The Bright Side of 9-11
alohacyberian
On the bright side, there has not been another 9/11 mass-murder. And this is
due entirely to our increased vigilance, the latitude given our security
people by the hated Patriot Act, and the idea that the war (not a DA's
inquiry) should be fought abroad not at home.
The Taliban was routed and Afghanistan has the brightest hopes in thirty
years. Pakistan, so unlike 1998, is not engaged in breakneck nuclear
proliferation abroad. Libya claims a new departure from its recent past.
Syria fears a nascent dissident movement. Saddam is gone. Iran is hysterical
about new scrutiny. American troops are out of Saudi Arabia.
True, we are facing various groups jockeying for power in a new Iraq; and the
country is still unsettled. Yet millions of Kurds are satisfied and
pro-American. Millions more Shiites want political power - and think that
they can get it constitutionally through us rather than out of the barrel of
a gun following an unhinged thug. After all, any fool who names his troops
"Mahdists" is sorely misinformed about the fate of the final resting place of
the Great Mahdi, the couplets of Hilaire Beloc, and what happened to
thousands of Mahdist zealots at Omdurman.
So, we can either press ahead in the face of occasionally bad news from Iraq
(though it will never be of the magnitude that once came from Sugar Loaf Hill
or the icy plains near the Yalu that did not faze a prior generation's
resolve) - or we can withdraw. Then watch the entire three-year process of
real improvement start to accelerate in reverse. If after 1975 we thought
that over a million dead in Cambodia, another million on rickety boats
fleeing Vietnam, another half-million sent to camps or executed, hundreds of
thousands of refugees arriving in America, a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,
an Iranian take-over of the U.S. embassy, oil-embargos, Communist entry into
Central America, a quarter-century of continual terrorist attacks, and
national invective were bad, just watch the new world emerge when Saddam's
Mafioso or Mr. Sadr's Mahdists force our departure.
This war was always a gamble, but not for the reasons many Americans think.
We easily had, as proved, the military power to defeat Saddam; we embraced
the idealism and humanity to eschew realpolitik and offer something different
in the place of mass murder. And we are winning on all fronts at a cost that
by any historical measure has confirmed both our skill and resolve.
But the lingering question - one that has never been answered - was always
our attention and will. The administration assumed that in occasional times
of the inevitable bad news, we were now more like the generation that endured
the surprise of Okinawa and Pusan rather than Tet and Mogadishu. All were
bloody fights; all were similarly controversial and unexpected; all were
alike proof of the fighting excellence of the American soldiers - but not all
were seen as such by Americans. The former were detours on the road to
victory and eventual democracy; the latter led to self-recrimination, defeat,
and chaos in our wake.
The choice between myth and reality is ours once more.
~ Victor Davis Hanson, Myth or Reality? Will Iraq work? That's up to us.
~ http://nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404230833.asp
[Five myths about the war rebutted in the article prior to this close.]
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
C. Pangus
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:0nKic.19937$_o3.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
A cost that by any public measure is being avoided. The Bush Admin does not
even estimate the number of Iraqi civilian casualties. The longer we stay,
the more harm we do, the greater the bloodbath when we leave. It is an old
lesson, and often, all too long of a lesson.
>
> But the lingering question - one that has never been answered - was always
> our attention and will. The administration assumed that in occasional
times
> of the inevitable bad news, we were now more like the generation that
endured
> the surprise of Okinawa and Pusan rather than Tet and Mogadishu. All were
> bloody fights; all were similarly controversial and unexpected; all were
> alike proof of the fighting excellence of the American soldiers - but not
all
> were seen as such by Americans. The former were detours on the road to
> victory and eventual democracy; the latter led to self-recrimination,
defeat,
> and chaos in our wake.
The 'glory days when killing was at it's height' seems to be the common
thread of your references. The purpose of remembering them is to avoid
their happening again, not to emulate them.
Chris Bellomy
: What then is the truth of this so-often-caricatured war?
:
: On the bright side, there has not been another 9/11 mass-murder.
Given that it took 225 years for the first one to happen, I'm not reading
this as a meaningful data point.
: And this is
: due entirely to our increased vigilance, the latitude given our security
: people by the hated Patriot Act, and the idea that the war (not a DA's
: inquiry) should be fought abroad not at home.
That's one guess. Another guess -- not actually a guess, even, since
history bears this out -- is that Al Qaeda is patient, preferring
highly planned, sophisticated attacks over sudden crude ones.
: The Taliban was routed and Afghanistan has the brightest hopes in thirty
: years.
OK, now the writer has simply descended into lies. (Maybe we should
call them roves, in commemoration of the guy who perfected their use
in American politics.) The Taliban is back and now controls much of
Afghanistan. RIP, Pat Tillman.
I'm not even going to bother reading any more of this drivel. It's
standard-issue right-wing blather devoid of any basis in reality.
cb
John Judy
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
news:0nKic.19937$_o3.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> On the bright side, there has not been another 9/11 mass-murder. And this
is
> due entirely to our increased vigilance, the latitude given our security
> people by the hated Patriot Act, and the idea that the war (not a DA's
> inquiry) should be fought abroad not at home.
Care to offer some support for that assertion? Please, enlighten us as to
how " increased vigilance, the latitude given our security people by the
hated Patriot Act, and the idea that the war (not a DA's inquiry) should be
fought abroad not at home." is "entirely" responsible for the lack of any
major terrorist activity inside the U.S. Of course, while doing so you will
need to show that those who would carry out such an attack are not waiting
to do at (to borrow a phrase from our military) a time and place of their
choosing. While you're formulating what I'm certain will be a brilliant
response, you may wish to consider the time line of the World Trade Center
events and fully appreciate the patience and resolve of the perpetrators of
same.
I'll be waiting.
>
> The Taliban was routed and Afghanistan has the brightest hopes in thirty
> years.
So routed they shot Pat Tillman the other day?
> Pakistan, so unlike 1998, is not engaged in breakneck nuclear
> proliferation abroad.
Yeah, they're done. All their secrets have already been sold.
>Libya claims a new departure from its recent past.
Hey look! Sanctions worked!
I could go on like this, pointing out the incredibly simplistic (bushian)
opinions being presented here, but I think I'd rather just wait for an
answer to my first question.
Mike Russell
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:0nKic.19937$_o3.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> What then is the truth of this so-often-caricatured war?
>>
>> On the bright side, there has not been another 9/11 mass-murder. And
>> this is due entirely to our increased vigilance, the latitude given
>> our security people by the hated Patriot Act, and the idea that the
>> war (not a DA's inquiry) should be fought abroad not at home.
>
> Care to offer some support for that assertion? Please, enlighten us
> as to how " increased vigilance, the latitude given our security
> people by the hated Patriot Act, and the idea that the war (not a
> DA's inquiry) should be fought abroad not at home." is "entirely"
> responsible for the lack of any major terrorist activity inside the
> U.S. Of course, while doing so you will need to show that those who
> would carry out such an attack are not waiting to do at (to borrow a
> phrase from our military) a time and place of their choosing. While
> you're formulating what I'm certain will be a brilliant response, you
> may wish to consider the time line of the World Trade Center events
> and fully appreciate the patience and resolve of the perpetrators of
> same.
>
> I'll be waiting.
Fine. Very cute. Wait, and keep waiting. And above all keep complaining.
While you're waiting, please formulate a plan, any plan, for reacting to
9/11. Got one? Or is it simply not to do whatever Bush did?
Perhaps you can acknowledge that the events of 9/11 actually happened,
roughly as portrayed in mainstream American media?
Given that, do you actually favor any action or change at all in American
policy, foreign or domestic, in the wake of 9/11?
... (crickets chirping) ...
Or is complaining about whatever Bush, Ashcroft, and Co. come up with enough
to full your cup of patriotism to overflowing?
If the answer to this last question is yes, I suggest that complaining about
Bush is not nearly enough to win the day. Not enough for our country, and
not enough to win the election in November.
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
SteveL
<REgei...@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote:
>
>Fine. Very cute. Wait, and keep waiting. And above all keep complaining.
>
>While you're waiting, please formulate a plan, any plan, for reacting to
>9/11. Got one? Or is it simply not to do whatever Bush did?
>
>Perhaps you can acknowledge that the events of 9/11 actually happened,
>roughly as portrayed in mainstream American media?
>
>Given that, do you actually favor any action or change at all in American
>policy, foreign or domestic, in the wake of 9/11?
Well YES!!!!!
How about honestly assessing for once why the terrorists attacked us.
"They are evil cowards and they hate democracy and Mom's Apple Pie, so
we must force them to stop!!" just doesn't cut it. Perhaps in wake of
that future honest assessment a more even handed Middle East policy
would emerge that doesn't reflexively veto every single UN resolution
against Israel, or back and install corrupt Arab dictatorships to ease
our access to the oil, that acknowledges that the Palestinians have a
little bit of a case etc. etc.
We're still waiting for an honest assessment from the US government.
The brain dead "they hate us because we'e good and pure" propaganda is
coming even more thick and fast than usual. Even the UK government
(lap dog that it is) is honest enough to criticize the US's middle
east policy. And that has been going on for decades.
How long will we wait??
>
>... (crickets chirping) ...
>
You got THAT right!
<snip delusions>
Mike Russell
So that's it? That's your response to 9/11? Wait for an honest assessment,
and hope that perhaps a more even handed Middle East Policy will emerge? If
you'll excuse me for saying so, what hogwash!
>> ... (crickets chirping) ...
>
> You got THAT right!
Though not in the way you're suggesting. :-)
> <snip delusions>
Delusions indeed. Your suggestion that we "wait for an assessment" is
exactly the sort of inaction and hand wringing that I'm exhorting against.
We'll need to come up with something better, or get set to complain about
Bush for another 4 years.
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
Chris Bellomy
Oh good grief. What's your alternative? Lash out at whoever we feel like?
If we're going to spend money and lives fighting this war, I at least
want to know that we're doing so with a thorough understanding of our
enemy and an idea of how to come out of it with something resembling
a permanent peace. That's what grown-ups do. It's pretty far from
what Bush's bunch has done.
cb
cor
alohacyberian wrote:
>
> What then is the truth of this so-often-caricatured war?
>
> On the bright side, there has not been another 9/11 mass-murder. And this is
> due entirely to our increased vigilance, the latitude given our security
> people by the hated Patriot Act, and the idea that the war (not a DA's
> inquiry) should be fought abroad not at home.
Maybe last year's California fires were not completely "accidental".
John Judy
"Mike Russell" <REgei...@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:mSSic.56095$2B5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> John Judy wrote:
> > "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:0nKic.19937$_o3.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> What then is the truth of this so-often-caricatured war?
> >>
> >> On the bright side, there has not been another 9/11 mass-murder. And
> >> this is due entirely to our increased vigilance, the latitude given
> >> our security people by the hated Patriot Act, and the idea that the
> >> war (not a DA's inquiry) should be fought abroad not at home.
> >
> > Care to offer some support for that assertion? Please, enlighten us
> > as to how " increased vigilance, the latitude given our security
> > people by the hated Patriot Act, and the idea that the war (not a
> > DA's inquiry) should be fought abroad not at home." is "entirely"
> > responsible for the lack of any major terrorist activity inside the
> > U.S. Of course, while doing so you will need to show that those who
> > would carry out such an attack are not waiting to do at (to borrow a
> > phrase from our military) a time and place of their choosing. While
> > you're formulating what I'm certain will be a brilliant response, you
> > may wish to consider the time line of the World Trade Center events
> > and fully appreciate the patience and resolve of the perpetrators of
> > same.
> >
> > I'll be waiting.
>
> Fine. Very cute. Wait, and keep waiting. And above all keep
complaining.
Who's complaining? I'm simple asking our Hawiian colleague to support his
assertion.
>
> While you're waiting, please formulate a plan, any plan, for reacting to
> 9/11.
Why on Earth would I do that? I don't have access to a vast majority of the
information needed to do so, and even if I did, I have no power to excuted
such a plan. I could offer my opinion, but that's it. Meanwhile, back on
the topic at hand....
>Got one?
See above
> Or is it simply not to do whatever Bush did?
See above
>
> Perhaps you can acknowledge that the events of 9/11 actually happened,
> roughly as portrayed in mainstream American media?
