
Assuming, of course, that a war in Iraq will grant these
people freedom of speech.
After all, we already had a war with Iraq. Shouldn't
these people already have a democracy etc? Why didn't the last
war confer freedom of speech? War works, right? Right?
-X
Danny Kodicek
"Xcott Craver" <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message
And of course, the US is a paragon of free speech.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,907070,00.html
Danny
Matt Giwer
> On 4 Mar 2003 13:36:32 -0800, chive...@california.usa.com (Chive
> Mynde) wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>>And yes, toppling Hussein is the only course of action that will
>>enable the Iraqi people to embrace democratic reforms. There is no
>>other course of action that will promote reforms. Other course of
>>actions have been tried, time and time again.
> Kofi Annan could send him a really mean letter. I bet that would get
> him to be nicer to his people.
The people could get out their guns and blow him away if they wanted to.
The question remains how many Iraqis need be murdered to teach Hussein a lesson?
What are these civilians going to see? Liberators or foreign invaders who
murdered their family members? What would you see if some country insisted upon
imposing the stability of a dictatorship on your country?
--
Israel is pissed that Europeans are connecting the Iraq war
with Israel calling it antisemitic. Every official in the
Israeli government has made that connection. The Israeli
government is antisemitic.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2520
Hokey Wolf
news:<d5a9a.96503$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
<snip>
> How does attacking Poland in 1939 differ from attacking Iraq in 2003?
1. Poland wasn't trying to possess nuclear weapons.
2. Poland didn't have stockpiles of VX and anthrax.
3. Poland wasn't a threat to our allies.
4. Poland wasn't lying about it's weapons capabilities.
5. Suddam was only two years old, and wasn't dictator of Poland.
6. That was Poland, this is Iraq
Who are you anyway? An Iraqi gradeschooler? Should we expect you to
strap on a bomb and become a martyr any time soon?
"Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?"
"Not me" said the third little pig, as he was frying in the skillet.
Matt Giwer
> "Xcott Craver" <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message
> news:PM0003B81...@BrainHz.bellatlantic.net...
>
>>Chive Mynde wrote:
>>
>>>Xcott Craver <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> You are committing a false dichotomy fallacy.
>>>> Assuming, of course, that war will change anything, you are
>>>> assuming that war is the only course of action that will.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. The author's original statement merely demonstrates the
>>>irony of protesting a war that will give the people of Iraq the
>>>freedom to protest.
>>
>> Assuming, of course, that a war in Iraq will grant these
>> people freedom of speech.
>>
>> After all, we already had a war with Iraq. Shouldn't
>> these people already have a democracy etc? Why didn't the last
>> war confer freedom of speech? War works, right? Right?
>
>
> And of course, the US is a paragon of free speech.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,907070,00.html
The US tradition as far back as the civil war is to suppress objection to the
war. During the civil war newspaper editors were thrown in jail for the duration
without charges for objecting to the war and that was by the great Lincoln. So
called self-censorship was adopted during both world wars and enforced by
witholding rationed newsprint to newspapers lacking the proper spirit.
Fact is, the American tradition during war is indistinguishable from Nazi
Germany during WWII.
--
When picking a college choose one which has degree courses
in feminist studies and black studies. That way you know
the college has no academic standards to speak of and
there is no chance of you flunking out.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2533
Rich Soyack
> Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) wrote:
> > On 4 Mar 2003 13:36:32 -0800, chive...@california.usa.com (Chive
> > Mynde) wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>
> >>And yes, toppling Hussein is the only course of action that will
> >>enable the Iraqi people to embrace democratic reforms. There is no
> >>other course of action that will promote reforms. Other course of
> >>actions have been tried, time and time again.
>
> > Kofi Annan could send him a really mean letter. I bet that would get
> > him to be nicer to his people.
>
> The people could get out their guns and blow him away if they wanted to.
You made a statement that gun ownership is wide spread in Iraq. What is you
source
for this information?
>
> The question remains how many Iraqis need be murdered to teach Hussein a
lesson?
None. There will be no murder. There may be a war but Saddam can save
Iraqi lives by
simply stepping down. Why isn't he interested in saving Iraqi lives?
>
> What are these civilians going to see? Liberators or foreign invaders who
> murdered their family members? What would you see if some country insisted
upon
> imposing the stability of a dictatorship on your country?
What did the civilians in the World Trade Center see? Keep your eyes
closed, if you wish
and rant on.
Rich Soyack
tim gueguen
"Rich Soyack" <r.so...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mOx9a.12105$oY6....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>
> "Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pzx9a.8068$Aa.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) wrote:
> > > On 4 Mar 2003 13:36:32 -0800, chive...@california.usa.com (Chive
> > > Mynde) wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
> >
> > >>And yes, toppling Hussein is the only course of action that will
> > >>enable the Iraqi people to embrace democratic reforms. There is no
> > >>other course of action that will promote reforms. Other course of
> > >>actions have been tried, time and time again.
> >
> > > Kofi Annan could send him a really mean letter. I bet that would get
> > > him to be nicer to his people.
> >
> > The people could get out their guns and blow him away if they wanted to.
>
> You made a statement that gun ownership is wide spread in Iraq. What is
you
> source
> for this information?
>
some of the same news reports I've seen of Iraqis in their local gun shops
buying this and that. Don Murray of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
presented a report on one of their tv news broadcasts within the last couple
of weeks of Iraqis who were considering taking up arms if the US attacked.
