~ I'D LIKE TO SEE THE PUSSY U.S. SOLDIERS FIGHT AN ARMY! ~
~ CHlMPY the 0IL NAZI ~
Kavik Kang
news:1099857626.fP/elh70Emwv7ovryPU4kg@teranews...
> instead of shootin' little kids for oil...
You already have, it's just that your primative armies fall so quickly that
it's hard to even remember. We crushed Iraq's army twice. It takes us
about 4-6 weeks to completely anihilate the army of a tiny little primative
country, you've seen it twice now you pathetic little worm.
We aren't shooting little kids, or unarmed women. We aren't there for the
oil. We are there to force the surrender of all radical fundamentalist
islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members. We won't be
leaving until one of those two goals have been achieved. That's what
happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The choice is
entirely yours.
00:00:00Hg
> We aren't shooting little kids, or unarmed women. We aren't there for the
> oil. We are there to force the surrender of all radical fundamentalist
> islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members. We won't be
> leaving until one of those two goals have been achieved. That's what
> happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
> re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The choice
> is entirely yours.
Could you make that a little more specific.
Eric®
> We aren't shooting little kids, or unarmed women. We aren't there for the
> oil. We are there to force the surrender of all radical fundamentalist
> islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members.
You aren't there at all, dimwit. You're not even brave enough to post
with your real name. Iraq was not a radical fundamentalist Islamic
state, although with the instability there now it may well become one.
Saudi Arabia is. So is Kuwait. Why aren't 'you' fighting in those
countries?
> We won't be
> leaving until one of those two goals have been achieved. That's what
> happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
> re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The choice is
> entirely yours.
Why not put it back in your pants and admit that 'you'd' love to leave,
but can't figure out how 'you' can do that conveniently?
________________________________________________________________________
Eric Schild
"The Centers for Disease Control says what it calls an obesity
epidemic is costing airlines in higher fuel charges to carry
around heavier passengers.
In a study published in the American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, it says the average weight of Americans increased
by 4.5 kilograms through the 1990s.
That forced airlines to burn 1.3 billion more litres of fuel
in 2000 to carry the extra weight, at a cost of $275 million US."
- from www.cbc.ca
Kavik Kang
"EricŽ" <er...@hardknocks.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bf84f78e...@news.telus.net...
> Kavik Kang wrote:
>
> > We aren't shooting little kids, or unarmed women. We aren't there for
the
> > oil. We are there to force the surrender of all radical fundamentalist
> > islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members.
>
> You aren't there at all, dimwit. You're not even brave enough to post
> with your real name.
Nobody uses their real names on internet, but mine is Marc Michalik if that
makes you feel better.
> Iraq was not a radical fundamentalist Islamic
> state, although with the instability there now it may well become one.
> Saudi Arabia is. So is Kuwait. Why aren't 'you' fighting in those
> countries?
Because we are not at war with any one country. We are at war with radical
fundamentalist islam which emenates from that region. Iraq is the center of
that region, so we need it as a base of operations from which to fight the
war. Just look at a map, it's pretty simple to understand. From Iraq we
can send our forces into any nation in the region in order to destroy
radical fundamentalist islam throughout the region. We will be fighting in
those countries, but we obviously need a base from which to do that. Iraq
is that base. It's so obvious, I'm still amazed that nobody seems to get
this.
> > We won't be
> > leaving until one of those two goals have been achieved. That's what
> > happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
> > re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The
choice is
> > entirely yours.
>
> Why not put it back in your pants and admit that 'you'd' love to leave,
> but can't figure out how 'you' can do that conveniently?
Leave? But the war hasn't even started yet. We haven't even finished
establishing the base from which to fight the war yet. You seem to be under
some delusion that Iraq is the whole war. Iraq is a very, very small part
of the whole war. Iran's radical fundamentalist government must be replaced
with a government willing to cooperate in the war on terror. Syria must
surrender. We are just getting started. Leaving is the last thing on
anyone's mind, we won't be leaving until after we've won the war. And, like
they said right from the beginning, "that is likely to take ten years or
more".
Nobody is even thinking of leaving, we are just getting started. Leaving
would be like landing on the Normandy beaches only to turn around and get
back on the boats and go back to England. What sense would that make?
Iraq is just a beachhead. It's not the war, it's only one battle.
Surrender or die, you have no other option.
00:00:00Hg
> Iraq is the
> center of that region,
Nope. Kuwait.
Robt. Miller
It's all about choice!
--
(o< |)
//\ ..may the beacon /\obt.
V_/_ pass you by.. /\/\iller
6:23pm up 49 days, 18:04, 20 users, load average: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00
processes 1430020
Eric®
> > You aren't there at all, dimwit. You're not even brave enough to post
> > with your real name.
> Nobody uses their real names on internet, but mine is Marc Michalik if that
> makes you feel better.
It clarifies things. Plenty of people use their real names, me
included. I apologize for the "dimwit" reference.
> > Iraq was not a radical fundamentalist Islamic
> > state, although with the instability there now it may well become one.
> > Saudi Arabia is. So is Kuwait. Why aren't 'you' fighting in those
> > countries?
> Because we are not at war with any one country. We are at war with radical
> fundamentalist islam which emenates from that region. Iraq is the center of
> that region, so we need it as a base of operations from which to fight the
> war. Just look at a map, it's pretty simple to understand. From Iraq we
> can send our forces into any nation in the region in order to destroy
> radical fundamentalist islam throughout the region. We will be fighting in
> those countries, but we obviously need a base from which to do that. Iraq
> is that base. It's so obvious, I'm still amazed that nobody seems to get
> this.
I thought the war against Iraq (which you claim is not a war in its own)
was to root out Saddam's 'weapons of mass destruction'. Well, there
were no WMD's, and Saddam is now a pathetic creature in a jail cell.
But the war goes on, regardless. The US and its pathetic 'allies' are
now fighting against and killing the same Islamic crazies Saddam did.
The US already has a 'base' - in the crazy Islamofascist countries it
has long befriended - like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (the biggest
sponsor for Islamic-grounded terrorism in the world). US intervention
in these countries only strengthens the arm of radical Islamists. The
US would never think of invading Iran, for example, where the people are
trying to create a more moderate state on their own, and where US troops
would be slaughtered in the tens of thousands.