Sure... See above. Particularly the last sentence.
>
> Given that, do you actually favor any action or change at all in American
> policy, foreign or domestic, in the wake of 9/11?
Would I favor a change? Absolutely. Again, meanwhile, back on the topic at
hand.
>
> ... (crickets chirping) ...
>
> Or is complaining about whatever Bush, Ashcroft, and Co. come up with
enough
> to full your cup of patriotism to overflowing?
Who was complaing?
>
> If the answer to this last question is yes, I suggest that complaining
about
> Bush is not nearly enough to win the day. Not enough for our country, and
> not enough to win the election in November.
>
Again, meanwhile, back on the topic at hand.
>
>
SteveL
<REgei...@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote:
I meant we the *people* are "waiting for an honest assessment" from
our government. I am not advocating waiting. I am not advocating hand
wringing. Far from it. I am complaining that we have had to wait. That
assessment is long overdue. The US government should have honestly
assessed and mitigated its policy BEFORE 911. Everyone was exhorting
it to do so, including the UK government. I witnessed dire warning of
future terrorism of (perhaps) 9/11 proportions that were being made by
serious friends of the US. They fell on deaf ears as the US government
decided to keep the lid on for reasons of ignorance and simple
expediency.
We NEED a more even handed policy (and we don';t have to just hope for
one). That should have been the lesson of 9/11. Instead the lesson was
to increase the mistakes and stupidity that generated the hatred in
the first place.
Yes I *AM* blaming high level US foreign policy decisions ultimately
for 9/11. So sue me. That's my honest assessment. And it is based on
30 years of travelling the world for my work, and not being subjected
to the simplistic "Israel good, Arabs bad" propaganda crap Americans
have chucked at them every day.
If that sounds too "hand wringing" for your tastes then so be it. The
war mongering hasn't really brought a whole load of benefits yet
anyway....
>
>We'll need to come up with something better, or get set to complain about
>Bush for another 4 years.
Sorry you think so. If you kick a dog and it bites back. Kicking
harder is not much of an option for making it stop unless your plan is
to kill it (and in this admitedly simple analogy the dog is the Arab
world in general not just the terrorists).
We need to make friends of the Arabs, not keep kicking them, then
pretend to be surprised when some of them kick back.
Mike Russell
There's a large gray area, Charlie Brown, between contemplating our navels
or lashing out an whomever we feel like.
Each choice, including making no choice at all, is fraught with danger.
That is, unless you are simply content with complaining about what Bush has
done. There's very little danger in that, in part because we live in a
politically tolerant society, and more importantly because simply griping
about Bush probably has no effect on anything, political or otherwise.
My objection is that I'm not seeing suggestions that liberals do anything
except exactly that: complain about what Bush has done. It strikes me as
the epitome of nattering negativism to say that what Bush did was "far from"
the ideal. Spiro would be tickled.
> If we're going to spend money and lives fighting this war,
What war hasn't involved both of those? For that matter, every president
has made decisions involving spending money and lives.
> I at least
> want to know that we're doing so with a thorough understanding of our
> enemy and an idea of how to come out of it with something resembling
> a permanent peace.
And while you're waiting for those two unattainable items, why not cure
cancer and solve world hunger? In an imperfect world, after a finite amount
of preparation and thought as to consequences, it's time to either act or
take the consequences of not acting.
> That's what grown-ups do.
America's response to Pearl Harbor was simple: declare war the next day.
This was done with little or no understanding of the Japanese culture, and
little or no idea of how a lasting peace was to be achieved. Do you think
Roosevelt behaved in a "grown up" manner after Pearl?
> It's pretty far from what Bush's bunch has done.
I don't think the old and easy "complain about Bush equals mission
accomplished" tactic is going to win over any votes in the next election.
If the liberal "answer" to 9/11 continues to shape up as it has been, a sort
of woulda-coulda-shoulda spectacle of anti-Bush teeth gnashing and navel
gazing, liberals will not only lose the next election, but long term they
may find themselves living, like the Amish, in a world they never created,
sustained economically and defended militarily by a conservative society
whose moral foundation they reject.
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
Chris Bellomy
There's also a large gray area between contemplating our navels and
what Steve suggested. So if you don't like arguing with strawmen,
don't set them up yourself.
: Each choice, including making no choice at all, is fraught with danger.
: That is, unless you are simply content with complaining about what Bush has
: done. There's very little danger in that, in part because we live in a
: politically tolerant society, and more importantly because simply griping
: about Bush probably has no effect on anything, political or otherwise.
:
: My objection is that I'm not seeing suggestions that liberals do anything
: except exactly that: complain about what Bush has done. It strikes me as
: the epitome of nattering negativism to say that what Bush did was "far from"
: the ideal. Spiro would be tickled.
Again, you set up a strawman. The liberal blogosphere has been rife
with discussions of alternative strategies to Bush's. It's dishonest
not to bother checking and then complain that we're content just to
bitch.
: > If we're going to spend money and lives fighting this war,
:
: What war hasn't involved both of those?
What difference does that make?
: For that matter, every president
: has made decisions involving spending money and lives.
What difference does that make?
: > I at least
: > want to know that we're doing so with a thorough understanding of our
: > enemy and an idea of how to come out of it with something resembling
: > a permanent peace.
:
: And while you're waiting for those two unattainable items, why not cure
: cancer and solve world hunger?
Bullshit. Just complete utter rancid bullshit. You want understanding
of our enemy? Read Richard Clarke's new column. You want "something
resembling a permanent peace?" See 1945.
: In an imperfect world, after a finite amount
: of preparation and thought as to consequences, it's time to either act or
: take the consequences of not acting.
Do you realize that you're making the case that the distinction between
different actions matters less than the distinction between action and
inaction? IOW, we could have responded to 9/11 by invading Japan and
that would have been okay with you, because it would have been different
from what we did before. It's nonsense.
: > That's what grown-ups do.
:
: America's response to Pearl Harbor was simple: declare war the next day.
Right. We declared war ON THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED US. Not on Argentina.
(Or Iraq.)
: This was done with little or no understanding of the Japanese culture, and
: little or no idea of how a lasting peace was to be achieved.
You miss the point entirely. Besides declaring war, we committed
at the same time to both of those things. That's how we defeated
them, and how we later pacified them. This is simple stuff you're
not grasping.
: Do you think
: Roosevelt behaved in a "grown up" manner after Pearl?
Damn straight he did.
: > It's pretty far from what Bush's bunch has done.
:
: I don't think the old and easy "complain about Bush equals mission
: accomplished" tactic is going to win over any votes in the next election.
Bush is soft on Al Qaeda. Period. We got attacked by Wahabbi extremists
and reacted by invading a country run by a secular pragmatist that had
nothing to do with our actual enemy. Osama is still at large, his patron
in the Saudi royal family has easy access to our top secret war plans,
and the Taliban has morphed into the Afghan VC. (Or, the mujahadeen from
20 years ago.)
If FDR had responded to Pearl Harbor by invading Argentina, it would
have been comparable to this.
: If the liberal "answer" to 9/11 continues to shape up as it has been, a sort
: of woulda-coulda-shoulda spectacle of anti-Bush teeth gnashing and navel
: gazing, liberals will not only lose the next election, but long term they
: may find themselves living, like the Amish, in a world they never created,
: sustained economically and defended militarily by a conservative society
: whose moral foundation they reject.
You should find out what the liberal answer to 9/11 is before you
post bullshit like this. If you're relying on Rush Limbaugh to tell
you what liberals are thinking, you're not getting it from the source.
You're getting it from someone with a vested interest in deceiving you.
Think about it.
cb
Mike Russell
Still, you're far from addressing what an appropriate response to 9/11 would
have been, and my point is that this is a gaping hole in most liberal
arguments against Bush's invasion of Iraq. This concerns me because it
could lose us the next election. As a campaign issue, you could drive a
freight car full of Rush Limbaugh's through it.
I repeat - without a proactive response to 9/11, your response of waiting
for an "assessment" ineffective hand-wringing.
> We NEED a more even handed policy (and we don';t have to just hope for
> one). That should have been the lesson of 9/11. Instead the lesson was
> to increase the mistakes and stupidity that generated the hatred in
> the first place.
So is it fair to say that your recommended response to 9/11 should have
been, primarily, to "learn a lesson"?
> Yes I *AM* blaming high level US foreign policy decisions ultimately
> for 9/11. So sue me. That's my honest assessment. And it is based on
> 30 years of travelling the world for my work, and not being subjected
> to the simplistic "Israel good, Arabs bad" propaganda crap Americans
> have chucked at them every day.
Many of us have travelled, and made our own assessments based on the people
we meet.
> If that sounds too "hand wringing" for your tastes then so be it. The
> war mongering hasn't really brought a whole load of benefits yet
> anyway....
Oh but it has. I count the deposing of Saddam and the Taliban as major good
results. There is tangible improvement in infrastructure in both
Afghanistan and Iraq. Although much of Iraq is in turmoil, the Kurds are
doing quite well, thank you, and with luck so it will be with the rest of
Iraq.
>> We'll need to come up with something better, or get set to complain
>> about Bush for another 4 years.
>
> Sorry you think so.
There will be plenty of sorrow to go around if Bush gets re-elected. It
will not simply be Republicans who are at fault if that happens, but the
unrealistic nattering of Democrats who have no anti-terrorism plan of their
own except to complain about Bush.
> If you kick a dog and it bites back. Kicking
> harder is not much of an option for making it stop unless your plan is
> to kill it (and in this admitedly simple analogy the dog is the Arab
> world in general not just the terrorists).
Your analogy is poorly chosen for several reasons. First, it does no
justice to America or the Arabs. Second, kicking a dog can be justified if
the dog is behaving poorly. Third, it works very well indeed if you are a
big guy with big boots. Fourth, kicking is a far cry from killing.
> We need to make friends of the Arabs, not keep kicking them, then
> pretend to be surprised when some of them kick back.
Now we may be getting somewhere. Are you saying that the 9/11 attack should
not be thought of as the trigger for an American response, but the start of
an Arab one?
In summary, would your response to 9/11 be primarilly to assess the wrongs
Americans have done and attempt, through peaceful means, to address those
wrongs?
After 3000 deaths, I simply couldn't stomach that approach. It's too much
to ask. I would be disgusted with any leader who attempted to do so.
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
alohacyberian
news:GwMic.1163$g31...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Sorry, it's the other way around and no different than the bloodbaths that
ensued in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia after the withdrawal of American
fighting forces. KM
alohacyberian
news:mSSic.56095$2B5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
plans for success are rapidly digging John Kerry's grave. Let them continue
their adnoidal whining which is sabotaging the very candidate they wish to
support. KM
Mike Russell
Straw men have no navels. Even after clarification, Steve's response to the
9/11 attack seems to be an "assessment" of the wrong we have done, with an
eye to developing a more equitable arrangement with the Arabs whom we have
wronged. Yes, I call this a navel gazing response.
>> Each choice, including making no choice at all, is fraught with
>> danger. That is, unless you are simply content with complaining
>> about what Bush has done. There's very little danger in that, in
>> part because we live in a politically tolerant society, and more
>> importantly because simply griping about Bush probably has no effect
>> on anything, political or otherwise.
>>
>> My objection is that I'm not seeing suggestions that liberals do
>> anything except exactly that: complain about what Bush has done. It
>> strikes me as the epitome of nattering negativism to say that what
>> Bush did was "far from" the ideal. Spiro would be tickled.
>
> Again, you set up a strawman. The liberal blogosphere has been rife
> with discussions of alternative strategies to Bush's. It's dishonest
> not to bother checking and then complain that we're content just to
> bitch.
I have been checking high and low with great interest for about three years.
I suggest that most liberal responses start by ignoring the 9/11 attack as
the basis for any political or military response - unless it involves
attacking the Bush administration. In any case, if I've been remiss it
should be simple to list one or two of the liberal responses to 9/11 here.
>>> If we're going to spend money and lives fighting this war,
>> What war hasn't involved both of those?
> What difference does that make?
None. "If we're going to spend money and lives fighting this war" is boiler
plate. That's my point.
>> For that matter, every president
>> has made decisions involving spending money and lives.