Included was footage taken inside an Iraqi gun shop, an university professor
showing his Browning autopistol, and shots of a man and some of his
relatives showing off their long arms, including an AKM one of them had
picked up someplace or other. The latter was interesting because he had
spend a decade in Utah of all places and spoke English with a heavy American
taint to it. You can find a link to this clip here
http://cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2003/02/18/usiraq030218 Look for "Don Murray
reports for CBC TV" on the right hand side of the page. I saw a similar
report in a recent issue of one of the British mags, either New Statesman or
The Economist.
tim gueguen 101867
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
Schuster) wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>> His desire is the only crime in this matter. Iraq is no threat to the US nor to
>> its neighbors. As this war is not justified by any reason it is a crime against
>> peace. As it does not have the color of self defense it will be the murder of
>> Iraqis defending their country from foreign invaders. They have every right to
>> defend their country and the US has no right or cause to invade.
>
>By what token are they no threat? Their neigbors include Kuwait,
>Turkey, and Israel, all of whom are allies of the U.S,
*Theoretically* they are our allies, but it's only because we give
them all shitloads of money. Even then, all three still shit all over
us on a very regular basis. Fuck them. Fuck them all.
tim gueguen
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:B_d9a.5346911$6N5.7...@post-03.news.easynews.com...
a Fidonet address on them from the early 1990s. There's a picture of him
someplace online.
tim gueguen 101867
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) wrote:
>> On 4 Mar 2003 13:36:32 -0800, chive...@california.usa.com (Chive
>> Mynde) wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>
>>>And yes, toppling Hussein is the only course of action that will
>>>enable the Iraqi people to embrace democratic reforms. There is no
>>>other course of action that will promote reforms. Other course of
>>>actions have been tried, time and time again.
>
>> Kofi Annan could send him a really mean letter. I bet that would get
>> him to be nicer to his people.
>
> The people could get out their guns and blow him away if they wanted to.
>
> The question remains how many Iraqis need be murdered to teach Hussein a lesson?
>
> What are these civilians going to see? Liberators or foreign invaders who
>murdered their family members? What would you see if some country insisted upon
>imposing the stability of a dictatorship on your country?
Exactly. If those fucking towelheads really want to be free, let them
get their own goddam freedom, through whatever means they deem
necessary, and let them do it without American blood or American
money. Fuck them all. They don't want to be helped. Fuck them.
Matt Giwer
> <resnip>
>>>>>>And incidentally, Saddam is *not* the leader that is invading sovereign
>>>>>>nations unprovoked right now. Hasn't been for quite some time.
>>>>>So much evil to do, so little time in which to do it...
>>>>>1. Who needs to invade when you have millions to murder and oppress at
>>>>>home.
>>>>
>>>>Just like China, Korea and Cuba to name three.
>>>Looks like Korea is next on the list.
>>Korea will have nukes in a few weeks. There will be no war against Korea.
> They keep lighting up our jets and there will be.
They did and there wasn't. They have every right to do so.
>>>>Unlike those three, Iraq has only one law regarding who can own
>>>>handguns and rifles. They have to be adults. Iraqis are better armed than
>>>>Americans. If they didn't want to put up with it they would do something
>>>>about it.
>>>The tool of poverty provides Suddam with the ability to buy
>>>information from anyone that has it, and this happens every day. Why
>>>do you think his opponents keep getting shot in the street or just
>>>disappearing? I suggest you go live there, commit to disent against
>>>him, and see how long you survive.
>>Why is it his secret police or whatever are not finding themselves dead in the streets?
> It's his secret police that do the killing, and they certainly aren't
> going to leave corpses in the street for bleeding heart journalists to
> photograph. These people are subjected to poverty (and illiteracy) so
> how can they even hope to form an organized effort against a man with
> "a thousand eyes." The poverty itself, is a guarantee that
> information about the most dangerous detractors can be bought.
> Knowing that this danger exists is a form of oppression in itself,
> because if you do not know who to trust, organization is impossible.
As asked, Iraqis civilians are better armed than American civilians. Why are
they not being found dead in the street? Gestapo members were. SS members were.
Why not? The same problem existed with collaborators in those days. Are you
going to identify anything different about Iraq than the Third Reich?
>>It does not matter really. The people are armed better than Americans. They can
>>get rid of him if they want to. It is their business not Bush's.
> I don't disagree, it is their business, but America has appointed
> itself the world cop. I have no more say over what Bush does, than
> "Mohummad Doe" has over Suddam.
Any nation which appoints itself is not a cop but a dictator. However, America
has not done so. Bush has. That is different. The alcoholic emperor.
>>>>How does that justified a crime against peace by Bush which is has been
>>>>a hanging offense since Nuremberg?
>>>I don't support Bush, that was your astute assumption. His desire to
>>>do away with Suddam is the lessor of the two evils.
>>His desire is the only crime in this matter. Iraq is no threat to the US nor to
>>its neighbors. As this war is not justified by any reason it is a crime against
>>peace. As it does not have the color of self defense it will be the murder of
>>Iraqis defending their country from foreign invaders. They have every right to
>>defend their country and the US has no right or cause to invade.
> By what token are they no threat? Their neigbors include Kuwait,
> Turkey, and Israel, all of whom are allies of the U.S, and are all in
> range of the (operational) longer range missiles that were recently
> discovered.
No such weapons have been discovered. Why do you not read the news?
> Yes, they do have a right to defend themselves and they
> will. This is a sad fact of war. Don't misinterpret my feelings
> about what is coming... I don't want to see civilians or soldiers
> killed. I do want to see Suddam removed, and unfortunately, he won't
> leave without a fight.