Your suggestion that the US is intending to stay in Iraq and use it as a
base of operations is new to me.
> > Why not put it back in your pants and admit that 'you'd' love to leave,
> > but can't figure out how 'you' can do that conveniently?
> Leave? But the war hasn't even started yet. We haven't even finished
> establishing the base from which to fight the war yet. You seem to be under
> some delusion that Iraq is the whole war. Iraq is a very, very small part
> of the whole war. Iran's radical fundamentalist government must be replaced
> with a government willing to cooperate in the war on terror. Syria must
> surrender. We are just getting started. Leaving is the last thing on
> anyone's mind, we won't be leaving until after we've won the war. And, like
> they said right from the beginning, "that is likely to take ten years or
> more".
> Nobody is even thinking of leaving, we are just getting started. Leaving
> would be like landing on the Normandy beaches only to turn around and get
> back on the boats and go back to England. What sense would that make?
> Iraq is just a beachhead. It's not the war, it's only one battle.
> Surrender or die, you have no other option.
Is that what you tell American taxpayers?
Kavik Kang
> Kavik Kang wrote:
> > Because we are not at war with any one country. We are at war with
radical
> > fundamentalist islam which emenates from that region. Iraq is the
center of
> > that region, so we need it as a base of operations from which to fight
the
> > war. Just look at a map, it's pretty simple to understand. From Iraq
we
> > can send our forces into any nation in the region in order to destroy
> > radical fundamentalist islam throughout the region. We will be fighting
in
> > those countries, but we obviously need a base from which to do that.
Iraq
> > is that base. It's so obvious, I'm still amazed that nobody seems to
get
> > this.
>
> I thought the war against Iraq (which you claim is not a war in its own)
> was to root out Saddam's 'weapons of mass destruction'. Well, there
> were no WMD's, and Saddam is now a pathetic creature in a jail cell.
> But the war goes on, regardless. The US and its pathetic 'allies' are
> now fighting against and killing the same Islamic crazies Saddam did.
Then you, like most people, were carried away by the media and their
obsession with WMDs. It was "a" reason for invading Iraq, but not "the"
reason. It was a big deal, because Saddam could and would supply such
weapons to terrorists for us against the US. But it was only one of many,
many reasons for invading Iraq. The primary reason was always to establish
a base of operations in the region from which to fight the war on terror.
> The US already has a 'base' - in the crazy Islamofascist countries it
> has long befriended - like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (the biggest
> sponsor for Islamic-grounded terrorism in the world). US intervention
> in these countries only strengthens the arm of radical Islamists. The
> US would never think of invading Iran, for example, where the people are
> trying to create a more moderate state on their own, and where US troops
> would be slaughtered in the tens of thousands.
Neither of those countries are ideal bases from which to threaten the entire
region. Iraq is. And who says we won't invade Iran? Iran is the primary
target in the war on terror. They will cooperate fully or their government
will be replaced. That is the war on terror. Since the wackos actually run
Iran, they will probably refuse to cooperate, be invaded, and have their
government replaced with people who will cooperate in the war on terror.
Iran is actually trying to create long range nuclear missiles, by this time
next year either Iran will be following our orders to the letter or they
will be invaded. What makes you think we would never invade Iran? It has
always been the primary target in the war on terror. And what makes you
think defeating Iran will be any more difficult than defeating Iraq? Both
are equally incapable of resisting a US invasion. Iran is likely to be much
easier than Iraq, because we are likely to have many more of the Iranians on
our side. You don't even know what thje war on terror is, do you? You
think we just went into Iraq for no reason, don't you?
> Your suggestion that the US is intending to stay in Iraq and use it as a
> base of operations is new to me.
It's obviously the only reason for being there.
> > > Why not put it back in your pants and admit that 'you'd' love to
leave,
> > > but can't figure out how 'you' can do that conveniently?
>
> > Leave? But the war hasn't even started yet. We haven't even finished
> > establishing the base from which to fight the war yet. You seem to be
under
> > some delusion that Iraq is the whole war. Iraq is a very, very small
part
> > of the whole war. Iran's radical fundamentalist government must be
replaced
> > with a government willing to cooperate in the war on terror. Syria must
> > surrender. We are just getting started. Leaving is the last thing on
> > anyone's mind, we won't be leaving until after we've won the war. And,
like
> > they said right from the beginning, "that is likely to take ten years or
> > more".
>
> > Nobody is even thinking of leaving, we are just getting started.
Leaving
> > would be like landing on the Normandy beaches only to turn around and
get
> > back on the boats and go back to England. What sense would that make?
> > Iraq is just a beachhead. It's not the war, it's only one battle.
> > Surrender or die, you have no other option.
>
> Is that what you tell American taxpayers?
I don't tell them anything, I'm just a regular citizen. This is actully
what they've been saying right from the beginning.
Remember...
"You are either on our side or the terrorists and every nation must choose."
or
"This war is likely to take ten years or more."
Those are just two examples. When they said the first one it was directed
at muslim nations of the middle east, letting them know they had a choice
between being our ally or being our enemy. When they said the second one
they were letting the American people know that the war would last a very
long time. Everything they have said right from the beginning makes it
obvious what we are doing.
John Keller
news:cNxjd.20573$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Nobody uses their real names on internet, but mine is Marc Michalik if
> that
> makes you feel better.
Jew. No one wonder you hate Arabs.
Time for Pissrael to give up ITS weapons of mass destruction.
John Keller
> That's what
> happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
> re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The choice
> is
> entirely yours.
You actually believe this, since you're a psychotic.
All the countries of the world will not continue to stand for Bush's
madness, especially
when he attacks Iran.
Some country...or a group of them...are going to fight back, and the
Washington Criminals
can't stop nuclear weapons.