>
> What difference does that make?
That every president makes life and death decisions. There is no necessity
that everyone in the country buy into those decisions unanimously, and in
fact that is the meaning of the Executive.
>>> I at least
>>> want to know that we're doing so with a thorough understanding of
>>> our enemy and an idea of how to come out of it with something
>>> resembling
>>> a permanent peace.
>>
>> And while you're waiting for those two unattainable items, why not
>> cure cancer and solve world hunger?
>
> Bullshit. Just complete utter rancid bullshit. You want
> understanding
> of our enemy? Read Richard Clarke's new column.
I was talking about the finite time involved in making a post 9/11 decision.
Surely you're not suggesting that Bush should have waited for Clarke to
resign and write write down his thoughts before invading Iraq?
> You want "something
> resembling a permanent peace?" See 1945.
Stalin, Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia. The post WWII "peace" of which you
speak so glowingly was known as the cold war, was it not?
>> In an imperfect world, after a finite amount
>> of preparation and thought as to consequences, it's time to either
>> act or take the consequences of not acting.
>
> Do you realize that you're making the case that the distinction
> between different actions matters less than the distinction between
> action and inaction?
In some desperate situations, yes, that may well be the case. My broader
point is that when we act in war, we always do so without absorbing our
enemy's culture completely, and we always do so without planning for a
stable peace in the aftermath of that war. This is true not only because of
finite time resources, and also because we must de-personify an enemy to
fight him.
> IOW, we could have responded to 9/11 by
> invading Japan and
> that would have been okay with you, because it would have been
> different
> from what we did before. It's nonsense.
This is nonsense provided by you. After accusing me of attacking strawmen,
I have to admire the symetry when you appear to set one up yourself :-)
>>> That's what grown-ups do.
>>
>> America's response to Pearl Harbor was simple: declare war the next
>> day.
>
> Right. We declared war ON THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED US. Not on
> Argentina. (Or Iraq.)
I'll work with that. Did we have a cease fire agreement from a previous war
with Argentina when Pearl Harbor was attacked? If we did, was Argentina in
violation of those cease fire terms? And if they were in violation, did
Argentina, alone among nations of the world, issue an official statement
condoning the attack on Pearl Harbor as just retribution for the seeds of
evil that we had sowed around the world? Did Argentina attempt to kill a
previous American President?
If the answers to all the above were "yes", I think it's very likely that
Roosevelt would have invaded Argentina, and perhaps done so after Pear
Harbor just to clear the air before the big event.
>> This was done with little or no understanding of the Japanese
>> culture, and little or no idea of how a lasting peace was to be
>> achieved.
>
> You miss the point entirely. Besides declaring war, we committed
> at the same time to both of those things. That's how we defeated
> them, and how we later pacified them. This is simple stuff you're
> not grasping.
I disagree. The Japanese embraced large parts of American culture - golf,
movies, music, baseball, and more - not the other way around. MacArthur -
as stern a Republican hawk as evern lived - set up the Japanese democracy by
main force, and I do not believe he lifted one finger to learn about Japan.
Germany was a different case. It had been a democracy already, and we
already shared a large cultural and economic base with them. Great beer
too.
>> Do you think
>> Roosevelt behaved in a "grown up" manner after Pearl?
>
> Damn straight he did.
At last we agree.
>>> It's pretty far from what Bush's bunch has done.
>>
>> I don't think the old and easy "complain about Bush equals mission
>> accomplished" tactic is going to win over any votes in the next
>> election.
>
> Bush is soft on Al Qaeda. Period. We got attacked by Wahabbi
> extremists
> and reacted by invading a country run by a secular pragmatist that had
> nothing to do with our actual enemy. Osama is still at large, his
> patron
> in the Saudi royal family has easy access to our top secret war plans,
> and the Taliban has morphed into the Afghan VC. (Or, the mujahadeen
> from 20 years ago.)
It's even more complex than that. UBL had long been disowned by his family,
and he never ranked very high on the bin Laden totem pole. But yes, Saudi
Arabia is a horrible place and hatred of Americans runs very deep there.
Personally, I'd like to see us all in hybrid cars by 2014, and the GNP of
Saudi Arabia consisting primarily of pearls retrieved from the gulf, as was
the case 100 years ago.
> If FDR had responded to Pearl Harbor by invading Argentina, it would
> have been comparable to this.
I think I made a convincing case for invading Argentina, had it behaved as
Iraq did.
>> If the liberal "answer" to 9/11 continues to shape up as it has
>> been, a sort of woulda-coulda-shoulda spectacle of anti-Bush teeth
>> gnashing and navel gazing, liberals will not only lose the next
>> election, but long term they may find themselves living, like the
>> Amish, in a world they never created, sustained economically and
>> defended militarily by a conservative society whose moral foundation
>> they reject.
> You should find out what the liberal answer to 9/11 is before you
> post bullshit like this.
If you find "the liberal answer to 9/11", please post it here. Right now it
resembles the Holy Grail in it's ineffable and fleeting translucency.
Perhaps "the liberal answer to 9/11" resides in core samples taken from
Martian rock samples.
BTW, my bullshit will take the Pepsi challenge with yours anyday :-)
> If you're relying on Rush Limbaugh to tell
> you what liberals are thinking, you're not getting it from the source.
> You're getting it from someone with a vested interest in deceiving
> you.
I love Al Franken, and can't listen to Rush more than 20 seconds without
getting hives.
> Think about it.
I wouldn't answer unless I believed you were thinking. Perhaps you can
extend me the same courtesy.
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
John Judy
> >
> And the chronic complainers who offer no alternatives and no consequential
> plans for success are rapidly digging John Kerry's grave. Let them
continue
> their adnoidal whining which is sabotaging the very candidate they wish to
> support. KM
> --
No one was complaining. Meanwhile, but on the subject, I don't suppose
you'd care to answer the question?
C. Pangus
Legally, the US did not have troops in Cambodia or Laos.
The more the US builds up oppossition to native rule the more death
ensues when we leave. That doesn't account for all the pointless killing
which occurs while we are there.
SteveL
<REgei...@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote:
>
>Still, you're far from addressing what an appropriate response to 9/11 would
>have been, and my point is that this is a gaping hole in most liberal
>arguments against Bush's invasion of Iraq.
There is of course NO actual link between the two. So there is no hole
- gaping or otherwise. In the minds of American voters, however......
But that's not the liberals' fault. Tell me. Should we pander to the
misconceptions of 70% of the people or try to lead them. And should
our tools of leadership be facts or outright lies and propaganda?
I'm still amazed that up 70% of Americans thought Saddam was linked to
9/11.This shows the power of the media and the unfortunate
suggestablility an the American public kept in relative ignorance
about foreign affairs. Refer to two different topics within a few
seconds of each other and do it continually, and before long people
begin to link them....
Even Bush has affirmed there is no actual connection between Saddam
and Al Qaeda. The justification for the invasion was WMDs. These
haven't shown up either. There are masses of policital angles of
attack against this president and the Democrats are too candy assed to
offer something different.
My "policy" would be:
1) Cut or threaten to cut monetary and military support for Israel.
Tie aid to genuine efforts to find peace with the Palestinians. Of
course I realise this is an election year and such an action could be
tantamount to throwing the election away, but part of our problem is
that we apply domestic considerations to foreign actions with little
or no regard for the people in the affected areas. It is things like
that which come back and bite us on days like 9/11.
Perhaps couple it with campaign finance legislation to curb the clout
of lobbies. Just a thought, off the cuff, probably naive. I refuse to
accept that the current situation re Israel is a natural sink, though.
Not when it takes so much effort and money to maintain the status quo.
2) Open ties with Iran again. It has been completely forgotten how
helpful Iran was immediately after 9/11. Within just a few months
"Bush the Ungrateful" was Axis-ing their Evil. Once again the Idiot of
the United States blew a chance for progress.
3) Allow genuine democracy in Iraq. Even if that leads initially to a
somewhat anti-American islamic state. Otherwise it's not democracy and
once again we are the world's arch bullshitters.
> This concerns me because it
>could lose us the next election. As a campaign issue, you could drive a
>freight car full of Rush Limbaugh's through it.
>
>I repeat - without a proactive response to 9/11, your response of waiting
>for an "assessment" ineffective hand-wringing.
Nonsense. The invasion of Afghanistan was PLENTY. Please justify Iraq
in the context of 9/11.
>> We NEED a more even handed policy (and we don';t have to just hope for
>> one). That should have been the lesson of 9/11. Instead the lesson was
>> to increase the mistakes and stupidity that generated the hatred in
>> the first place.
>
>So is it fair to say that your recommended response to 9/11 should have
>been, primarily, to "learn a lesson"?
Lessons should ALWAYS be learned. Within 24 hours Bush dismissed any
possibility of that by claiming carte blanche that the 9/11 terrorists
attacked *because* they hated freedom and democracy, the emancipation
and attire of women. ANYTHING but what actually might have provoked
people to fly airplanes into buildings.
You would (it seems) dismiss any and all reflection on these issues as
"hand-wringing inaction". I simply do not agree.
>
>> Yes I *AM* blaming high level US foreign policy decisions ultimately
>> for 9/11. So sue me. That's my honest assessment. And it is based on
>> 30 years of travelling the world for my work, and not being subjected
>> to the simplistic "Israel good, Arabs bad" propaganda crap Americans
>> have chucked at them every day.
>
>Many of us have travelled, and made our own assessments based on the people
>we meet.
So would you describe European coverage of the Middle East as
Superior, Inferior, or equal to the standards of coverage from the US?
>
>> If that sounds too "hand wringing" for your tastes then so be it. The
>> war mongering hasn't really brought a whole load of benefits yet
>> anyway....
>
>Oh but it has. I count the deposing of Saddam and the Taliban as major good
>results.
Hmm. The taliban was attempting to cut heroin production. That made a
big comeback under the NA. And now it seems the Taliban started to
make a comeback.
> There is tangible improvement in infrastructure in both
>Afghanistan and Iraq.
After we destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure......
> Although much of Iraq is in turmoil, the Kurds are
>doing quite well, thank you, and with luck so it will be with the rest of
>Iraq.
Hopefully. But Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11!!
Mike. Come on! This is a simple fact!!!
<snip>>
Mike Russell
I think you've done a good job of listing what you would do in the wake of
9/11, even including one positive comment about the Taliban's anti-drug
efforts. You confirm, emphatically, that you feel that 9/11 should have, no
relation to our attitude toward countries like Iraq, and that reduction of
our support for Israel would be a major component of the post 9/11 US
policy.
I live in Berkeley, and I have to say many of my friends feel much this way.
To give them, and you, as much positive credit as possible, I feel they are
reacting as citizens of the world, and not as citizens of America. In
Berkeley, burning the flag is a patriotic act - simply because it is free
expression of an idea, and such freedom is more important than a mere piece
of cloth.
But to me these things are not only wrong, but self destructive politically.
I'll stand by my assessment that this outlook is unacceptable, too worldly,
and too passive, and in the end, if many liberals feel as you do, it will
lose us the election handily. On issues like this, parties are formed and
dissolved, and I'll repeat my analogy to the Amish - liberals are free to
persue their ideals only because they are supported economically and
militarily by conservatives. They are free to do this even though, they
reject the premises of economic and national survival.
Just to address the relationship of 9/11 and Iraq - if you can hold your
amazement that 70% of Americans feel there is a relationship between the two
for a second. What 9/11 taught me, and many others, is that the outside
world is perfectly capable of killing Americans, by the thousands, where
they sit.
The enormity of this lesson appears to have escaped many of my friends, and
from what I gather, yourself as well. Iraq, as represented by Saddam
Hussein, needed to go, if only to clear the air so that we can continue with
the work of chasing terrorists. If you ignore this reality, and this is
crucial, most of what I say, and what Americans are feeling right now about
the world, and terrorism, will simply be incomprehensible.
I suggest that the last paragraph is almost incomprehensible to many people,
including yourself and many of my friends here in Berkeley.