As your reason to see him removed is based on the false premise that long range
missiles have been discovered your reason is false. QED
> Now granted, our enemies and allies change radically over time, and
> this is largely due to economics. Right now, Iraq has oil, and Bush
> wants it. Suddam has forbidden weapons, and is lying, so we are using
> this as an excuse to exercise an overseas version of "eminent domain"
> to confiscate their oil. I don't for a moment approve of this, but I
> am certain that George W. could give a rat's ass how I feel.
You can at least post the facts instead of making up things about long range
missiles.
>>>>>2. If he isn't planning on invading anyone, then why is he building
>>>>>long range missiles? Why did these missiles not exist until we found
>>>>>them?
>>>>They were included in the original declaration months ago.
>>>Right along with the declaration that they had been destroyed.
>>That is not true. The only quibble arose when Iraq volunteered the results of
>>tests showing the range without warheads. There are no SCUDS if that is what you
>>think you are talking about.
> I was referring to the Al-Samoud 2 missiles. There were 120 of them,
> and regardless of how little they exceed the banned range of +93
> miles, they still exceeded that range, which made them illegal.
> Suddam lied about them, so how can we trust anything he says?
The information was supplied by Iraq so they it was not concealed. They exceed
the range by 10% when tested without warheads. No nation you mentioned is in
range of those missiles. Your premise is false.
>>>>>Why is he hiding thousands of gallons of VX and Anthrax?
>>>>Because he isn't.
>>>You know this precisely how?
>>Because the disposal site was unearthed for the UN inspectors last week. Don't
>>you read the news?
> The residual chemical evidence has quantifiably demonstrated that a
> mere portion of the documented stockpiles were present. It is the
> same scam as robbing a bank and burning some of the money to try and
> convince the authorities that all the "booty" is gone. Besides,
> Suddam's continuous lying is what is imperiling his country. All
> those unaccounted chemicals have to be somewhere, and he certainly
> cannot be trusted to provide a full disclosure.
The inspectors have said it accounts for what was considered missing. The
inspectors will document this. There is no basis for your position.
>>>>>Why did the warheads not exist until we found them?
>>>>Fact is they were dug up by Iraq to show the inspectors they had been
>>>>destroyed AS THE US and BRITAIN have known since 1995.
>>>Yeah, they were dug up, just like the entrance to the underground
>>>bunker where they were hidden. If they were already destroyed, then
>>>why did they need to redestroyed? They were intact, otherwise it
>>>never would have made the news, along with photographs of what were
>>>obviously warheads.
>>
>>The destruction was in 1991 as the US has known since 1995 and been lying about
>>ever since. Do you not read the news?
> I read the reports and saw the photographs of forbidden devices that
> were completely intact.
I read four summaries of mideast news every day was well as two websites which
summarize mideast, war and Iraq news. I have seen no such photos. Where did you
find them?
> I also read the propaganda provided by both
> the U.S. and Iraqi governments. I believe that with Suddam's penchant
> for lying, his past history of aggressive behavior, and his present
> passive aggressive actions are proof that he is worse for the world
> than Bush. Hey, in a perfect world, neither of these idiots would be
> in power.
As we also know Bush's (and Powell's and Blair's) history of lying about Iraq
and his aggression in Afghanistan I don't see a difference in those matters.
What difference do you see?
>>>>>3. Lets lift the sanctions, give him time to arm, and see how long he
>>>>>stays at home.
>>>>Good idea. That will be test of the precognative abilities of the redneck
>>>>alcoholic from Texas.
>>>Where precisely did you obtain your credentials? The University of
>>>Bagdad? Which makes me wonder, what third world toilet do you live
>>>in? Your opinions reflect a nationalist of a country that has at one
>>>point been put in it's place by the U.S. or you are simply angry over
>>>a failure to obtain a green card.
>>My statements represent the known facts. Bush has presented ZERO evidence.
>>Powell presented ZERO evidence at the UN.
> So the dual use aluminum tubing doesn't count?
They were ordered anodized. Anodized doesn't work for separation.
> The destroyed warheads that were not destroyed don't count?
So far you are the only person who has seen pictures of them.
> The destroyed missiles that they
> never had in the first place, but we found don't count.
As they were reported and are not a threat to any nation ...
> Do you trust Suddam?
I do not trust anyone. He is not a threat to the US therefore his is of no
interest.
Whatever he is does not justify murdering Iraqis.
>>There is no evidence which in any manner justifies Americans murdering Iraqis.
>>Iraq has not attacked the US. There is no indication of any imminent attack on
>>the US by Iraq. Anyone who thinks Iraq could possibly attack the US is an idiot.
> Iraq can attack our allies, whom we are bound by treaty to defend. If
> Iraq attacks Israel then it is no different from attacking the U.S.
> The same goes for Turkey or Kuwait.
We are not bound by any treaty to defend any country in the mideast. The US has
no defense treaty with Israel. Israel has nukes and can take care of itself
without any help from the US. Iraq has no weapons which can reach Israel.
Neither Kuwait nor Turkey has said Iraq is a threat. Turkey turned down
billions in bribes to let US troops in.
>>>>>4. I certainly don't see him buying candy for street children... well,
>>>>>maybe perhaps, to lure them into his car... what am I thinking, if he
>>>>>wants a boy to rape, he just has his guards kidnap a couple.
>>>>I see the same of you. Does that justify someone choosing to murder you?
>>>If I were a child molester, yes. The murder of any such predater is
>>>justified simply by human decency and should be advertised to the
>>>world as a deterrent.