Bush Wax
regarding Iraq. I disagree with some of your tough-guy talk since fighting
a war is a lot easier when you are just typing behind a keyboard. Clearly
you aren't worried about having to serve in this mess and hence it's easy to
move the theater to all the hot spots. I also disagree with how this war
was sold and how the reasons continuously change - from WMDs to wanting to
implement a democracy in a country that couldn't care less. WMDs were the
hook that most could get behind, spreading democracy would have been a hard
sell for waging war of this magnitude. Keep in mind for very little money
the US could have completely shut Iraq from the rest of the world until it
was in total compliance with every American demand. This would have be easy
to accomplished after of 9-11 and no one would have balked.
As for continuing the war on terror into Iran, this too seems a little far
fetched. Keep in mind 8000 poorly armed 'insurgents' with little or no
communications and coordination are keeping a force of 140,000 vastly
out-equiped troops completely occupied with a pretty steady fatality rate.
It remains to be seen if the upcoming show of force will tone down the
problem in Faluja and in the rest of the country. We have been told by this
administration that peace is around the corner at least a dozen times, from
they will welcome us with open arms, Mission Accomplished, after we rebuild
Iraq, after we take control of Basara, after we get Sadam, after we get
Zarqawi, and after we transfer control to the Iraqi interim government. The
next holy grail is the upcomming election in January.
Keep in mind that a group of approximately 200 terrorized the entire country
of Italy for 10 years a couple of years ago. There are probably that many
Muslims sneaking into Iraq every day wanting to rid the US in anyway
possible. To date Israel has not figured out how to stop the violence which
seems to strike at will and only grows stronger the more they isolate
themselves.
It is unlikely that the US can go into Iran unless it reinstitutes a draft
and Bush has painted himself into a corner on that issue. Going into Iran
will be far costlier than the current operations in Iraq and will play right
into Osama's hand of slowly bankrupting the country one war at a time, just
like Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union.
We may think we are cowboys and nobody messes with the US, but Iran has had
time to learn from Sadam's mistakes. Their military has not been destroyed
in the last ten years and confined under sanctions. The US may be able to
win the air war, but Iran is unlikely to just rollover like Iraq did. The
US can't even manufacture enough bullets to fight the 8000 insurgents in
Iraq, let alone supply the armored vehicles or body armor. America armed
forces are ill-equiped for what amounts to hand-to-hand combat - the modern
day warfare for which it did not prepare. The a Muslim faith, he is
willing to die for his cause, whereas today's American kid has this
mentality only when he plays Nintendo. As proof, witness how the Army is
unable to recruit at levels even to replace current attrition. I don't have
the answers, but more wars and continuing the Iraq war seems to be futile.
B. Wax
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Kavik Kang
"John Keller" <johnf***keller2...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_JCjd.18994$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
That's pretty paranoid of you. I'm half-Italian and half-Austrian, but
really I'm just American, I know little of "the old countries" where my
great grandparents came from.
And Isreal doesn't need to give up anything, they are not at war with us:-)
Kavik Kang
Who's nuclear weapons? Russia isn't going to destroy the world over radical
fundamentalist islamic wackos. They started a war with us, there only
options now are to surrender unconditionally or be destroyed. We told the
world how we would respond to such an attack for over 50 years, it's not
like this is a new idea or anything. The only criminals are those who
attacked us, and those who support them. We are in the process of rounding
them up right now. The best thing would be for all muslim governments to
make a sincere and serious effort to wipe out radical fundamentalist islam
within their borders, both through police efforts and public information
campaigns. Any nation that does that will be our ally, and not our enemy,
and will therefore be assisted without any of our forces entering their
nation (economically, etc). The nations that refuse to do this become our
enemy, and we must enter their country and wipe out radical fundamentalist
islam ourselves. We didn't start this war, they did. Maybe now you're
starting to see why the US leads the NATO alliance and is the nation the
world looks too for global security. The only real option is surrender and
full cooperation, they can't possibly defeat us.
Harkhof
> "Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cNxjd.20573$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> Nobody uses their real names on internet, but mine is Marc Michalik if
>> that
>> makes you feel better.
>
> Jew. No one wonder you hate Arabs.
Liberal. No wonder you hate Jews.
> Time for Pissrael to give up ITS weapons of mass destruction.
Or else what?
Steven Hook
Former Senator William Fullbright succinctly expressed the type of
leadership we need: "The age of warrior kings and of warrior presidents has
passed. The nuclear age calls for a different kind of leadership....a
leadership of intellect, judgment, tolerance and rationality, a leadership
committed to human values, to world peace, and to the improvement of the
human condition. The attributes upon which we must draw are the human
attributes of compassion and common sense, of intellect and creative
imagination, and of empathy and understanding between cultures."
Please tell me, when were you attacked by the men, women and children of
Iraq?
Your fundamentalism and authoritarian, violent attitude will only lead to
instability, an increase in "Anti American Sentiment" and terrorist attacks
on the USA.
When you've finished your campaign of racist genocide, what will you do
next; start attacking any country with an Arabic citizen?
People like you ought to be locked in little cages and beaten periodically
like the POW's you hold.
"One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly,
is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust,"
-- Mandela
waym...@sbcglobal.net
isreal from the Palastinans and gave it to the jew do your homework sport
before you spout off
sinpac
"Steven Hook" <sh...@NOTbowens.co.za> wrote in message
news:cmnv5b$783$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
00:00:00Hg
> I guess you forgot when the u.s..a and britian stole the land that is now
> isreal from the Palastinans and gave it to the jew do your homework sport
> before you spout off
You need to do your homework.
Your view is totally distorted.
Don
>"Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message "EricŽ" <er...@hardknocks.edu> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bf86151...@news.telus.net...
> > Kavik Kang wrote:
> > > Because we are not at war with any one country. We are at war with
> radical
> > > fundamentalist islam which emenates from that region. Iraq is the
> center of
> > > that region, so we need it as a base of operations from which to fight
> the
> > > war. Just look at a map, it's pretty simple to understand. From Iraq
snip.....
> What makes you think we would never invade Iran? It has
> always been the primary target in the war on terror. And what makes you
> think defeating Iran will be any more difficult than defeating Iraq? Both
> are equally incapable of resisting a US invasion. Iran is likely to be much
> easier than Iraq, because we are likely to have many more of the Iranians on
> our side. You don't even know what thje war on terror is, do you? You
> think we just went into Iraq for no reason, don't you?