Yes, Bush's administration did a poor job of getting the rest of the world
on board, and justifying the war in general. I'm thoroughly disgusted with
their handling of almost every aspect of the war. However, at it's core,
the war against Iraq was absolutely the right thing to do in the post 9/11
world. For this reason alone, I'm holding my nose as the Bush
administration continues it's parade of bullshit, because that parade is
headed generally in the right direction.
Liberals, at least many of them, by embracing ideas like yours: the
reduction of support for Israel, and increased support of Iran, and perhaps
the Palestinians, as a primary reaction to the post 9/11 world, are heading
in just the wrong direction, and losing the support of Americans. I can't
describe how it tore my hear to walk past crowds of people at our local
library, holding candles in support of the Iraqi people on the night the
invasion started. These are my folks - and I felt and feel so strongly that
they are, simply, wrong.
This dismays me because I don't want to be staring at Bush's face for
another four years, and I don't want to see the liberal causes I believe in
strongly - equal opportunity and open exchange of information - continue to
die on the vine by degrees, as regulatory props are removed, conservative
judges appointed, and legislation rolled back.
I think we're at the point, in this discussion, where we're starting to
repeat ourselves. But if I've ignored or distorted any of your major
points, I assure you it was inadvertent, and I apologize and will be happy
to go over them.
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
alohacyberian
> The more the US builds up oppossition to native rule the more death
> ensues when we leave. That doesn't account for all the pointless killing
> which occurs while we are there.
>
When the allied forces invaded Iraq, it was an act of war. People were killed
as is always the consquence of war. But, the number of people dying in Iraq
was miniscule during and after the invasion compared to the number of people
who were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered by the Hussein regime. Why
is that simple fact invisible to Leftwing Liberals? KM
Mike Russell
> "C. Pangus" <craig...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Lz5jc.11520$gH6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> The more the US builds up oppossition to native rule the more
>> death ensues when we leave. That doesn't account for all the
>> pointless killing which occurs while we are there.
>>
>
> When the allied forces invaded Iraq, it was an act of war. People
> were killed as is always the consquence of war. But, the number of
> people dying in Iraq was miniscule during and after the invasion
> compared to the number of people who were raped, tortured, maimed and
> slaughtered by the Hussein regime. Why is that simple fact invisible
> to Leftwing Liberals? KM
It's a quesiton of who did the killing.
If we kill someone in the course of war, we killed them. If Saddam, or any
other ruler kills someone, then he killed them.
Does that make sense?
--
Mike Russell
www.geigy.2y.net
Mitchell Holman
news:pQejc.25174$_o3.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "C. Pangus" <craig...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Lz5jc.11520$gH6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> The more the US builds up oppossition to native rule the more death
>> ensues when we leave. That doesn't account for all the pointless
>> killing which occurs while we are there.
>>
>
> When the allied forces invaded Iraq, it was an act of war. People were
> killed as is always the consquence of war. But, the number of people
> dying in Iraq was miniscule during and after the invasion compared to
> the number of people who were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered by
> the Hussein regime.
Indeed. And most of them were "raped, tortured, and
slaughtered" while Saddam was being armed by Reagan, and
sometimes with the very weapons that Reagan supplied him.
Where was your conservative outrage over Saddam's record
THEN? Why was it only "leftwing liberals" were making an
issue of it?
Mitchell Holman
"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier --
we have high confidence that they have weapons
of mass destruction. That is what this war was
about and it is about."
White House Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D7B7B2F...@204.127.199.17...
>
> Indeed. And most of them were "raped, tortured, and
> slaughtered" while Saddam was being armed by Reagan, and
> sometimes with the very weapons that Reagan supplied him.
> Where was your conservative outrage over Saddam's record
> THEN? Why was it only "leftwing liberals" were making an
> issue of it?
>
Right-wingers are only interested if they can go to war over it and play
with their gunz.
Vanunu
> "C. Pangus" <craig...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Lz5jc.11520$gH6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> > The more the US builds up oppossition to native rule the more death
> > ensues when we leave. That doesn't account for all the pointless
killing
> > which occurs while we are there.
> >
>
> When the allied forces invaded Iraq, it was an act of war. People were
killed
> as is always the consquence of war. But, the number of people dying in
Iraq
> was miniscule during and after the invasion compared to the number of
people
> who were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered by the Hussein regime.
Why
> is that simple fact invisible to Leftwing Liberals? KM
> --
Why should anyone believe that to be true? GHB had saddam throwing babies
out of incubators, which of course, was a lie.
Who knows what's true and what's false in Bushworld.
Vanunu
> >
> And the chronic complainers who offer no alternatives and no consequential
> plans for success are rapidly digging John Kerry's grave. Let them
continue
> their adnoidal whining which is sabotaging the very candidate they wish to
> support. KM
> --
back to america and return the palestinian birthright. Israel is the
fomentor of all violence and death in the middle east and they know
it....otherwise why would they need nukes.
Further, a recent disclosure states that Kennedy was aware of israel's
development of nuclear weapons, he had put wheels in motion to halt the
program. Those wheels stopped turning when Kennedy was assasinated 2 months
later.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
alohacyberian
> news:pQejc.25174$_o3.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> > "C. Pangus" <craig...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Lz5jc.11520$gH6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> The more the US builds up oppossition to native rule the more death
> >> ensues when we leave. That doesn't account for all the pointless
> >> killing which occurs while we are there.
> >
> > When the allied forces invaded Iraq, it was an act of war. People were
> > killed as is always the consquence of war. But, the number of people
> > dying in Iraq was miniscule during and after the invasion compared to
> > the number of people who were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered by
> > the Hussein regime.
>
> Indeed. And most of them were "raped, tortured, and
> slaughtered" while Saddam was being armed by Reagan, and
> sometimes with the very weapons that Reagan supplied him.
>
Saddam's daily raping, torturing, maiming, and slaughter.
As it happens, _The Weekly Standard_ "Scrapbook" column has a short piece
with a graph using data from the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute. Not likely to be a pro-America source. [The Institute source is
here:
~ http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html ]
The graph is titled, and the numbers are:
"How the United States Armed Iraq - Weapons imported by Iraq, 1973-2002"
USSR - 57%
France - 13%
China - 12%
Czech. - 7%
Poland - 4%
Brazil - 2%
Egypt, Romania, Denmark, Libya, USA - 1% each
~ data from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, via _Weekly
Standard_, April 14, 2003
How was that, again, "WE" made Saddam what he is? Appears not to be so...
~ David C. Kifer
SteveL
<alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. And most of them were "raped, tortured, and
>> slaughtered" while Saddam was being armed by Reagan, and
>> sometimes with the very weapons that Reagan supplied him.
>>
>Only a complete nutcase or frothing lunatic would blame Ronald Reagan for
>Saddam's daily raping, torturing, maiming, and slaughter.
He didn't blame Reagan (Not that cartoon descriptions like "daily
raping, torturing, maiming, and slaughter" are exactly accurate
either)
He asked this:
"Where was your conservative outrage over Saddam's record
THEN? Why was it only "leftwing liberals" were making an
issue of it?"
Nobody from the Right *ever* addresses that legitimate question.
Saddam was a Soviet client only until our boy the Shah of Iran was
overthrown. After that the US reversed itself, out-maneuvered Russia,
and now embraced Saddam because he was an enemy of (the now hated)
Iran. Saddam was willing to fight a war against Iran and we were all
too willing to help him do it - and supplying him with new America
gear as the Soviet stuff got used up was just the icing on the cake.
From that moment on *we* made every effort to arm him and provide him
with information how to produce his own weapons. We had also begun to
steal him away from the USSR as an arms customer.
Saddam's most famous atrocities, that only began to incur the belated
wrath of the Right many years later, took place during and just after
the Iran/Iraq war - when he was OUR Joe.
The US government reacted to Saddam's gassing atrocities by increasing
his aid the next year. That is a simple historical fact. In the
meantime it was only "lefties" like Chomsky who were exposing Saddam's
monstrous activities. And as always the US government simply glossed
over it or issued outright denials that Saddam was doing any such
things. Needless to say the Right were being "patriotic" and letting
Saddam enjoy his Halcyon days as a murdering dictator, by doing what
they do best - calling anyone that disagrees with "their" government
Un-American and "traitors".
You guys got that one wrong and Mitchell is right to ask about it.
That Saddam's military infrastructure was still largely Soviet (as
referred to in your figures) is nether here nor there. That was
starting to change, and that change would have continued had Saddam
not tried to reclaim the "19th province".
John Judy
> What then is the truth of this so-often-caricatured war?
>
> On the bright side, there has not been another 9/11 mass-murder. And this
is
> due entirely to our increased vigilance, the latitude given our security
> people by the hated Patriot Act, and the idea that the war (not a DA's
> inquiry) should be fought abroad not at home.
>
imagine the sane thing to do is realize that you can't and won't support it,
and that you're just another lying, ignorant windbag offering his opinions
as fact. That being now proven, I'll do what countless others have done and
killfile you and move on to reading the opinions of those who are bright
enough to know the difference between the two.
Mitchell Holman
$um3.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D7B7B2F...@204.127.199.17...
>> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
>> news:pQejc.25174$_o3.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> > "C. Pangus" <craig...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Lz5jc.11520$gH6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >> The more the US builds up oppossition to native rule the more
death
>> >> ensues when we leave. That doesn't account for all the pointless
>> >> killing which occurs while we are there.
>> >
>> > When the allied forces invaded Iraq, it was an act of war. People were
>> > killed as is always the consquence of war. But, the number of people
>> > dying in Iraq was miniscule during and after the invasion compared to
>> > the number of people who were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered
by
>> > the Hussein regime.
>>
>> Indeed. And most of them were "raped, tortured, and
>> slaughtered" while Saddam was being armed by Reagan, and
>> sometimes with the very weapons that Reagan supplied him.
>>
> Only a complete nutcase or frothing lunatic would blame Ronald Reagan for
> Saddam's daily raping, torturing, maiming, and slaughter.
You evaded the question. Where was the conservative
angst over Saddam's atrocities when Reagan was arming him?
>
> As it happens, _The Weekly Standard_ "Scrapbook" column has a short piece
> with a graph using data from the Stockholm International Peace Research
> Institute. Not likely to be a pro-America source. [The Institute source
is
> here:
> ~ http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html ]
>
> The graph is titled, and the numbers are:
>
> "How the United States Armed Iraq - Weapons imported by Iraq, 1973-2002"
> USSR - 57%
> France - 13%
> China - 12%
> Czech. - 7%
> Poland - 4%
> Brazil - 2%
> Egypt, Romania, Denmark, Libya, USA - 1% each
> ~ data from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, via
_Weekly
> Standard_, April 14, 2003
>
> How was that, again, "WE" made Saddam what he is?
So arming tyrants is OK as long as
others are doing it too?
--
pyotr filipivich
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> from posting to seattle.general the
following:
>"C. Pangus" <craig...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Lz5jc.11520$gH6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> The more the US builds up oppossition to native rule the more death
>> ensues when we leave. That doesn't account for all the pointless killing
>> which occurs while we are there.
>>
>
>When the allied forces invaded Iraq, it was an act of war. People were killed
>as is always the consquence of war. But, the number of people dying in Iraq
>was miniscule during and after the invasion compared to the number of people
>who were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered by the Hussein regime. Why
>is that simple fact invisible to Leftwing Liberals? KM
fascists dictator like Saddam.
--
pyotr filipivich
"We don't support "guns" ... the term "gun" gets in the way of
what is really being talked about here - we want choice in
personal security devices." Ann Coulter
gatt
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Because President Bush is a Republican, and ergo far worse than any mere
> fascists dictator like Saddam.
*yawn*
Vanunu
"Thomas" <mau...@hawaii-politics.com> wrote in message
news:guk090lg43bsg43gj...@4ax.com...
>
>
> And in their zeal to advance their Bush-bashing, America-hating
> viewpoint, the dimwits and pinheads don't even mind becoming
> Sadaam-apologists. Not to mention their logic whereby Reagan is now
> responsible for Sadaam's atrocities is such a u-turn of the facts,
> more sensible observers are at risk of whiplash trying to follow such
> convoluted flotsam and detritus. Oy Vey and/or Mama Mia and/or Good
> Grief !! Pardon me while I go get some liniment for my sore neck !!
>
> Vaya Con Dios.