>>You might in the future be and therefore it is best to deal with you now. Bush
>>has used what Hussein might do in the future as a false justification for
>>murdering Iraqis.
> I have never demonstrated that I am a danger to children. Suddam has
> a proven history of being a menace... perhaps not to children, but
> obviously to Kuwait, to his own people, to the Kurds in the North, to
> our allies in the immediate vicinity.
The Kurds are rebels and have been treated the same by Turkey so that is not an
issue. Again, Kuwait has not claimed Iraq is a threat. So there is no
justification for murdering Iraqis.
>>>>>If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
>>>>>repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
>>>>>human shield.
>>>>How does any of that justify Americans murdering Iraqis in a war of
>>>>aggression?
>>>I don't support the murder of innocent civilians from any country.
>>I certainly do not support the US murdering either innocent civilians or
>>members of Iraqs army who will only be defending their country from foreign
>>invaders.
> As I said earlier, I don't disagree with the concept of the Iraqi
> military defending their nation.
Why do you support murdering them?
>>>What the U.S. should do is a special ops insert and assassinate Suddam
>>>and his upper circle, then call it a day.
>>That would also be murder.
> Then I plead guilty to facilitating a capitol crime. I am for
> removing Suddam, be it dead or alive. I see no profit in debating
> this point, as I don't think we could ever reach a concensus. Let's
> just agree to disagree on this one.
I agree you want to be a murderer. There is no disagreement.
>>>If you are such a fan of Suddam's then I suggest you observe a few
>>>moments of silence, because he is going the way of the dinosaur.
>>So did Poland in 1939. Poland would not yield to Germany's demands. There is no
>>difference.
> Since I was not alive, and our books have been polluted by revisionist
> historian propaganda, I am not qualified to offer comment on this.
> I'm not evading the point, I simply don't know what you are talking
> about on this one.
Poland refused to comply with Germany's demands to Germany (and Russia)
invaded. What is the difference?
> My question to you is this: Do you trust Suddam?
There no need to trust him. He is not a threat to the US.
--
Bush is so stupid he believes TV studios are
chemical weapons laboratories.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2459
Clave
news:tEy9a.399168$sV3.11...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
That doesn't surprise me either.
Jim
Matt Giwer
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:11:57 GMT, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>>Chive Mynde wrote:
>>
>>>wolfklan <cadell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<08786v8qvefs6k9vd...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>>The thing that sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that Bush
>>>>keeps saying that he is attacking to prevent the terrorism that Saddam
>>>>may do.
>>
>>>That is certainly one of the primary reasons, but there are many
>>>secondary and tertiary reasons which have great importance.
>>
>> As Iraq is not involved in any terrorism against the US or any other country
>>there is a reason only for the ignorant masses.
>>>Remember,
>>>one of the things you don't hear from the major media outlets is that
>>>the Iraqi people are in *favor* of a US-led invasion force which will
>>>oust Saddam.
>>
>> You do not hear about it because you made it up as there is no way to know.
> Whenever the US media asks locals if they support Saddam, the answer
> is irrelevent. If the person says that they support him they are
> dismissed as being afraid of Saddam's police.
>
>>>>However there are a couple of problems with this reason.
>>>It's not the only reason. The entire region needs to be brought into
>>>the 21st century.
>> How does that justify Americans murdering Iraqis?
> It doesn't. Did you know that Saddam has instituted free education for
> the Iraqi people. 20% of all oil revenues go to education programs to
> get the people into the 20th century. If a kid has the grades, he can
> apply to any university in the world and if accepted the Iraq
> government picks up the tab. No loans it's free.
Down right anti-american.
--
The mid-February terror alert just shows how stupid
the people in charge.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2471
George Black
"tim gueguen" <ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> wrote in message
news:tEy9a.399168$sV3.11...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
:
: "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
True
He was on Fidonet in the very very late 1980's and has never changed
his racist anti Jewish holocaust denial rant..
--
_________________________________________
George Black
ICQ#: 6963409
More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/6963409
_________________________________________
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gblack/index.htm
DrPostman
accordance with The Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of
their wisdom with:
>Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> regurgitated in message
Matt is a holocaust denier. Rather notorious one at that.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy
jjonah
> doublezer...@hotmail.com (Hänsel Schuster) wrote in message news:<71b02131.03030...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > If you truly believe in his benevolence, I am sure you could be
> > repatriated, and I am certain Suddam would just love to have one more
> > human shield.
>
> Let's setup a pay-pal account to send Giwer to Iraq.
>
> )) ))_ _ __ _ __ )\/,)__ _ _ _ __)) __
> ((__((`( (( \(/'((' ((`(( \(/'((\( ((_( (('
> )
> The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.
> - Socrates (B.C.469-399)
Speaking of those who went to Iraq to become human shields... Looks
like they are on their way back home.
Michael Zalar
>
> President Bush? Europeans may disdain him, but he's "a great man,"
> says Iraqi maintenance engineer Hayder Hamid, 40. "I feel he wants to
> do something for the Iraqi people this time."
>
> it as... the glimmer of hope we've been waiting for," says medical
> student Sama Hadad.
>
> While much of world opinion opposes war, there is an almost opposite
> point of view among those with a very personal stake in the outcome -
> the ordinary Iraqis who left their homeland because of Hussein's
> brutality.
>
> An estimated four million have fled Iraq because of Hussein; 350,000
> of them are in the United Kingdom.
>
> Look through their eyes, and Hussein is an unspeakably evil murderer
> and torturer who must be stopped.