So, when we invade Iran, it should take less than six months, the
Iranians will greet us as liberators, at least half our troops will be
home in less than a year, it won't cost us that much as Iran oil money
will pay for the reconstruction, and Iran will become a fledgling
democracy and a beacon of hope for the rest of the oppressed, Arab
world. Where have I heard that before...seems like it was on Meet the
Press just before the invasion of Iraq.
And you accuse other people of ignorance? That's a laugh.
dr
ps: In an interview today, Rumsfield stated that taking Fallujah
would cost very few innocent civilian lives. We'll soon find out
whether this current prediction holds up any better than some of his
previous ones.
se...@sentinal.smokegroup.net
I wonder how many Iranians remember back when they had a democracy that was
brought down by the US.
> dr
>
> ps: In an interview today, Rumsfield stated that taking Fallujah
> would cost very few innocent civilian lives. We'll soon find out
> whether this current prediction holds up any better than some of his
> previous ones.
Simple: make certain that a weapon is found nearish every corpse and voila!
they were all "enemy combatants"...even that toddler with the hand grenade.
Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu
"Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> writes:
> "~ CHlMPY the 0IL NAZI ~" <ev...@WHlTEHOUSE.GOV> wrote in message
> news:1099857626.fP/elh70Emwv7ovryPU4kg@teranews...
>> instead of shootin' little kids for oil...
>
> You already have, it's just that your primative armies fall so quickly that
> it's hard to even remember. We crushed Iraq's army twice. It takes us
> about 4-6 weeks to completely anihilate the army of a tiny little primative
> country, you've seen it twice now you pathetic little worm.
>
> We aren't shooting little kids, or unarmed women. We aren't there for the
Yes you are. And you are killing their fathers, sons and husbands, as well.
> oil. We are there to force the surrender of all radical fundamentalist
> islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members. We won't be
Good luck. I think you're in trouble. Still don't got that sock-puppet
Osama.
> leaving until one of those two goals have been achieved. That's what
> happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
> re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The choice is
> entirely yours.
You should read what Sherman had to say about Custer. The folks you're
poundin' on now are the local equivalent of "mellon-growers". The "Souix"
are waiting in the mountains to the North and East of you. And those ones
made a footstool out of a Roman Emperor.
Dhu
>
>
--
***********************************************
All persons named herein are purely fictional victims
of the Canidian Bagle Breader's Association.
Save the Bagle!
Sun Šhu
***********************************************
Kavik Kang
"Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu" <camp...@babayaga.neotext.ca> wrote in
message news:WbTjd.153969$%k.44125@pd7tw2no...
> In article <wPwjd.20527$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > "~ CHlMPY the 0IL NAZI ~" <ev...@WHlTEHOUSE.GOV> wrote in message
> > news:1099857626.fP/elh70Emwv7ovryPU4kg@teranews...
> >> instead of shootin' little kids for oil...
> >
> > You already have, it's just that your primative armies fall so quickly
that
> > it's hard to even remember. We crushed Iraq's army twice. It takes us
> > about 4-6 weeks to completely anihilate the army of a tiny little
primative
> > country, you've seen it twice now you pathetic little worm.
> >
> > We aren't shooting little kids, or unarmed women. We aren't there for
the
>
> Yes you are. And you are killing their fathers, sons and husbands, as
well.
American soldiers don't intentionally shoot unarmed women and children, so
we are not. If they point a gun at us, then they get shot. Unintentional
civilian casualties happen, but US soldiers are not shooting unarmed women
and children. If there fathers and husbands are resisting us, then yep, we
sure are killing them. And we'll keep doing it until we win, too.
> > oil. We are there to force the surrender of all radical fundamentalist
> > islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members. We won't be
>
> Good luck. I think you're in trouble. Still don't got that sock-puppet
> Osama.
That's because you don't even understand what is going on. You think Iraq
is the war. Iraq is just a base.
> > leaving until one of those two goals have been achieved. That's what
> > happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
> > re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The
choice is
> > entirely yours.
>
> You should read what Sherman had to say about Custer. The folks you're
> poundin' on now are the local equivalent of "mellon-growers". The "Souix"
> are waiting in the mountains to the North and East of you. And those ones
> made a footstool out of a Roman Emperor.
>
This isn't the old west. I'm not making this stuff up. Attacking the US is
the worst thing anyone can do. They have only two choices now, surrender or
die. We will never waver in our determination to see this through. Even
John Kerry would have continued with the current plan once he was briefed
and understood the situation. Surrender or die, those are their only
options. All radical fundamentalist islamic groups, wherever they may be.
They've been telling the world exactly what they are doing right from the
beginning, nobody is listening too them.
catchmerevisited
at Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/7/04 7:03 PM:
>
THe following edited parapgraph demonstrates how the reverse can ALSO be
true:
> And who says we won't invade US? US is the primary
> target in the war on terror. They will cooperate fully or their government
> will be replaced. That is the war on terror. Since the wackos actually run
> US, they will probably refuse to cooperate, be invaded, and have their
> government replaced with people who will cooperate in the war on terror.
> US is actually trying to create more long range nuclear missiles, by this time
> next year either US will be following our orders to the letter or they
> will be invaded. What makes you think we would never invade US? It has
> always been the primary target in the war on terror. And what makes you
> think defeating US will be difficult?
> You don't even know what thje war on terror is, do you?
>
>>
>> Is that what you tell American taxpayers?
>
> I don't tell them anything, I'm just a regular citizen. This is actully
> what they've been saying right from the beginning.
>
> Remember...
>
> "You are either on our side or the terrorists and every nation must choose."
Terrorism is a tool of dictators, and a diktat such as your quote came from
such.
Bush is NO FRIEND of the Americans' traditional Allies. Were it not for the
fact my wife will soon need a cheap truck, I would boycott all things US
made- and I know how much your economy needs their export goods to be
purchased.
>
> Those are just two examples. When they said the first one it was directed
> at muslim nations of the middle east, letting them know they had a choice
> between being our ally or being our enemy. When they said the second one
> they were letting the American people know that the war would last a very
> long time. Everything they have said right from the beginning makes it
> obvious what we are doing.