>
>
Flame and fluff, about as much substance as bush has brains. That would be
ZERO.
Mitchell Holman
news:guk090lg43bsg43gj...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:24:29 GMT, "alohacyberian"
> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns94D7B7B2F...@204.127.199.17...
>>> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
>>> news:pQejc.25174$_o3.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>> > "C. Pangus" <craig...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:Lz5jc.11520$gH6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> >> The more the US builds up oppossition to native rule the more
>>> >> death
>>> >> ensues when we leave. That doesn't account for all the pointless
>>> >> killing which occurs while we are there.
>>> >
>>> > When the allied forces invaded Iraq, it was an act of war. People
>>> > were killed as is always the consquence of war. But, the number of
>>> > people dying in Iraq was miniscule during and after the invasion
>>> > compared to the number of people who were raped, tortured, maimed
>>> > and slaughtered by the Hussein regime.
>>>
>>> Indeed. And most of them were "raped, tortured, and
>>> slaughtered" while Saddam was being armed by Reagan, and
>>> sometimes with the very weapons that Reagan supplied him.
>>>
>>Only a complete nutcase or frothing lunatic would blame Ronald Reagan
>>for Saddam's daily raping, torturing, maiming, and slaughter.
>
> [graph snipped]
>
>
> And in their zeal to advance their Bush-bashing, America-hating
> viewpoint, the dimwits and pinheads don't even mind becoming
> Sadaam-apologists. Not to mention their logic whereby Reagan is now
> responsible for Sadaam's atrocities
Ain't it grand to see how the Bush-Lickers squirm
and twist when confronted with the reality of Reagan's
arming of Saddam? Where was their angst over the "brutal
thug Saddam" THEN?
Conservatives can be such frauds, you know?
alohacyberian
> A city wide blackout at Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:05:25 GMT did not prevent
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> from posting to seattle.general
the
> following:
> >"C. Pangus" <craig...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:Lz5jc.11520$gH6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> The more the US builds up oppossition to native rule the more death
> >> ensues when we leave. That doesn't account for all the pointless
killing
> >> which occurs while we are there.
> >
> >When the allied forces invaded Iraq, it was an act of war. People were
killed
> >as is always the consquence of war. But, the number of people dying in
Iraq
> >was miniscule during and after the invasion compared to the number of
people
> >who were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered by the Hussein regime.
Why
> >is that simple fact invisible to Leftwing Liberals? KM
>
> Because President Bush is a Republican, and ergo far worse than any mere
> fascists dictator like Saddam.
> --
> pyotr filipivich
>
Democrats' arguments. And that will not put their candidate into office. I
wonder if the Democrats realize it yet. "Time Magazine", a Leftwing Liberal
publication, warned the Dems about such nonesense way back on May 19, of last
year. So far they haven't listened. I hope they don't. KM
alohacyberian
news:1090576...@corp.supernews.com...
Bored by the truth, huh? KM
alohacyberian
> >news:Xns94D7B7B2F...@204.127.199.17...
> >> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
> >> news:pQejc.25174$_o3.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> >> >
> >> > killed as is always the consquence of war. But, the number of people
> >> > dying in Iraq was miniscule during and after the invasion compared to
> >> > the number of people who were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered
by
> >> > the Hussein regime.
> >>
> >> Indeed. And most of them were "raped, tortured, and
> >> slaughtered" while Saddam was being armed by Reagan, and
> >> sometimes with the very weapons that Reagan supplied him.
> >>
> >Only a complete nutcase or frothing lunatic would blame Ronald Reagan for
> >Saddam's daily raping, torturing, maiming, and slaughter.
>
>
> And in their zeal to advance their Bush-bashing, America-hating
> viewpoint, the dimwits and pinheads don't even mind becoming
> Sadaam-apologists. Not to mention their logic whereby Reagan is now
> more sensible observers are at risk of whiplash trying to follow such
> convoluted flotsam and detritus. Oy Vey and/or Mama Mia and/or Good
> Grief !! Pardon me while I go get some liniment for my sore neck !!
>
> Vaya Con Dios.
>
LOL! And it does make one wonder how the Leftwing Liberals justify the fact
that the worst of the Hussein atrocities occurred under the *gulp* Clinton
Administration. KM
Mitchell Holman
news:JV%jc.33951$_o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>>
>
> LOL! And it does make one wonder how the Leftwing Liberals justify the
> fact that the worst of the Hussein atrocities occurred under the *gulp*
> Clinton Administration. KM
You have some proof of that, I take it?
And no, "look it up yourself" is not proof.........
alohacyberian
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
> news:JV%jc.33951$_o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> >
> > LOL! And it does make one wonder how the Leftwing Liberals justify the
> > fact that the worst of the Hussein atrocities occurred under the *gulp*
> > Clinton Administration. KM
>
> You have some proof of that, I take it?
>
Another belly laugh. Don't believe a word of it, but, please post your
overwhelming evidence as to when the worst atrocities of your hero, Saddam
Hussein, occurred. Of course we know you can't or won't because it will amply
illustrate they occurred during the Clinton Administration. Or when did you
think they occurred? During the Eisenhower Administration or the Lincoln
Administration? You funny! KM
Mitchell Holman
news:Oy3kc.20$Ut1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94DA3E62...@204.127.204.17...
>> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
>> news:JV%jc.33951$_o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> >
>> > LOL! And it does make one wonder how the Leftwing Liberals justify
>> > the fact that the worst of the Hussein atrocities occurred under the
>> > *gulp* Clinton Administration. KM
>>
>> You have some proof of that, I take it?
>>
>
> Another belly laugh. Don't believe a word of it, but, please post your
> overwhelming evidence as to when the worst atrocities of your hero,
> Saddam Hussein, occurred. Of course we know you can't or won't because
> it will amply illustrate they occurred during the Clinton
> Administration. Or when did you think they occurred? During the
> Eisenhower Administration or the Lincoln Administration? You funny! KM
Another claim Keith Martin makes and
then runs away from. Good think it is so
easy to show him up for the liar he is.
"When Saddam took over from President Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr
in July 1979, he promoted al-Majid to full general even
though his military skills were negligible. He earned the
soubriquet "butcher of the Kurds" for his savage campaign
against the autonomy-seeking Kurds in northeast Iraq during
the 1980s, in which some 4,000 villages were razed and
hundreds of thousands of Kurds forcibly relocated away from
their mountain homeland to Iraq's southern deserts.
His scorched earth campaign climaxed in 1988 when, in the
dying days of the war with Iran, he used chemical weapons
against the guerrillas and their supporters. In the worst
atrocity, some 5,000 men, women and children were slaughtered
in the border town of Halabja in March 1988 when it was bombed
and shelled with cyanide gas."
www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2059238
Leave to Keith to think that Clinton was president
in 1988. What a hoot!
Mitchell Holman
news:JV%jc.33951$_o3.11...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Another Keith Martin claim revealed for
the lie that it is. Why does he keep lying
like this?
"Memories of the 1988 Anfal campaign are fresh in the minds
of residents of northern Iraq. In a ten-month orgy of violence
toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam's forces murdered
some 182,000 Kurdish men, women, and children. Saddam justified
his brutal actions by accusing the Kurds of disloyalty during
the war. His forces destroyed most of the region's towns and
villages. The worst single atrocity took place on March 16,
1988, when the Iraqi air force dropped chemical weapons on
Halabja, killing over 5,000 civilians."
www.washingtoninstitute.org/ media/rubin/rubin-other.htm
Leave to Keith to think that Clinton was
president in 1988. What a hoot!!
gatt
"alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message news:HV%jc.33950$
> > > Because President Bush is a Republican, and ergo far worse than any
mere
> > > fascists dictator like Saddam.
> >
> > *yawn*
> >
> Bored by the truth, huh?
The "truth" is that a Republican is worse than Saddam Hussein?
-c
alohacyberian
>
> Leave to Keith to think that Clinton was president
> in 1988. What a hoot!
>
Saddam Hussein's atrocities during the 1990s were almost unparalleled in the
history of the Middle East and put him on the top ten list of mass-murderers
along with other Leftist icons such as Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Adolf
Hitler, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh. Only a Leftwing Liberal can wish them away
and say they never existed. Fortunately Leftwing Liberal opinion didn't
prevail and the allies invaded in spite of the impotent protestations coming
from Leftfield. KM
alohacyberian
If you sincerely believe that statement, you are either completely ignorant
of Saddam Hussein's history or you are mentally unbalanced. Please give us a
list of Republicans who have committed the atrocities that have been
attributed to Saddam Hussein. KM
Mitchell Holman
news:CYdkc.3458$Xj6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94DA4F5CA...@63.240.76.16...
>>
>> Leave to Keith to think that Clinton was president
>> in 1988. What a hoot!
>>
>
> Saddam Hussein's atrocities during the 1990s were almost unparalleled in
> the history of the Middle East and put him on the top ten list of
> mass-murderers along with other Leftist icons such as Mao Zedong, Josef
> Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh.
What atrocities? You can't even NAME these
"Saddam's worst atrocities", much less prove
your claim they happened in the 1990s.
Leave it to Keith to respond to his diproven
claim by repeating his disproven claim. What a loser.
Mitchell Holman
Bush - 3 arrests, 1 conviction.
Cheney - 2 arrests, 2 convictions.
Bill Shatzer
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, gatt wrote:
-snip-
> The "truth" is that a Republican is worse than Saddam Hussein?
Saddam never did anything to me. I can't say the same about republicans.
Peace and justice,
alohacyberian
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.040429...@lab.oregonvos.net...
thing is you are in the dark about what the Democrats have done to you! ;-)
KM
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a
well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy
free health care and 100 percent literacy."
~ John Derbyshire
alohacyberian
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
> news:CYdkc.3458$Xj6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> > "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94DA4F5CA...@63.240.76.16...
> >>
> >> Leave to Keith to think that Clinton was president
> >> in 1988. What a hoot!
> >
> > Saddam Hussein's atrocities during the 1990s were almost unparalleled in
> > the history of the Middle East and put him on the top ten list of
> > mass-murderers along with other Leftist icons such as Mao Zedong, Josef
> > Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh.
>
> What atrocities? You can't even NAME these
> "Saddam's worst atrocities", much less prove
> your claim they happened in the 1990s.
>
Yeah, right. All those mass graves that have been found predate the 1990s.
Sure they do. And the tooth fairy said so. But, the most amazing thing is
that you're suggesting that the atrocities which were committed prior to
Clinton's administration are somehow the fault of the president of the United
States; he's to blame, in the Leftwing Liberal fantasy world, not the
perpetrator of those crimes: Saddam Hussein. KM
Mitchell Holman
news:E6okc.3431$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94DAA5D22...@204.127.204.17...
>> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
>> news:CYdkc.3458$Xj6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> > "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns94DA4F5CA...@63.240.76.16...
>> >>
>> >> Leave to Keith to think that Clinton was president
>> >> in 1988. What a hoot!
>> >
>> > Saddam Hussein's atrocities during the 1990s were almost unparalleled
>> > in the history of the Middle East and put him on the top ten list of
>> > mass-murderers along with other Leftist icons such as Mao Zedong,
>> > Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh.
>>
>> What atrocities? You can't even NAME these
>> "Saddam's worst atrocities", much less prove
>> your claim they happened in the 1990s.
>>
>
> Yeah, right. All those mass graves that have been found predate the
> 1990s. Sure they do. And the tooth fairy said so. But, the most amazing
> thing is that you're suggesting that the atrocities which were committed
> prior to Clinton's administration are somehow the fault of the president
> of the United States; he's to blame, in the Leftwing Liberal fantasy
> world, not the perpetrator of those crimes: Saddam Hussein. KM
You claimed Saddam's worst atrocities happened in
the 1990's while Clinton was president.
The posted proof - which you deleted - proves you lied.
Case closed.
alohacyberian
LOL! Your method of finding "truth" is hilarious. As time went on, Hussein's
travesties and atrocities steadily escalated. *Doh!* KM
Mitchell Holman
news:ECykc.5082$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Repeating your unproven claim is not proof.
Where is your proof?
alohacyberian
Where's yours? Naming a single specific atrocity, claiming it's the worst of
them all and then attempting to make the case that one incident is a complete
picture is hilarious and shows a desperate need to win a petty pissing match.