>
> In a way he is worse than Hitler, because in addition to killing
> others, "he fights his own people, kills his people, every day," says
> former Iraqi teacher Alya, 52, a London community worker who asked
> that only her first name be used.
>
For a somewhat different look at how Iraqi exiles view an upcoming war
in their homeland see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,899082,00.html
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,907687,00.html
It seems that not all Iraqi exiles feel that the US/British war
against Iraq will be a beneficial thing.
"Most parties on the opposition committee set up under Khalilzad's
pressure last week are paid by the US government. Da'wa and the ICP
[Iraqi exile groups who oppose the war] have not succumbed. Pro-war
pundits who claim to know the views of Iraqi exiles should check they
are not listening to opinions made in Washington."
jjonah
Martin Sheen is a fine actor. However, The West Wing has been
slipping in ratings the past season or so. THIS couldn't be the real
reason, could it? Rob Lowe just jumped ship. The West Wing has
jumped the shark.
jjonah
> Chive Mynde wrote:
>
> > From Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser 2-18-03
> > http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
>
> > To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
> > really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
> > is a right not present in Iraq.
>
> How in practical terms, not in law, do you distinguish a government controlled
> press from the American press?
The simple ability to cull newstories from the entire world at a click
of a mouse. see google news
Do Iraqis have uncensored access to the internet? Do they have
uncensored access to satellite tv?
George Black
"jjonah" <jjonah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:30e9e8ac.03030...@posting.google.com...
: chive...@california.usa.com (Chive Mynde) wrote in message
:
It was okay when there was little possibility of big nasty bangs but
suddenly they became aware that ol' Uncle Saddam wanted them to park
their buses on his dumps of ''''' weapons of mass destruction'''''
:-))
Leaving all the civilians of Iraq just as badly off as they were
before they pulled this stunt!
Matt Giwer
> "Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pzx9a.8068$Aa.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) wrote:
>>
>>>On 4 Mar 2003 13:36:32 -0800, chive...@california.usa.com (Chive
>>>Mynde) wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>>
>>>>And yes, toppling Hussein is the only course of action that will
>>>>enable the Iraqi people to embrace democratic reforms. There is no
>>>>other course of action that will promote reforms. Other course of
>>>>actions have been tried, time and time again.
>>
>>>Kofi Annan could send him a really mean letter. I bet that would get
>>>him to be nicer to his people.
>>
>>The people could get out their guns and blow him away if they wanted to.
> You made a statement that gun ownership is wide spread in Iraq. What is you
> source for this information?
I have read several articles about it. Gary North wrote an article citing two
news reports on CBS. It gives the lie to the story Hussein fears a popular
uprising.
>>The question remains how many Iraqis need be murdered to teach Hussein a
>> lesson?
> None. There will be no murder. There may be a war but Saddam can save
> Iraqi lives by simply stepping down. Why isn't he interested in saving Iraqi lives?
An unprovoked war is no different from premeditated murder. Iraq has not
attacked the US. The US has no justification for an invasion. Therefore it will
be murder.
>>What are these civilians going to see? Liberators or foreign invaders who
>>murdered their family members? What would you see if some country insisted
>> upon
>>imposing the stability of a dictatorship on your country?
> What did the civilians in the World Trade Center see? Keep your eyes
> closed, if you wish and rant on.
As there is ZERO evidence of Iraq having had any connection to anything on 9/11
or any connection to any form of terrorism that is a meaningless question.
Are you one of the 2/3rds of Americans who believes he was behind it?
--
Dozens of terror alerts and no arrests.
How is this possible?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2458
Matt Giwer
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 01:33:09 GMT, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>
>
>>Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) wrote:
>>
>>>On 4 Mar 2003 13:36:32 -0800, chive...@california.usa.com (Chive
>>>Mynde) wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:
>>
>>>>And yes, toppling Hussein is the only course of action that will
>>>>enable the Iraqi people to embrace democratic reforms. There is no
>>>>other course of action that will promote reforms. Other course of
>>>>actions have been tried, time and time again.
>>
>>>Kofi Annan could send him a really mean letter. I bet that would get
>>>him to be nicer to his people.
>>
>> The people could get out their guns and blow him away if they wanted to.
>>
>> The question remains how many Iraqis need be murdered to teach Hussein a lesson?
>>
>> What are these civilians going to see? Liberators or foreign invaders who
>>murdered their family members? What would you see if some country insisted upon
>>imposing the stability of a dictatorship on your country?
>
>
> Exactly. If those fucking towelheads really want to be free, let them
> get their own goddam freedom, through whatever means they deem
> necessary, and let them do it without American blood or American
> money. Fuck them all. They don't want to be helped. Fuck them.
The idea of imposing freedom, Be free or we will kill you, is the kind of
reasoning which might appeal to a man whose brain has been rotted by decades of
binging on alcohol and cocaine.
--
Color coded alerts and other things to frighten children.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2478
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> regurgitated in message
> news:<d5a9a.96503$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> <snip>
>>How does attacking Poland in 1939 differ from attacking Iraq in 2003?
> 1. Poland wasn't trying to possess nuclear weapons.
> 2. Poland didn't have stockpiles of VX and anthrax.
> 3. Poland wasn't a threat to our allies.
> 4. Poland wasn't lying about it's weapons capabilities.
The same with Iraq outside the baseless accusations of the Bushites.
> 5. Suddam was only two years old, and wasn't dictator of Poland.
> 6. That was Poland, this is Iraq
And this is an unprovoked war and therefore a crime against peace and therefore
a hanging offense as it was at Nuremberg.