>
>
threatening an ally "If you're not with us, you're against us".
everything Bush has said, made it crystal clear the terrorist is the one
making the threats.
Osama, in admitting to staging 9/11, cited an enduring of US exploiting
Afghanistan as the reason- something that we Canadians have more than our
fair share of in dealing with "Fair Trade" with Americans.
At least we can be thankful that American corporations don't merely steal
our resources, and actually negotiate with our Government and purchase them.
Too convenient for you to wilfully not "recognise" Afghanistan's Governance.
Steven Hook
Palasinians?
<waym...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GzPjd.3235$TM1....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Steven Hook
>
> "Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu" <camp...@babayaga.neotext.ca> wrote in
> message news:WbTjd.153969$%k.44125@pd7tw2no...
> > In article <wPwjd.20527$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > "~ CHlMPY the 0IL NAZI ~" <ev...@WHlTEHOUSE.GOV> wrote in message
> > > news:1099857626.fP/elh70Emwv7ovryPU4kg@teranews...
> > >> instead of shootin' little kids for oil...
> > >
> > > You already have, it's just that your primative armies fall so quickly
> that
> > > it's hard to even remember. We crushed Iraq's army twice. It takes
us
> > > about 4-6 weeks to completely anihilate the army of a tiny little
> primative
> > > country, you've seen it twice now you pathetic little worm.
> > >
> > > We aren't shooting little kids, or unarmed women. We aren't there for
> the
> >
> > Yes you are. And you are killing their fathers, sons and husbands, as
> well.
>
> American soldiers don't intentionally shoot unarmed women and children, so
> we are not. If they point a gun at us, then they get shot. Unintentional
> civilian casualties happen, but US soldiers are not shooting unarmed women
> and children. If there fathers and husbands are resisting us, then yep,
we
> sure are killing them. And we'll keep doing it until we win, too.
so when timothy mcveigh killed all those kids "unintentionally" he can't be
held responsable for it, he was trying to kill only government officials.
> > > oil. We are there to force the surrender of all radical
fundamentalist
> > > islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members. We won't be
> >
> > Good luck. I think you're in trouble. Still don't got that
sock-puppet
> > Osama.
>
> That's because you don't even understand what is going on. You think Iraq
> is the war. Iraq is just a base.
Unfortunately, that might be the case, in which case the whole world is in
terrible trouble! there are even "radical fundamentalist islamic groups" in
the USA, what will you do, bomb your own cities, shoot your own women and
children. you really have NO forsight and NO humanity in you.
> > > leaving until one of those two goals have been achieved. That's what
> > > happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
> > > re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The
> choice is
> > > entirely yours.
> >
> > You should read what Sherman had to say about Custer. The folks you're
> > poundin' on now are the local equivalent of "mellon-growers". The
"Souix"
> > are waiting in the mountains to the North and East of you. And those
ones
> > made a footstool out of a Roman Emperor.
> >
>
> This isn't the old west. I'm not making this stuff up. Attacking the US
is
> the worst thing anyone can do. They have only two choices now, surrender
or
> die. We will never waver in our determination to see this through. Even
> John Kerry would have continued with the current plan once he was briefed
> and understood the situation. Surrender or die, those are their only
> options. All radical fundamentalist islamic groups, wherever they may be.
> They've been telling the world exactly what they are doing right from the
> beginning, nobody is listening too them.
Racist
Kavik Kang
"catchmerevisited" <catchmerev...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:BDB59953.C7B6%catchmerev...@yahoo.ca...
> in article 0mBjd.8418$O11....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Kavik
Kang
> at Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/7/04 7:03 PM:
>
> everything Bush has said, made it crystal clear the terrorist is the one
> making the threats.
We weren't threatening our ally's, we were letting the muslim nations know
the situation that they were in.
Kavik Kang
Timothy McViegh was a terrorist and we executed him. We are at war with the
people who attacked us. A war and a lunatics act of terrorism have nothing
to do with each other.
> > > > oil. We are there to force the surrender of all radical
> fundamentalist
> > > > islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members. We won't
be
> > >
> > > Good luck. I think you're in trouble. Still don't got that
> sock-puppet
> > > Osama.
> >
> > That's because you don't even understand what is going on. You think
Iraq
> > is the war. Iraq is just a base.
>
> Unfortunately, that might be the case, in which case the whole world is in
> terrible trouble! there are even "radical fundamentalist islamic groups"
in
> the USA, what will you do, bomb your own cities, shoot your own women and
> children. you really have NO forsight and NO humanity in you.
Those groups in our country are shunned as pathetic freaks, kind of like the
KKK, so they aren't a problem. All we are doing is winning the war that
these people started with us. I can't believe that people would start a war
with someone, and then complain that we were killing people and taking their
land. That's kind of what a war is. If they don't like it, they shouldn't
start wars.
There's nothing racist about wanting my side to win the war. I like all
people. I'm a big Star Trek fan, ask around, we are notoriously not
racist:-)
Dragon5126
"EricŽ" <er...@hardknocks.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bf84f78e...@news.telus.net...
know all the facts. Your little quote you attribute to the CDC even supports
my statement. Airline Industry SPOKESMEN made the statement citing a STUDY
by the CDC about the weight of the average American. You Imply that all
Americans are fat yet you do not reference the fact that the American
insurance industry has had to modify it's actuarial tables to be based on
measured body fat since so many Americans have put on so much weight in pure
muscle. As you have been told before you have the right to be wrong in your
opinion but not your facts.
Dragon5126
<se...@sentinal.smokegroup.net> wrote in message
news:slrncor4e...@sentinal.smokegroup.net...> >>"Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message "EricŽ"
NO Iranian remembers a democracy in Iran. it has through out recorded
history ALWAYS been a THEOCRACY, or to put it in plain words, governed by a
religious sect and not by the people. As far as Fallujah, the innocent
civilians have either left long ago or have already been murdered by the
insurgent terrorists.
You people need to do a bit of research, and know what you are being told
about. people like you are why Americans are stereotyped across the world as
ignorant.
Dragon5126
"catchmerevisited" <catchmerev...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:BDB59953.C7B6%catchmerev...@yahoo.ca...