Like I've said so many times before, do your own homework. If you want to
believe that the worst of Saddam Hussein's atrocities occurred at a time
other than during the Clinton Adminstration, be my guest. But, the truth of
the matter remains that your whole song-and-dance was just another dodge to
take attention away from the idiotic claim that Saddam wasn't to blame for
his atrocities, it was the Ronald Reagan Administration because they sold
arms to Iraq. What a hoot! Don't you just hate people who won't let you evade
the issue and throw up smokescreens? KM
Mitchell Holman
news:ZSJkc.6919$Ut1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Nice try, claim dodger.
This is YOUR claim. YOU prove it.
"And it does make one wonder how the Leftwing Liberals
justify the fact that the worst of the Hussein atrocities
occurred under the *gulp* Clinton Administration."
Keith Martin, 4/28/04.
alohacyberian
Sorry, burden of proof lies on the accuser. Do you own homework. KM
WinGuru
Sorry Hula-boy, but burden of proof lies with those making the false claim -
you in this case - especially when evidence to the contrary has been
submitted. You have posted nothing that supports your claim that Saddam's
"travesties and atrocities steadily escalated" over the mass killings, etc.
during the Reagan and Bush administrations. The reality is that Saddam was
contained under Clinton. No WMD. No effective fighting force. No ability
to project force into other countries or regions. The only thing Saddam
could do was kill a few (you'll probably contest this - so provide proof
that the numbers where great) radicals and criminals - remember that being
against Saddam was considered the crime of insurrection and treason; are you
willing to say that you support treason and insurrection?
Thomas
<alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>"Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.44.040429...@lab.oregonvos.net...
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, gatt wrote:
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>> > The "truth" is that a Republican is worse than Saddam Hussein?
>>
>> Saddam never did anything to me. I can't say the same about republicans.
>>
>Perhaps you can be the next poster child for American Victimhood. The sad
>thing is you are in the dark about what the Democrats have done to you! ;-)
>KM
>
>"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a
>well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy
>free health care and 100 percent literacy."
> ~ John Derbyshire
LMAO !! Now THAT'S a keeper !!
In Shatzies narcissistic world, where concepts such as integrity,
duty, honor, sacrifice for others, and of course, patriotism are
foreign to him and his ilk, nothing beside their own self-serving
agenda is able to capture their attention.
The fact that the vast majority of Iraqi's are glad the US invaded and
deposed Sadaam the butcher, albeit they are ambivalent regarding
continuing US occupation, doesn't enter into their self-centered view
of the world arena.
There's always a spectrum of personalities, diametrically opposed at
each end when it comes to military conflict. On one end, you have the
Pat Tillman's of the world, brave, makes sacrifices for duty and
justice, who for which honor isn't just a word, it's their goal. And
then way down the spectrum on a different wavelength, you have the
Shatzies of the world, selfish misanthropes, unconcerned of
injustices, and they lurch along through life, self-satisfied in their
self-righteous sanctimony, and content to throw brickbats at anyone
who points out their all too numerous hypocritical views.
"It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also
for what we do not do." ~ Moliere
Aloha
Come join us at the hawaii.politcs home page:
http://www.hawaii-politics.com
Where you will find the group FAQ
And other fun stuff brought to you free
and without commercial interuption by the
hawaii.politics Board of Directors.
"You can get a lot further with a smile and a gun
than you can with just a smile alone."
- Alfonse Capone
Thomas
Any Sadaam-apologist with their heads rammed so deep into the dirt
that they can't even acknowledge the torture, murder and daily anguish
Sadaam and his two sons caused, is beyond hope. Here, Ms. Phelps
(whose Mother is a native of Baghdad) describes a family's father
being fed into a wood chipper feet first in front of his family.
These were daily occurrences, and not isolated events. I'm not
surprised someone like little narcissistic Mitchie has no sympathy for
the Iraqi people's previous plight, and his rank intellectual
dishonesty in attempting to deny the rampant atrocities of his hero
Sadaam's regime is filthy and disgusting to real American's.
Read her anguish and despair, now relieved by President Bush's courage
and resolve:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-phelps072303.asp
July 23, 2003, 10:15 a.m.
Are Iraqis Better Off?
Is that a joke?
By Angela J. Phelps
For weeks, I've been hearing members of the media ask self-described
pundits whether Iraqis are better off today than they were four months
ago. Am I the only person who thinks this is a stupid question?
Ask the average third-grade child if he would be better off if the
meanest bully in the class got expelled. Ask the average single female
if she would be better off if the serial rapist who was terrorizing
her neighborhood was finally jailed. See what they would say. Have
people lost their minds or simply their common sense?
Are they better off? I say, ask the Iraqis, not the people who want to
speak for them on cable news. Better yet, let's ask the very people
who were terrorized most severely under Saddam Hussein: the women of
Iraq.
Under Saddam's reign, the evil dictator and his posse of thugs not
only targeted men who threatened his power, they routinely and
sadistically included Iraqi women and children in their "training"
exercises. Rape, torture, and murder were all condoned, if not
encouraged.
For years, I had heard stories from Iraqi Americans of Saddam's
vicious rule most of which, frankly, seemed unbelievable like
something out of a twisted horror novel. My mother, an Assyrian native
of Baghdad herself, would tell me things that were far too unspeakable
for public consumption.
However, it wasn't until late 2001 that I truly grasped the depth of
evil in the Iraqi leadership. An article from the September 2001 issue
of Maxim magazine, of all places, detailed the gruesome legacy that
President Bush later revealed to the world in his State of the Union
address last January 29. The article was the most disturbing one I had
ever read, and still is. It recounted a story of Saddam's son Uday,
who was known for preying on young, beautiful Iraqi women. One woman
in particular, a college student, who refused his advance, was quickly
taken from her home, hauled off to a remote compound in the desert,
and for months experienced rape and torture.
When Uday finally had enough of her, he decided upon a creative
disposal. Ordering his guards to stop feeding his Dobermans for two
weeks, he had the girl stripped, lathered with honey, and fed to the
starving animals. I doubt Uday or his father batted an eye.
And this was just one example of the Hussein family's high esteem for
women. Sure, this is one of the worst cases reported, but a number of
Iraqis have told me that not a single family escaped the terror of the
Saddam regime. If only they could be sure that Saddam Hussein was gone
for good, they'd be shouting their stories from the rooftops. You can
be sure of that.
So, ask yourself: Are Iraqis better off today than they were four
months ago? Let's use some common sense, since many seem to be lacking
it these days: Millions of Iraqis are experiencing freedom for the
first time in their lives; Iraqi women are safe from the governmental
threat of rape, torture, and murder; Saddam's two ferocious sons are
now confirmed dead; a democratic government has just been formed; and
allied forces have lost fewer soldiers than expected. Better off? Yes
and when you consider how much better off they are, it's hard to get
caught up in a debate about those "16 words."
Angela J. Phelps is an Assyrian American whose mother is a native of
Baghdad.
Mitchell Holman
$Xj6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
If you cannot prove your own claim just admit you
are making them up. That is to say, you are a liar.
But you knew that already, right?
PS: Since you keep deleting your claim that you
keep running away from, I am at liberty to keep reposting
it.
Mitchell Holman
Mitchell Holman
news:t3189012c0blqp69j...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:25:08 GMT, "alohacyberian"
> <alohac...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns94DB2D62F...@63.240.76.16...
>>> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
>>> news:E6okc.3431$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>> > "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:Xns94DAA5D22...@204.127.204.17...
>>> >> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
>>> >> news:CYdkc.3458$Xj6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>> >> > "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>>> >> > news:Xns94DA4F5CA...@63.240.76.16...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Leave to Keith to think that Clinton was president
>>> >> >> in 1988. What a hoot!
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Saddam Hussein's atrocities during the 1990s were almost
>>> >> > unparalleled in the history of the Middle East and put him on the
>>> >> > top ten list of mass-murderers along with other Leftist icons
>>> >> > such as Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Ho
>>> >> > Chi Minh.
>>> >>
>>> >> What atrocities? You can't even NAME these
>>> >> "Saddam's worst atrocities", much less prove
>>> >> your claim they happened in the 1990s.KM
>
>
> Any Sadaam-apologist with their heads rammed so deep into the dirt
> that they can't even acknowledge the torture, murder and daily anguish
> Sadaam and his two sons caused, is beyond hope.
Since Keith cannot prove his claim, maybe
Thomas can. Opps, doesn't appear to be the case.
Poor Keith - maybe he should take more care when
posting lies.
WinGuru
> Are Iraqis Better Off?
> Is that a joke?
>
> By Angela J. Phelps
>
Sorry, this was proven to be a hoax - another of those wonderful propaganda
jobs courtesy Bush's mis-information corp - kinda like those bogus reports
about taking babies out of incubators during GW1. True, Saddam's crimes are
numerous and the atrocities grotesque - BUT, there is no proof that the
worst happened during the 90's while Clinton was President. The evidence
actually indicates otherwise.
nobody
"WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
Oh, exactly what does the evidence indicate, when did the worst happed
and what's the evidence for it?
Mitchell Holman
news:nobody-F18AA5.06490802052004@[216.148.227.77]:
By all accounts the Halabja massacre of
5000 Kurdish villagers in 1988 is ranked as
the worst. Do a google search on "Saddam
Worst Massacre". All the hits point it. And
contrary to Keith Martin's claims, the US
president at the time was Reagan, not Clinton.
PS: Even the Bush State department agrees:
www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm
pyotr filipivich
"gatt" <ga...@livefromtheclocktower.com> from posting to seattle.general the
following:
No, the "truth" is that the Democrats and their left deviationist fellow
travelers consider the fact that Saddam Hussein's fascist regime was overthrown
by a _Republican_ President, to be far worse than anything the Baathist
fascists ever did.
What's the Arabic for "night and Fog"? (or would that be "night and
Sandstorm"?)
quoting the original exchange:
=>When the allied forces invaded Iraq, it was an act of war. People were killed
=>as is always the consequence of war. But, the number of people dying in Iraq
=>was minuscule during and after the invasion compared to the number of people
=>who were raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered by the Hussein regime. Why
=>is that simple fact invisible to Leftwing Liberals? KM
= Because President Bush is a Republican, and ergo far worse than any mere
=fascists dictator like Saddam.
toodles
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"We don't support "guns" ... the term "gun" gets in the way of
what is really being talked about here - we want choice in
personal security devices." Ann Coulter
alohacyberian
news:nobody-F18AA5.06490802052004@[216.148.227.77]...
> and what's the evidence for it?
>
Handbook" since he recently won the toaster and is now eligible for a larger
electric appliance. He's hoping to win an electric chair. KM
#23 No matter how credible a source may be - always do your Leftwing Liberal
duty and rabidly claim it's been debunked and discredited and call anyone who
believes it "mean spirited", crazy, a Nazi or any other of the monikers from
the Leftwing Liberal grab bag of infantile epithets and sarcastic sobriquets
even if you invented your "data" out of thin air or found it on the webpage
of some leftwing liberal lemming on the lunatic fringe.
~ The Official Leftwing Liberal Handbook
~ http://alohahawaii.home.att.net/leftwing.html
alohacyberian
And, of course, at that time, it had been the worst atrocity and was thus
portrayed a such at the time. Subsequent slaughters made that pale by
comparison, but, of course they didn't exist (and perhaps the tens of
thousands of victims may become magically whole) in the minds of Leftwing
Liberals because they're contrary to the Lib's prejudices. KM
alohacyberian
news:86ib90p4tr1b492jc...@4ax.com...
When Leftwing Liberals have gone to great lengths to evade the issue, set up
smokescreens, change the subject, derail the conversation, sabotage the
message, confuse, confound, obfuscate and generally undermine the topic -
it's very disconcerting for someone like you to come along and stick to the
original issue. KM
Mitchell Holman
$Xj6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94DD5F102...@63.240.76.16...
>> nobody <nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in
>> news:nobody-F18AA5.06490802052004@[216.148.227.77]:
>> > In article <40947b74$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
>> > "WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> > Oh, exactly what does the evidence indicate, when did the worst happed
>> > and what's the evidence for it?