> Who are you anyway? An Iraqi gradeschooler? Should we expect you to
> strap on a bomb and become a martyr any time soon?
> "Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?"
> "Not me" said the third little pig, as he was frying in the skillet.
As there is no way Iraq can possibly threaten the US and as Iraq has not
attacked the US there is no justification for the US to invade Iraq and murder
anyone who defends their country from a bunch of murdering foreigners.
--
US Agenda
Invade Iraq. Murder Hussein. Take all the oil contracts.
Impose democracy at gunpoint. Bomb the crap out of
secessionists. Move on to Iran.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2482
Rich Soyack
But the war was provoked. Saddam invaded Kuwait. The United States led a
coalition
to get him out of Kuwait. He begged for a cease fire and signed and
agreement. He has
violated the agreement and therefor the war he started is set to continue.
Why did he
violate the agreement and put the people of Iraq in danger? Does he only
care about his
own power?
>
> >>What are these civilians going to see? Liberators or foreign invaders
who
> >>murdered their family members? What would you see if some country
insisted
> >> upon
> >>imposing the stability of a dictatorship on your country?
>
> > What did the civilians in the World Trade Center see? Keep your eyes
> > closed, if you wish and rant on.
>
> As there is ZERO evidence of Iraq having had any connection to anything on
9/11
> or any connection to any form of terrorism that is a meaningless question.
>
> Are you one of the 2/3rds of Americans who believes he was behind it?
Saddam willfully broke the cease fire agreement putting the people of Iraq
in danger.
Why do you support him in his putting his personal ambitions ahead of the
safety of the
people of Iraq?
Rich Soyack
Matt Giwer
Remember the Liberty. Never forgive. Never forget.
--
Whatever happened to the war on terrorism?
Did we win?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2503
Matt Giwer
> On 5 Mar 2003 17:37:04 -0800, hokeywo...@hotmail.com (Hokey Wolf) in
> accordance with The Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of
> their wisdom with:
>>Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> regurgitated in message
>>news:<d5a9a.96503$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>>
>><snip>
>>>How does attacking Poland in 1939 differ from attacking Iraq in 2003?
>>1. Poland wasn't trying to possess nuclear weapons.
>>2. Poland didn't have stockpiles of VX and anthrax.
>>3. Poland wasn't a threat to our allies.
>>4. Poland wasn't lying about it's weapons capabilities.
>>5. Suddam was only two years old, and wasn't dictator of Poland.
>>6. That was Poland, this is Iraq
>>Who are you anyway? An Iraqi gradeschooler? Should we expect you to
>>strap on a bomb and become a martyr any time soon?
>>"Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?"
>>"Not me" said the third little pig, as he was frying in the skillet.
> Matt is a holocaust denier. Rather notorious one at that.
Considering many tens of millions of people were completely suckered by Freud
and his psychotherapy scam it is hardly surprising there are atill a few people
left who believe in gas chambers. I presume you were and perhaps still a sucker
for both cons.
--
The free press in the US is indistinguishable from
a controlled press in a dictatorship.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2489
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Q1R8a.93126$0n2.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
>>Chive Mynde wrote:
>>
>>
>>>From Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Advertiser 2-18-03
>>>http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Feb/18/op/op04aletters.html
>>
>>
>>
>>>To this I add, Saddam Hussein may call himself "President," but he is
>>>really a dictator. The free speech so many enjoy to protest against a war,
>>>is a right not present in Iraq.
>>
>> How in practical terms, not in law, do you distinguish a government controlled
>>press from the American press?
> The simple ability to cull newstories from the entire world at a click
> of a mouse. see google news
While you are on google, compare US news sources to non-US sources. A recent
example is the defector who revealed to the US and Britain in 1995 Iraq
destroyed all his non-conventional weapons in 1991. That was front page around
the world and buried in US papers.
And where is the dissent in the US papers? How can the rest of world carry
dissent in their papers and yet the US does not cover even the dissent outside
the US?
The protests against the war in the US have nearly matched those against
Vietnam at their largest yet they might as well not have occurred considering
the coverage in the US.
> Do Iraqis have uncensored access to the internet?
Yes actually. Even China has failed to censor the internet and they have made
it a national objective. BTW: If you have an effective way to do it, China is a
serious market for your method. Haven't you been reading about the US spamming
people in Iraq by email? (And cellphones and faxes of course.)
> Do they have uncensored access to satellite tv?
If they have an antenna they do. I have no idea how to censor satellite
transmissions.
US propaganda has been so crude and simplistic there is hardly a reason to try
to censor it.
--
Bush: "We will export death and violence to the four corners
of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the
world of evil."
Can we have him commited now?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2506
Rich Soyack
Good thing that Eisenhower had the German's go to the camps so idiots like
Giwer
are just blowing smoke. Kind of explains the rest of Giwer's idiotic
theories.
Rich Soyack
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
in alt.fan.art-bell:
>
>Martin Sheen is a fine actor. However, The West Wing has been
>slipping in ratings the past season or so. THIS couldn't be the real
>reason, could it?
WHat? Martin Sheen has a TV show of some kind? What sort of nonsense
are you spewing? That's patently absurd.
Matt Giwer
The US made it a UN issue and took the lead under UN aspices.
> He begged for a cease fire and signed and
> agreement. He has violated the agreement and therefor the war he started is set to continue.
I don't know where you were but the US at least held a great victory
celebration in Washington. Victory means the war is over.
As for the violation, there is no evidence of any violation.
> Why did he violate the agreement and put the people of Iraq in danger? Does he only
> care about his own power?