States your economy would be nonexistent. Just look at the exchange rates.
And further as a tax payer in the United States I am getting sick and tired
of sending FREE MONEY north of the border to support a country that has
pushed themselves so far north that the majority of it's land holdings are
productive for less than three months. Thanks to the begging and pleading of
your government our government subsidized your lumber industry brining
canadian wood into the US, putting hundreds of thousands of US citizens out
of work. So stop your whining Canuk, the only time your country has done
anything was when it was paid.
Dragon5126
words of Allah (who I might point out respected Christ and revered him as a
profit and as such anyone acting against Christ's followers are acting
directly against Allah), have performed acts of terrorism against other
countries as well. Remember Spain? or what about the Russian School
Children? What countries do they think would shed a tear if that section of
the middle east was turned to glass? Particularly when you consider how many
acts of terrorism they have undertaken against nations that have Nukes? It
is only through RESPECT for human life that is held by western cultures that
the middle east has been allowed to get this bad.
Dragon5126
attributes upon which we must draw are the human
> attributes of compassion and common sense, of intellect and creative
> imagination, and of empathy and understanding between cultures."
>
> Please tell me, when were you attacked by the men, women and children of
> Iraq?
>
> Your fundamentalism and authoritarian, violent attitude will only lead to
> instability, an increase in "Anti American Sentiment" and terrorist
attacks
> on the USA.
> When you've finished your campaign of racist genocide, what will you do
> next; start attacking any country with an Arabic citizen?
> People like you ought to be locked in little cages and beaten periodically
> like the POW's you hold.
>
> "One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think
properly,
> is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust,"
> -- Mandela
>
>
compassion and common sense" The United States of America helped overthrow a
monarchy that was guilty of grievous crimes against humanity. In that action
We helped put Saddam Hussein in power. Years Later he became much more, for
lack of a better word, evil than his predecessor. In the time in-between we
had supplied him with a massive stockpile of weapons, a breeder reactor for
electrical power,and numerous other items that could have easily served
multiple purposes. Over the last three administrations we have seen
Hussein show aggression and attack another nation, violate the terms of his
surrender multiple times and violate the terms imposed by the UN. Finally
our government gave the UN a deadline to act or we would as it was OUR
pilots and planes who were enforcing the nofly zone and no one else's. It
was these pilots and planes that were being shot at daily, yet the UN did
not act, Even though the US supplies 3/4 of the UN's fighting equipment,
over half of it's operating budget and almost 2/3 of it's troops although
they do not wear UN blue (these facts are easily proven and sources are not
quoted for the sake of brevity of an already too long statement). The
deadline came and went and we went into Iraq, not as part of the war on
terror as so many want to think but to put an end to genocide, massive
torture, to end the murder and rape squads, to set right a wrong we had
created whether anyone would admit it or not. As far as the WMD? Are there
any first year college physics students out there? A primitive Gun type
atomic bomb is very easy to build, when we went in to Iraq, we found several
tons of enriched uranium at the nonfunctioning reactor, But the press gave
it a paragraph. After all it was at a reactor. Iraq also had some very
sophisticated machining equipment in their industrial sector. Time Magazine
even had it on it's cover: we found the Iraqi Air force buried in the
desert... planes obtained after we destroyed their air force the last time
around and that the UN declared didn't exist. Most recently was it 250 to
300 tons of high explosive that were found missing and unaccounted for?
Ladies and gentlemen. a block of enriched uranium the size of a man's fist
driven by a high explosive charge into approximately one ton of enriched
uranium is what took out Hiroshima and a smaller version decimated
Nagasaki. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror until first the
press told everyone so many times that it did that people started to believe
them, but secondly and more importantly it DID BECOME PART OF THE WAR ON
TERROR when the terrorists started flooding over Iraq's borders to get in on
the fight.
The war on terrorism isn't about right or wrong , it's about protecting the
innocent, no matter what their beliefs are.
Dragon5126
was property of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE and gave it to the UK to administrate
not to the US. Do some homework and you will find that it wasn't until the
early 1900's that Palestine started to claim any land as prior to that they
were a nomadic people... in short the only claim they had to the land was
thousands of years earlier before they became a nomadic people. HOWEVER
this does NOT excuse the HOLOCAUST the Palestinians are suffering at the
hands of the Jews who demand that every year the world remember the
holocaust they went through. In my eyes Israeli Jew translates to "terminal
hypocrite"
Dragon5126
tactically sound. The environment does not allow for safe deployment of
aircraft due to wind and sand. The heat creates MAJOR issues on storing
fuel... why do you think the only oil refined in the middle east is for use
in the middle east? Next it is a single point of operations, not practical
to support operations to other countries, to use it as a permanent base is
something no world power would do or has ever done as it is useless as
anything but that SINGLE point of operations as it has no tactical use for
deployment to any other country in the region since our aircraft could be
targeted the very second they broke the horizon, and remember much less than
one tenth of our battle aircraft use stealth technology, and those do not
operate at low levels or are capable of deploying troops. Don't forget what
it took for us to establish a ground force there, and the logistical
problems we are having keeping them supplied. One of the supply units at
this base stateside is suffering worse burn out trying to keep our ground
troops supplied than most of the ground troops themselves.news:3WXjd.21694$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Dragon5126
history or more importantly our constitution? The part you need to concern
yourself with is the second amendment. You Really need to read it... you see
only once in history has the continental United States been attacked, and
even though it took thousands of lives it still was only an attack on two
buildings and three airplanes. One of those planes totally missed it's mark
because the passengers had enough time to fight back. A distant cousin of
mine was on that plane, he called his wife to say good bye before he took
part in the attack on the terrorists controlling the plane. How many
scenarios with that type of attack against the US do you think terrorists
could pull? They would have to go ONE ON ONE on the ground and that is where
you need to know why the United States has never been invaded. Our soldiers
are issued two fire arms at most. Right now, in the year 2004 the average
ownership of firearms in the US just over 2 firearms per PERSON. Now lets
break that down for you. three out of five households have a minimum of one
firearm in them. two out of four have more than one. Over half of all
Americans will not stand idly by and do nothing and of those well over half
were militarily trained. An even larger number of Americans are hunters and
let me tell you about hunting. It is an American tradition shared by city
dwellers, suburbanites and country folk alike... we may blast each other
over music and lifestyles but put a gun in our hands an send us to hunting
camp and we are blood. But even more, hunting is handed down from generation
to generation and my generations offspring, both sons and daughters have
"blooded themselves on the hunt". They understand respect for the game but
more importantly they understand the term "kill to live". There is no
fighting force in the world that would risk a ground attack on the United
States because they simply would not have a fighting force large enough to
withstand the potential losses. That's why the terrorist attack against the
US on 9/11 was cowardly and suicidal, because no matter what they knew they
would die.