>>
>> By all accounts the Halabja massacre of
>> 5000 Kurdish villagers in 1988 is ranked as
>> the worst. Do a google search on "Saddam
>> Worst Massacre". All the hits point it. And
>> contrary to Keith Martin's claims, the US
>> president at the time was Reagan, not Clinton.
>>
>
> And, of course, at that time, it had been the worst atrocity and was thus
> portrayed a such at the time. Subsequent slaughters made that pale by
> comparison,
*What* "subsequent slaughters"? You can't even NAME
them, much less prove they ever happened.
Your lies are getting ahead of you, Keith.
but, of course they didn't exist (and perhaps the tens of
> thousands of victims may become magically whole) in the minds of Leftwing
> Liberals because they're contrary to the Lib's prejudices. KM
Mitchell Holman
"The worst of the Hussein atrocities occurred
under the *gulp* Clinton Administration."
Keith Martin, 4/28/04. He has since been unable
to even name said Saddam atrocities, much less
prove them.
gatt
"Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> > The "truth" is that a Republican is worse than Saddam Hussein?
>
> Saddam never did anything to me.
Neither did Caligula, Hitler, Mussolini or Osama Bin Laden. Not to you.
>I can't say the same about Republicans.
Of course not.
nobody
<Pine.LNX.4.44.040429...@lab.oregonvos.net>,
Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, gatt wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > The "truth" is that a Republican is worse than Saddam Hussein?
>
> Saddam never did anything to me. I can't say the same about republicans.
Other than make fun of you, what have the Republicans done to you?
WinGuru
As may be - though I deny it; in any event, the issue is that you have
supplied exactly ZERO evidence, credible or otherwise, to support your
contention that the worst attrocities occurred under Clinton's watch. Prove
your contention or admit you were wrong. Supply ANY evidence that cites
specific attrocities that are during Clinton's watch than under Reagan.
nobody
"WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> As may be - though I deny it; in any event, the issue is that you have
> supplied exactly ZERO evidence, credible or otherwise, to support your
> contention that the worst attrocities occurred under Clinton's watch.
Hell, if we're going to play the "provide evidence game", you've at
times claimed:
Ted Kennedy didn't kill Mary Jo Kopechne.
Laura Bush is a murderer.
The "travelgate" people were guilty.
Bush helped usher the Bin Laden clan out of the US after 9/11.
Rush Limbaugh is a drug dealer.
Bill Clinton didn't give any pardons to individuals associated with him
and his troubles.
That the NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and LA Times are owned
by conservatives.
When are you going to provide proof/evidence of your stupid claims?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
WinGuru
> In article <409702a6$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
> "WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>
>
>> As may be - though I deny it; in any event, the issue is that you have
>> supplied exactly ZERO evidence, credible or otherwise, to support your
>> contention that the worst attrocities occurred under Clinton's watch.
>
>
> Hell, if we're going to play the "provide evidence game", you've at
> times claimed:
>
> Ted Kennedy didn't kill Mary Jo Kopechne.
can't be proven that he did.
>
> Laura Bush is a murderer.
proven.
>
> The "travelgate" people were guilty.
Never said that - but the reality is that there was nothing that guaranteed
their jobs after a change in administration and they were properly replaced;
still, explain again why the manager had over $30K in travel funds stuffed
in his own personal bank account with no accounting or receipts!
> Bush helped usher the Bin Laden clan out of the US after 9/11.
Proven.
>
> Rush Limbaugh is a drug dealer.
Didn't say this, but he clearly is a drug user/abuser and show go to jail.
>
> Bill Clinton didn't give any pardons to individuals associated with him
> and his troubles.
This one I was wrong about and admitted it when I was corrected.
>
> That the NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and LA Times are owned
> by conservatives.
>
Don't recall ever stating this but I suspect that it is demonstrably true.
Certainly the editorial boards are run by conservatives.
alohacyberian
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in news:88olc.25885
> $Xj6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> >>
> >> 5000 Kurdish villagers in 1988 is ranked as
> >> the worst. Do a google search on "Saddam
> >> Worst Massacre". All the hits point it. And
> >> contrary to Keith Martin's claims, the US
> >> president at the time was Reagan, not Clinton.
> >
> > And, of course, at that time, it had been the worst atrocity and was thus
> > portrayed a such at the time. Subsequent slaughters made that pale by
> > comparison,
>
> *What* "subsequent slaughters"? You can't even NAME
> them, much less prove they ever happened.
>
Got Google? The atrocities occurred on a daily basis and you're unaware of
them? Astonishing, but, I guess that shouldn't be suprising when considering
the source is another Leftwing Liberal. Deny it Mitch, don't believe it and
mayhaps all those atrocities will somehow vanish! KM
alohacyberian
news:409702a6$1...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:78olc.25884$Xj6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "nobody" <nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
> > news:nobody-F18AA5.06490802052004@[216.148.227.77]...
> >>
> >> and what's the evidence for it?
> >
> > Oh, WingUru is just invoking Article #23 of the "Official Leftwing
Liberal
> > Handbook" since he recently won the toaster and is now eligible for a
> > larger
> > electric appliance. He's hoping to win an electric chair. KM
> >
> > #23 No matter how credible a source may be - always do your Leftwing
> > Liberal
> > duty and rabidly claim it's been debunked and discredited and call anyone
> > who
> > believes it "mean spirited", crazy, a Nazi or any other of the monikers
> > from
> > the Leftwing Liberal grab bag of infantile epithets and sarcastic
> > sobriquets
> > even if you invented your "data" out of thin air or found it on the
> > webpage
> > of some leftwing liberal lemming on the lunatic fringe.
>
> As may be - though I deny it; in any event, the issue is that you have
> supplied exactly ZERO evidence, credible or otherwise, to support your
> contention that the worst attrocities occurred under Clinton's watch.
Prove
> your contention or admit you were wrong. Supply ANY evidence that cites
> specific attrocities that are during Clinton's watch than under Reagan.
>
Please, don't take my word for it. Get a sheet of paper. Google. Assuming you
have the ability to make meaningful marks on said piece of paper, list the
last 25 years of the Hussein regime. Enumerate the annual statistics and
mark the number of people raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered during each
successive year. Note which years that the causualties were the highest. Vow
to remain in denial. Be frustrated when others won't swallow your denial.
Throw a tantrum. Win a toaster from the Leftwing Liberal Lobby. Go to the
newsgroups, call American armed forces personnel "pukes" and continue to
portray yourself as a horse's rump. It's unfair to horses. KM
alohacyberian
Double standard? As usual. KM
Mitchell Holman
news:sAGlc.31255$Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94DE65D0A...@216.148.227.77...
>> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in news:88olc.25885
>> $Xj6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> >>
>> >> By all accounts the Halabja massacre of
>> >> 5000 Kurdish villagers in 1988 is ranked as
>> >> the worst. Do a google search on "Saddam
>> >> Worst Massacre". All the hits point it. And
>> >> contrary to Keith Martin's claims, the US
>> >> president at the time was Reagan, not Clinton.
>> >
>> > And, of course, at that time, it had been the worst atrocity and was
>> > thus portrayed a such at the time. Subsequent slaughters made that
>> > pale by comparison,
>>
>> *What* "subsequent slaughters"? You can't even NAME
>> them, much less prove they ever happened.
>>
>
> Got Google? The atrocities occurred on a daily basis and you're unaware
> of them? Astonishing, but, I guess that shouldn't be suprising when
> considering the source is another Leftwing Liberal. Deny it Mitch, don't
> believe it and mayhaps all those atrocities will somehow vanish! KM
No, Keith, "look it up yourself" is not
the correct response. You make the claim, YOU
can do the research to back it up.
PS: I already did the google search that
proved you wrong, and even posted it. You deleted
it.
Conservatives can be such frauds, you know?
Mitchell Holman
news:uAGlc.31256$Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Never mind. Keith has no proof about his
Saddam-atrocities-under-Clinton claim. Ask him
for data and he will just respond with the
"look it up yourself" evasion Conservatives
frequently hide behind.
>
> Please, don't take my word for it. Get a sheet of paper. Google.
> Assuming you have the ability to make meaningful marks on said piece of
> paper, list the last 25 years of the Hussein regime. Enumerate the
> annual statistics and mark the number of people raped, tortured, maimed
> and slaughtered during each successive year.
WHAT "annual statistics", Keith? You don't have any.
> Note which years that the
> causualties were the highest.
According to whom?
Mitchell Holman
$Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "nobody" <nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
> news:nobody-1F041E....@netnews.comcast.net...
>> In article <409702a6$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
>> "WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> > As may be - though I deny it; in any event, the issue is that you
have
>> > supplied exactly ZERO evidence, credible or otherwise, to support your
>> > contention that the worst attrocities occurred under Clinton's watch.
>>
>> Hell, if we're going to play the "provide evidence game", you've at
>> times claimed:
>>
>> Ted Kennedy didn't kill Mary Jo Kopechne.
>>
>> Laura Bush is a murderer.
>>
>> The "travelgate" people were guilty.
>>
>> Bush helped usher the Bin Laden clan out of the US after 9/11.
>>
>> Rush Limbaugh is a drug dealer.
>>
>> Bill Clinton didn't give any pardons to individuals associated with him
>> and his troubles.
>>
>> That the NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and LA Times are owned
>> by conservatives.
>>
>> When are you going to provide proof/evidence of your stupid claims?
>> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>>
>
> Double standard?
You mean like you demanding evidence from others
while refusing to post any yourself?
nobody
"WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> "nobody" <nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
> news:nobody-1F041E....@netnews.comcast.net...
> > In article <409702a6$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
> > "WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> As may be - though I deny it; in any event, the issue is that you have
> >> supplied exactly ZERO evidence, credible or otherwise, to support your
> >> contention that the worst attrocities occurred under Clinton's watch.
> >
> >
> > Hell, if we're going to play the "provide evidence game", you've at
> > times claimed:
> >
> >
> > Rush Limbaugh is a drug dealer.
> Didn't say this,...
Yes you did.
From <3fbb9bfa$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>:
"Purportedly he [Limbaugh] bought "thousands" of pills - considerably
more than any one individual would reasonably be consuming. Therefore,
by DEA rules - he's a dealer."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Keep trying, WingUru.
Hey, Cor, Bax, Shatz, Roger, etc! WingUru is what puts the "looney" in
the looney left. Don't you see him as an embarrassment to the left?
Don't you wince every time he posts?
nobody
> "nobody" <nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
> news:nobody-1F041E....@netnews.comcast.net...
> > In article <409702a6$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
> > "WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> As may be - though I deny it; in any event, the issue is that you have
> >> supplied exactly ZERO evidence, credible or otherwise, to support your
> >> contention that the worst attrocities occurred under Clinton's watch.
> >
> >
> > Hell, if we're going to play the "provide evidence game", you've at
> > times claimed:
> >
> > Laura Bush is a murderer.
>
> proven.
Nope, in <405000c9$1...@nntp0.pdx.net> you tried to provide proof by citing
the following urls:
http://www.georgewbush.org/bios/laurabush.asp
http://www.bestandworst.com/vote/processrate/ratetheballot.php?3104
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3910b26e685a.htm
http://www.cassavafilms.com/list9_2002/list9_073102.html
http://www.politicalamazon.com/smirkorama.html
There was no mention of "murder" in any except the first one, which said
of Laura:
"she will never take a lover named Vince Foster, then murder him and
dump his body in Fort Marcy Park."
Keep trying.
Again, all you leftists and liberals, don't you cringe every time
WingUru posts? Trying to prove that Laura is a murderer he points to a
web page that implies Hillary Clinton is. He puts the "looney" in
looney left. hahahahahahahahahahaha.
nobody
> "nobody" <nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
> news:nobody-1F041E....@netnews.comcast.net...
> > In article <409702a6$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
> > "WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> As may be - though I deny it; in any event, the issue is that you have
> >> supplied exactly ZERO evidence, credible or otherwise, to support your
> >> contention that the worst attrocities occurred under Clinton's watch.
> >
> >
> > Hell, if we're going to play the "provide evidence game", you've at
> > times claimed:
> >
> > Ted Kennedy didn't kill Mary Jo Kopechne.
>
> can't be proven that he did.