As all the agreements are between Iraq and the UN the US has no unilateral say
in the matter. That is the way the US chose it to be in 1990. Nothing has
changed the relationship since then.
>>>>What are these civilians going to see? Liberators or foreign invaders
> > who
>>>>murdered their family members? What would you see if some country
> > insisted
>>>>upon
>>>>imposing the stability of a dictatorship on your country?
>>>What did the civilians in the World Trade Center see? Keep your eyes
>>>closed, if you wish and rant on.
>>As there is ZERO evidence of Iraq having had any connection to anything on
>> 9/11
>>or any connection to any form of terrorism that is a meaningless question.
>>Are you one of the 2/3rds of Americans who believes he was behind it?
> Saddam willfully broke the cease fire agreement putting the people of Iraq
> in danger.
There is no evidence of that.
> Why do you support him in his putting his personal ambitions ahead of the
> safety of the people of Iraq?
I have not supported him. I have pointed out there is no evidence of any
violation. I have pointed out it is solely for the UN to determine if Iraq has
violated its agreement with the UN and what to do about it.
1441 calls for serious consequences. Throw Iraq out of the UN. That is serious.
If you don't think it is serious, throw Israel out of the UN and let Israel tell
you how serious it is.
It was unfortunate Iraq did not get the UN to specify the range of missiles
would only be determined with a warhead.
--
An estimated 4 million Americans believe they were abducted
by aliens and they show symptoms of post-traumatic stress
disorder. Still no difference from holocaust survivors save
there are more of them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2485
Matt Giwer
Another twit heard from.
Unlike in Eisenhower's day, the only extermination camps were in Poland.
Eisenhower did not liberate Poland. Eisenhower lied to the Germans when he told
them they were going through extermination camps.
And you are still suckered into that story.
You believe in Freud's dream analysis too?
Hokey Wolf
ejaculation news:<jzR9a.11579$Aa.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
We are all completely aware of your aversion to reductive reasoning,
as well as your anti-semite stance. You must be a big hit on the KKK
speaker's circuit.
Hokey Wolf
in:<fxR9a.11577$Aa.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> >>How does attacking Poland in 1939 differ from attacking Iraq in 2003?
>
> > 1. Poland wasn't trying to possess nuclear weapons.
> > 2. Poland didn't have stockpiles of VX and anthrax.
> > 3. Poland wasn't a threat to our allies.
> > 4. Poland wasn't lying about it's weapons capabilities.
>
> The same with Iraq outside the baseless accusations of the Bushites.
Strange, it seems to me that the accusations have been proven time and
time again.
> > 5. Suddam was only two years old, and wasn't dictator of Poland.
> > 6. That was Poland, this is Iraq
>
> And this is an unprovoked war and therefore a crime against peace and therefore
> a hanging offense as it was at Nuremberg.
You seem pretty obsessed with hanging, Matt... are you a gasper?
> > Who are you anyway? An Iraqi gradeschooler? Should we expect you to
> > strap on a bomb and become a martyr any time soon?
Note the lack of response to these questions.
>
> > "Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?"
> > "Not me" said the third little pig, as he was frying in the skillet.
>
> As there is no way Iraq can possibly threaten the US and as Iraq has not
> attacked the US there is no justification for the US to invade Iraq and murder
> anyone who defends their country from a bunch of murdering foreigners.
Iraq is a threat to American allies in the region. If they attack
Turkey, then that's NATO. We also have treaties with Israel or
Kuwait. An attack on any of these countries is considered an attack
against America. Iraq also sponsors terrorism, which means that any
terrorist that received training in Iraq, who goes on to perpetrate a
terrorist act on American (or her allies) soil, is supporting an act
of war against America. Go graduate from your Iraqi Kindergarten
before placing such uninformed opinions on usenet.
"Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?"
"Not me" said the third little pig, as he was being shoved into the
oven.
Hokey Wolf
>> Do Iraqis have uncensored access to the internet?
>
> Yes actually. Even China has failed to censor the internet and they have made
> it a national objective. BTW: If you have an effective way to do it, China is a
> serious market for your method. Haven't you been reading about the US spamming
> people in Iraq by email? (And cellphones and faxes of course.)
Just how many Iraqis have a Dell or Gateway sitting on their desk?
>> Do they have uncensored access to satellite tv?
>
> If they have an antenna they do. I have no idea how to censor satellite
> transmissions. US propaganda has been so crude and simplistic there is hardly a
> reason to try to censor it.
How many Iraqis have a satellite dish?
"Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?"
"Not me," said the third little pig, even as he broiled in the steamer.
Matt Giwer
To reiterate:
Anyone who believes any of Freud's drivel is an idiot.
The KKK was composed of Christian fundies of Bush and Cheney's ilk.
Are there any other questions as to your compatriots in the hanging offense of
engaging in an unprovoked war?
--
Realizing a task is impossible is the first step
towards accomplishing it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2499
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> babbled like a moron
> in:<fxR9a.11577$Aa.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>>>>How does attacking Poland in 1939 differ from attacking Iraq in 2003?
>>>1. Poland wasn't trying to possess nuclear weapons.
>>>2. Poland didn't have stockpiles of VX and anthrax.
>>>3. Poland wasn't a threat to our allies.
>>>4. Poland wasn't lying about it's weapons capabilities.
>>The same with Iraq outside the baseless accusations of the Bushites.
> Strange, it seems to me that the accusations have been proven time and
> time again.
Then you are clearly an idiot and of an IQ equal to the blithering idiot
president in tonight's press conference.