Cosmic00
stead of shootin' little kids for oil...
>
> You already have, it's just that your primative armies fall so quickly that
> it's hard to even remember. We crushed Iraq's army twice. It takes us
> about 4-6 weeks to completely anihilate the army of a tiny little primative
> country, you've seen it twice now you pathetic little worm.
>
> We aren't shooting little kids, or unarmed women. We aren't there for the
> islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members. We won't be
> happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
> re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The choice is
> entirely yours.
What choice?!
First of all, Iraq was one of the more secular nations in the
Middle-East.
What gives the right for the US to shape nations to it's liking?
Why are all the people in Iraq going to pay for an attack on 9/11,
that had NOTHING to do with them?
Lastly, if you are American, your ideas are much more anti-american
than even the terrorists you hate so much. The writers of the
Constitution would lock you and your monkey politicians up if you
lived in their time, your ideas violate the very core liberty and
justice.
It's funny how the people that defend the US War actions so
vigorously, ironically enough, call people like me anti-american.
Perhaps they should read the founding letters of the US. What they
seek is more of a fascism than a democracy.
-cos
catchmerevisited
Drago...@REMOVEwi.rr.com wrote on 11/9/04 12:53 AM:
>>
> Hey MENTALLY DEFICIENT CANUK, face the FACTS! If it wasn't for the United
> States your economy would be nonexistent. Just look at the exchange rates.
> And further as a tax payer in the United States I am getting sick and tired
> of sending FREE MONEY north of the border to support a country that has
> pushed themselves so far north that the majority of it's land holdings are
> productive for less than three months. Thanks to the begging and pleading of
> your government our government subsidized your lumber industry brining
> canadian wood into the US, putting hundreds of thousands of US citizens out
> of work. So stop your whining Canuk, the only time your country has done
> anything was when it was paid.
>
>
*snicker* you believe that trash you just regurgitated?
heya lackluster yank, doncha know our government sued yours three times
using NAFTA inre: the softwood dispute- and WON!
And STILL you crooks won't give up.
the truth is, we produce lumber cheaper up here b/c we have more of it- and
at a slightly lower dollar value that until now has been our benefit (b/c
your dollar is dropping in comparison to ours, the advantage is diminishing)
US milling companies PREFER Canadian lumber, which US-based lumber companies
detest and levy tariffs for no legal reason.
why we don't sue your crazy asses is beyond me.
your government subsidizes your industry (favoritism) and the tariff is but
one example of its contravention of NAFTA.
for the record, *we* haven't pushed ourselves North- the eternal winter
doesn't begin at the 49th.
and you yankee fucks won't give up wanting Canada until we DO one day wake
up to find it begins at 54-40, the way you fucks wanted it from the start.
the only whiners are those in the South who want to be able to exploit our
resources at the same cost to them as if Canadian resources belonged to the
States.
Kavik Kang
"Dragon5126" <Drago...@REMOVEwi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:D%0kd.37304$ye4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Son, Iraq is just a TEMPORARY base of operations, anything else is just
not
> tactically sound. The environment does not allow for safe deployment of
> aircraft due to wind and sand. The heat creates MAJOR issues on storing
> fuel... why do you think the only oil refined in the middle east is for
use
> in the middle east? Next it is a single point of operations, not practical
> to support operations to other countries, to use it as a permanent base is
> something no world power would do or has ever done as it is useless as
> anything but that SINGLE point of operations as it has no tactical use for
> deployment to any other country in the region since our aircraft could be
> targeted the very second they broke the horizon, and remember much less
than
> one tenth of our battle aircraft use stealth technology, and those do not
> operate at low levels or are capable of deploying troops. Don't forget
what
> it took for us to establish a ground force there, and the logistical
> problems we are having keeping them supplied. One of the supply units at
> this base stateside is suffering worse burn out trying to keep our ground
> troops supplied than most of the ground troops themselves.
My main point in spending a week or so posting here is to try and get some
of these people to understand our actual position. Because it's so
depressing to watch so many on their side just go through every conspiracy
theory under the sun without ever coming close to getting anywhere near
reality. They don't even seem to have the same definition of "war" as we
do, and that means big, big trouble for everyone. I know posting in these
newsgroups won't change the world, but if I can succeed in getting just a
few people over there to consider that there is a good chance that what I am
saying is true, then at least something grounded in reality will be out
there in some way. I mean, my god, most of them seem to think we just want
to steal their oil! Their complaints about the war pretty much amount too
"We started a war with you and now you are killing us and taking our land,
how dare you!!!" which by our defenition of war makes so little sense that
it's actually a comical phrase. If things stay like this forever, the whole
world is in big trouble.
I'm no expert, but I've had a lifelong interest in history since the
beginning of WWII, the Cold War, and the conflicts we've fought since then.
Compared to an average person with little or no interest in this stuff, I
guess I am an expert from that perspective... but not really:-) But I think
that Iraq is just a base to threaten other nations in the region, and to
project force if needed. There is a concept from the Cold War called
"Finlandization", which basically means that a nation that borders a
superpower has no choice but to be friendly with that superpower. I believe
that the primary reason we are in Iraq is to "Finlandize" the region. By
projecting our power from Iraq, we essentially turn Iraq's borders into
American borders. Other nations in the region should, theoretically, be
more inclined to agree to our proposals once this situation has been
established (in other words, once Iraqi's are secruing Iraq and everyone
understands that most of our military are free to be deployed elsewhere). I
talk about invading several nations, most likely Iran and Syria first, but I
really only fear that an invasion of Iran is unavoidable since the radical
fundamentalists run Iran. I think after Iran all of the other governments
will fully understand the situation and decide to become our ally's and
fight against the radical fundamentalists through police activity and
education. I think that's the plan and that it has been the plan from the
very beginning. It's pretty much exactly what they told the world. Go back
and review all of the early statements from the administration, this seems
to be exactly what they are saying. That's where I got it from...