You don't believe Kennedy's own statement:
"Little over one mile away, the car that I was driving [with Mary Jo
Kopechne in it] on the unlit road went off a narrow bridge which had no
guard rails and was built on a left angle to the road. The car
overturned in a deep pond and immediately filled with water."
But like the looney leftist you are, you're going to argue that Teddy
didn't kill Mary Jo, that nasty sea water did, right?
Keep trying.
Once again, Bax, Shatz, etc. what do you think of WingUru's twisted
"logic"? Admit it, every time he posts gives new meaning to LOONY left.
nobody
> "nobody" <nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
> news:nobody-1F041E....@netnews.comcast.net...
> > In article <409702a6$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
> > "WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> As may be - though I deny it; in any event, the issue is that you have
> >> supplied exactly ZERO evidence, credible or otherwise, to support your
> >> contention that the worst attrocities occurred under Clinton's watch.
> >
> >
> > Hell, if we're going to play the "provide evidence game", you've at
> > times claimed:
> >
> >
> > The "travelgate" people were guilty.
> Never said that...
Sure you did. From <3f77...@nntp0.pdx.net>:
"What was so wrong about replacing some crook left over from the previous
administration..."
and
"They weren't innocent..."
Keep trying.
nobody
> "nobody" <nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
> news:nobody-1F041E....@netnews.comcast.net...
> > In article <409702a6$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
> > "WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> As may be - though I deny it; in any event, the issue is that you have
> >> supplied exactly ZERO evidence, credible or otherwise, to support your
> >> contention that the worst attrocities occurred under Clinton's watch.
> >
> >
> > Hell, if we're going to play the "provide evidence game", you've at
> > times claimed:
> >
> >
> > That the NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and LA Times are owned
> > by conservatives.
> >
>
> Don't recall ever stating this...
From <3fe6ab65$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>:
"Yes, we know that they [Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA
Times, the Boston Globe] are owned and edited by conservatives..."
Keep trying, WingUru.
Again, Cor, Bax, Shatz, etc., do you buy into WingUru's nonsence about
those papers being owned and edited by conservatives?
WinGuru
I have seen documented evidence that refutes your contention. You have
supplied ZERO evidence to support your contention. Since there is evidence
to the contrary of your claim and no evidence presented to support your
claim, the logical conclusion is that you're full of it. Now, if you want
to present evidence, you're more than welcome to do so.
nobody
"WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> I have seen documented evidence that refutes your contention...
...but for some reason you're sworn to secrecy and so can't post it.
Right? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
alohacyberian
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:uAGlc.31256$Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
it against you. As the election draws closer, I'm realizing more and more
that it's people like you and words like yours that will doom John Kerry to
oblivion. I guess I should be more appreciative. KM
alohacyberian
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in news:vAGlc.31257
> $Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> >
>
> You mean like you demanding evidence from others
> while refusing to post any yourself?
>
I don't demand evidence from others. I do my own homework. And I do post
supporting material or sources depending who's asking, but certainly not to
some knee-jerk who's going to reject it anyway and invoke article #23 of the
Official Leftwing Liberal Handbook". KM
#23 No matter how credible a source may be - always do your Leftwing Liberal
duty and rabidly claim it's been debunked and discredited....
~ The Official Leftwing Liberal Handbook
~ http://alohahawaii.home.att.net/leftwing.html
alohacyberian
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
> news:sAGlc.31255$Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> > of them? Astonishing, but, I guess that shouldn't be suprising when
> > considering the source is another Leftwing Liberal. Deny it Mitch, don't
> > believe it and mayhaps all those atrocities will somehow vanish! KM
>
> No, Keith, "look it up yourself" is not
> the correct response. You make the claim, YOU
> can do the research to back it up.
>
> PS: I already did the google search that
> proved you wrong, and even posted it. You deleted
> it.
>
You need to improve your Googling skills and get working definition of
"proved". I hope you realize that everyone who did find the information is
currently laughing their asses off at y'all who flounder. Remember, limited
Googling skills can plunge a person into the abyss of eternal ignorance! Such
a fate can hamper your candidates on election day. KM
alohacyberian
them look ridiculous! The only 2 major newspapers in the United States that
are controlled by conservatives are the _New York Daily News_ and the
_Washington Times_. KM
Mitchell Holman
news:_YZlc.20270$Ut1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94DF5B816...@216.148.227.77...
>> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in news:vAGlc.31257
>> $Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> >
>> > Double standard?
>>
>> You mean like you demanding evidence from others
>> while refusing to post any yourself?
>>
>
> I don't demand evidence from others. I do my own homework. And I do post
> supporting material or sources depending
So show us your "supporting material"
for your phoney Hillary quote.
Mitchell Holman
"You don't have to fall in love. You just have to fall in line."
~ Hillary Rodham Clinton on John Kerry, to a dispirited Democrat
donor. Keith Martin, 5/2/04. He has since run away from providing
any proof of this fictitious quote.
Mitchell Holman
news:%YZlc.20271$Ut1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94DF59192...@216.148.227.77...
>> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
>> news:sAGlc.31255$Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> > Got Google? The atrocities occurred on a daily basis and you're
>> > unaware of them? Astonishing, but, I guess that shouldn't be
>> > suprising when considering the source is another Leftwing Liberal.
>> > Deny it Mitch, don't believe it and mayhaps all those atrocities will
>> > somehow vanish! KM
>>
>> No, Keith, "look it up yourself" is not
>> the correct response. You make the claim, YOU
>> can do the research to back it up.
>>
>> PS: I already did the google search that
>> proved you wrong, and even posted it. You deleted
>> it.
>>
>
> You need to improve your Googling skills
Nope.
This is YOUR claim.
That means YOU can use YOUR "Googling skills"
to post the proof of it.
Unless you prefer to retreat with your tail
between your legs, your choice.
Mitchell Holman
$Ut1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "nobody" <nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
> news:nobody-E526B8....@netnews.comcast.net...
>> In article <409722f4$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
>> "WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> > > That the NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and LA Times are
> owned
>> > > by conservatives.
>> >
>> > Don't recall ever stating this...
>>
>> From <3fe6ab65$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>:
>>
>> "Yes, we know that they [Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA
>> Times, the Boston Globe] are owned and edited by conservatives..."
>>
>> Keep trying, WingUru.
>>
>> Again, Cor, Bax, Shatz, etc., do you buy into WingUru's nonsence about
>> those papers being owned and edited by conservatives?
>>
> I think most, if not all, of those guys will buy into anything that makes
> them look ridiculous! The only 2 major newspapers in the United States
that
> are controlled by conservatives are the _New York Daily News_ and the
> _Washington Times_. KM
Have it your way. Post a quote from either of the
two papers above that YOU list as conservative that
prove YOUR claims. Feel up to it?
Mitchell Holman
"The worst of the Hussein atrocities occurred
under the *gulp* Clinton Administration."
Keith Martin, 4/28/04. He has since been unable
to even name said Saddam atrocities, even from
the news outlets that he lists as conservative.
pyotr filipivich
<alohac...@att.net> fosted Wed, 05 May 2004 04:21:11 GMT in seattle.general
, viz:
>"WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote in message
>news:40982d9a$5...@nntp0.pdx.net...
>> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:uAGlc.31256$Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> I have seen documented evidence that refutes your contention.
>>
>I've seen documented evidence that you're off your rocker, but, I won't hold
>it against you. As the election draws closer, I'm realizing more and more
>that it's people like you and words like yours that will doom John Kerry to
>oblivion. I guess I should be more appreciative. KM
Oh come now Keith. you got to have faith. [scrolling back to top to see
which idit you're talking about] Win guru doesn't have all that much clout.
You'd know this if you came to the VRWC staff meetings when they're call.
Kerry is capable of dooming his own campaign all by himself, he doesn't
need any help from lap top lackeys like Win guru.
--
pyotr filipivich
"We don't support "guns" ... the term "gun" gets in the way of
what is really being talked about here - we want choice in
personal security devices." Ann Coulter
alohacyberian
> In article <40982d9a$5...@nntp0.pdx.net>,
> "WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:uAGlc.31256$Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
Assuming
> > > you
> > > have the ability to make meaningful marks on said piece of paper, list
the
> > > last 25 years of the Hussein regime. Enumerate the annual statistics
and
> > > mark the number of people raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered
during
> > > each
> > > successive year. Note which years that the causualties were the
highest.
> > > Vow
> > > to remain in denial. Be frustrated when others won't swallow your
denial.
> > > Throw a tantrum. Win a toaster from the Leftwing Liberal Lobby. Go to
the
> > > newsgroups, call American armed forces personnel "pukes" and continue
to
> > > portray yourself as a horse's rump. It's unfair to horses. KM
> >
>
> ...but for some reason you're sworn to secrecy and so can't post it.
> Right? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
ploy! Journalists are known for being a bunch of drunks and every time I see
that little tidbit, I imagine the "anonymous" source to be some drunk in a
journalist's watering hole. KM
alohacyberian
news:ti0h90dghelvnc8q0...@4ax.com...
> Bored and skipping school, I decide to responde to what "alohacyberian"
> <alohac...@att.net> fosted Wed, 05 May 2004 04:21:11 GMT in
seattle.general
> , viz:
> >"WinGuru" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote in message
> >news:40982d9a$5...@nntp0.pdx.net...
> >> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:uAGlc.31256$Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >>
> >> I have seen documented evidence that refutes your contention.
> >>
> >I've seen documented evidence that you're off your rocker, but, I won't
hold
> >it against you. As the election draws closer, I'm realizing more and more
> >that it's people like you and words like yours that will doom John Kerry
to
> >oblivion. I guess I should be more appreciative. KM
>
> Oh come now Keith. you got to have faith. [scrolling back to top to see
> which idit you're talking about] Win guru doesn't have all that much clout.
> You'd know this if you came to the VRWC staff meetings when they're call.
>
> Kerry is capable of dooming his own campaign all by himself, he doesn't
> need any help from lap top lackeys like Win guru.
> --
> pyotr filipivich
>
finish their sabotage of their candidates by not making it to the polls on
election day. KM
alohacyberian
LOL! Gee, I didn't realize that I was the only person on the planet to
publish that quote! Got Google? KM
alohacyberian
> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
> news:%YZlc.20271$Ut1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> >
>
> Nope.
>
> This is YOUR claim.
>
> That means YOU can use YOUR "Googling skills"
> to post the proof of it.
>
Sorry, Mitch. Burdon of proof lies on the accuser. KM
Mitchell Holman
$Ut1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94E0544C...@63.240.76.16...
>> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
>> news:%YZlc.20271$Ut1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> >
>> > You need to improve your Googling skills
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> This is YOUR claim.
>>
>> That means YOU can use YOUR "Googling skills"
>> to post the proof of it.
>>
>
> Sorry, Mitch. Burdon of proof lies on the accuser. KM
Who is the accuser?
Just post the proof of your claim.
Or is that beyond you?
WinGuru
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94E04E8B...@63.240.76.16...
>> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in
>> news:_YZlc.20270$Ut1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> > "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns94DF5B816...@216.148.227.77...
>> >> "alohacyberian" <alohac...@att.net> wrote in news:vAGlc.31257
>> >> $Xj6.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> >> >
>> >> > Double standard?
>> >>
>> >> You mean like you demanding evidence from others
>> >> while refusing to post any yourself?
>> >
>> > I don't demand evidence from others. I do my own homework. And I do
>> > post
>> > supporting material or sources depending
>>
>> So show us your "supporting material"
>> for your phoney Hillary quote.
>> Mitchell Holman
>>
>> "You don't have to fall in love. You just have to fall in line."
>> ~ Hillary Rodham Clinton on John Kerry, to a dispirited Democrat
>> donor. Keith Martin, 5/2/04. He has since run away from providing
>> any proof of this fictitious quote.
>>
>
> LOL! Gee, I didn't realize that I was the only person on the planet to
> publish that quote! Got Google? KM
> --
Not ONE of the results from the search on Google is able to site where or
when or to who this was supposedly said. There are NO references that
actually show that it ever actually was said by Senator Hillary. Until you
provide a link that actually proves this, you are guilty of another of the
GOP's standard technique of producing faked quotes and photos in attempts to
smear others they don't like.