Of course if you think I judge you harshly you can post what convinced you.
>>>5. Suddam was only two years old, and wasn't dictator of Poland.
>>>6. That was Poland, this is Iraq
>>And this is an unprovoked war and therefore a crime against peace and therefore
>>a hanging offense as it was at Nuremberg.
> You seem pretty obsessed with hanging, Matt... are you a gasper?
A crime against peace warrants hanging. The US established that. I did not.
>>>Who are you anyway? An Iraqi gradeschooler? Should we expect you to
>>>strap on a bomb and become a martyr any time soon?
> Note the lack of response to these questions.
As I am so well known on the internet why should such stupid questions be
answered?
>>>"Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?"
>>>"Not me" said the third little pig, as he was frying in the skillet.
>>As there is no way Iraq can possibly threaten the US and as Iraq has not
>>attacked the US there is no justification for the US to invade Iraq and murder
>>anyone who defends their country from a bunch of murdering foreigners.
> Iraq is a threat to American allies in the region.
No one in the region says Iraq ia a threat. The US has no treaty allies in the
region.
> If they attack Turkey, then that's NATO.
Turkey refused some 20 billion in bribes to permit the US to use its country to
attack Iraq. That is not the action of a country which considers itself threatened.
> We also have treaties with Israel or Kuwait.
No we do not. Please cite the treaties if you believe otherwise.
> An attack on any of these countries is considered an attack
> against America.
You are clearly either an idiot or a liar as there are no such treaties.
> Iraq also sponsors terrorism, which means that any
> terrorist that received training in Iraq, who goes on to perpetrate a
> terrorist act on American (or her allies) soil, is supporting an act
> of war against America. Go graduate from your Iraqi Kindergarten
> before placing such uninformed opinions on usenet.
There is no evidence of that therefore you are lying about it.
> "Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?"
> "Not me" said the third little pig, as he was being shoved into the
> oven.
A rabbi, a priest and an imam went into a bar.
--
2003 February 21: Israel murders three Palestinians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2505
Matt Giwer
> <drivel deleted>
>>>Do Iraqis have uncensored access to the internet?
>>Yes actually. Even China has failed to censor the internet and they have made
>>it a national objective. BTW: If you have an effective way to do it, China is a
>>serious market for your method. Haven't you been reading about the US spamming
>>people in Iraq by email? (And cellphones and faxes of course.)
> Just how many Iraqis have a Dell or Gateway sitting on their desk?
Are you condemning their lack of a buy American policy?
It is probably prohibited as today's desktop beats a 1990 supercomputer.
>>>Do they have uncensored access to satellite tv?
>>If they have an antenna they do. I have no idea how to censor satellite
>>transmissions. US propaganda has been so crude and simplistic there is hardly a
>>reason to try to censor it.
> How many Iraqis have a satellite dish?
I don't know. You tell me. If you do not know, you are appealing to your own
ignorance.
--
Did you ever notice Bush's speeches sound like
infomercials for real estate scams?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2519
DrPostman
<vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> in accordance with The Prophecy and "For
Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of their wisdom with:
>On 6 Mar 2003 09:58:17 -0800, jjonah...@yahoo.com (jjonah) wrote
>in alt.fan.art-bell:
>
>>
>>Martin Sheen is a fine actor. However, The West Wing has been
>>slipping in ratings the past season or so. THIS couldn't be the real
>>reason, could it?
>
>WHat? Martin Sheen has a TV show of some kind? What sort of nonsense
>are you spewing? That's patently absurd.
Well, I used to be a big fan of West Wing. Until Emily Procter left
http://us.imdb.com/PGallery?Procter,%20Emily&source=ss
DrPostman
accordance with The Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of
their wisdom with:
> Considering many tens of millions of people were completely suckered by Freud
>and his psychotherapy scam it is hardly surprising there are atill a few people
>left who believe in gas chambers. I presume you were and perhaps still a sucker
>for both cons.
Yea, I tend to take the word ot thousands of US servicemen who saw the horrors
first hand over a netkook like you. I suppose it gives you some comfort that
those witnesses are quickly passing of old age.
Rich Soyack
So, what mental disorder were you diagnosed with? You obviously have no
grasp of
reality. It must be tough for you.
Rich Soyack
Hänsel Schuster
with:<fJY9a.12325$Aa.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>> Just how many Iraqis have a Dell or Gateway sitting on their desk?
>
> Are you condemning their lack of a buy American policy?
I condemn their soon to be flushed leader who is responsible for the
poverty of his countrymen. Sounds a little like oppression to me, but
then you would argue that if they were sick of it, they would just
kill Saddam themselves. By this theory, you are claiming they enjoy
being poor, hungry, and occasionally murdered by your hero, Saddam.
> It is probably prohibited as today's desktop beats a 1990 supercomputer.
Oh goodness me, are you finally admitting that they are oppressed?
Once again, you make a public spectacle of yourself by demonstrating
that you are riddled by contradiction.
>> How many Iraqis have a satellite dish?
>
> I don't know. You tell me. If you do not know, you are appealing to your own
> ignorance.
My goodness, the know-it-all admits he doesn't know something... will
wonders never cease. I think the point that "hokey" was trying to
make, was that YOU were the one that brought up satellite dishes.
Jeez, can't you even keep track of your own incoherence? If they
can't afford a $700 computer, what makes you think they can afford a
$2000 dish? Why don't you just run along, back to your self help hate
group and complain about how the Jews are out to get you.
***
Hans
Vot Der Himmel?!!