Kavik Kang
"Cosmic00" <cosmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6141e3b5.0411...@posting.google.com...
> "Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<wPwjd.20527$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> stead of shootin' little kids for oil...
> >
> > You already have, it's just that your primative armies fall so quickly
that
> > it's hard to even remember. We crushed Iraq's army twice. It takes us
> > about 4-6 weeks to completely anihilate the army of a tiny little
primative
> > country, you've seen it twice now you pathetic little worm.
> >
> > We aren't shooting little kids, or unarmed women. We aren't there for
the
> > oil. We are there to force the surrender of all radical fundamentalist
> > islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members. We won't be
> > leaving until one of those two goals have been achieved. That's what
> > happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
> > re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The
choice is
> > entirely yours.
>
> What choice?!
>
> First of all, Iraq was one of the more secular nations in the
> Middle-East.
>
> What gives the right for the US to shape nations to it's liking?
We were attacked. They started a war with us. We recognize who our
attackers are and where they are. That's what you do in a war, you take
their land and kill them until they give up.
> Why are all the people in Iraq going to pay for an attack on 9/11,
> that had NOTHING to do with them?
There are plenty of radical fundamentalists in Iraq. Look at a map, it's
the only place to start. They also tried to kill one of our presidents,
violated the cease fire provisions of the previous war, and wouldn't stop
shooting at our planes.
> Lastly, if you are American, your ideas are much more anti-american
> than even the terrorists you hate so much. The writers of the
> Constitution would lock you and your monkey politicians up if you
> lived in their time, your ideas violate the very core liberty and
> justice.
No they don't. These ideas are precisely what preserve our liberty and
justice. The founding fathers would be proud of us. We are adhering to the
surest path of having the least amount of war. We are acting in a manner
which will deter future attacks on our country. We are preserving global
peace and security. Churchill. Read lots and lots of Churchill.
> It's funny how the people that defend the US War actions so
> vigorously, ironically enough, call people like me anti-american.
> Perhaps they should read the founding letters of the US. What they
> seek is more of a fascism than a democracy.
>
I don't call you anti-American, I just think you don't understand part of
what America is.
Don
>catchmerevisited <catchmerev...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
Ha, ha, ha, I'd rather laugh than cry. The irony is that there is a
world, glut of timber.
dr
Don
>"Dragon5126" <Drago...@REMOVEwi.rr.com> wrote in message news:<an%jd.37018
I'm rusty on the subject and am not taking time to go back and do the
research, but, if I remember, at least the Shah, despite his despotic
tactics, which were not that different from his contemporaries at the
time, at least was trying to bring some modernization to Iran. And
also, I have a hard time seeing how the Iranian people were any worse
off than what they got next. Actually, I think they were better off
with the Shah.
Conservative estimate, at least 50,000 innocent civilians remaining
today in Fallujah. Latest reports indicate the uh, insurgents, or
whatever you choose to call them, maybe have left Fallujah, and have
gone to fight elsewhere. Since they had at least a weeks notice of
the US's intention to invade, that doesn't seem a bad decision on
their part. Although the uh, "insurgents" might have come out on top
on this one, in the long run, they're losing....one fewer place to
hide. And next time, it will be one more fewer, until finally, their
sorry butts will be cornered in one place, there won't be another
place to strategically retreat to, and their only choice will be to
surrender or stand and die. Give it a year at the most.
dr
Steven Hook
I agree that when attacked a country must retaliate, and yes, terrorists are
evil in the way they target the un-armed masses instead of fighting the real
war. War, even though it has its rightful place, however should be avoided
at all costs; NO person should ever have to suffer the grotesquities of war,
whether they be aggressors, defenders or civilians.
I've never read the second amendment, and only browsed the constitution.
My point in this discussion is that the USA was never attacked by Iraq, Iraq
never harboured terrorists or supported them, they didn't have WMDs (like
Hanz said) the only way I can justify the war in Iraq, in my mind, is either
racism or religious persecution. the way the war has played out, with so
many civilian casualties, with so many human rights abuses, with so many
hospitals, mosques and residential areas destroyed, the war is not an attack
on terrorists, but an attack on Iraq and it's people.
Iraq, has 25,374,691 (est) people, you spent $144,440,000,000 (guess) that's
$5,692 per Iraqi, @ 4 per household it's $22,769 a family. With that much,
in a 3rd world country, you could have bought them a new life! With that
much money, there must be better ways of killing terrorism!
catchmerevisited
Drago...@REMOVEwi.rr.com wrote on 11/9/04 1:08 AM:
the Russian incident has nothing to do with Moslems- and for the record, it
is not in the best interests of the nations at war with the Middle East, or
in Russia's case, the break-away republics of its former nation, to turn to
"glass" due to the oil which lies beneath.
dappa
> "~ CHlMPY the 0IL NAZI ~" <ev...@WHlTEHOUSE.GOV> wrote in message
> news:1099857626.fP/elh70Emwv7ovryPU4kg@teranews...
>
> You already have, it's just that your primative armies fall so quickly that
> it's hard to even remember. We crushed Iraq's army twice. It takes us
> about 4-6 weeks to completely anihilate the army of a tiny little primative
> country, you've seen it twice now you pathetic little worm.
>
> We aren't shooting little kids, or unarmed women. We aren't there for the
> oil. We are there to force the surrender of all radical fundamentalist
> islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members. We won't be
> happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
> re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The choice is
> entirely yours.
No, you are fighting an army which has had 10 years of UN santions,
and knew that Iraq had no mass weaponary.
If the US wanted to fight a war they would have gone after North Korea
who are always telling the Yanks where to go. But the US chooses to
"engage in dialogue" and we ALL!!! know why, Cos they can fight back.
dappa
I'll make an exception
Iraq didn't attack you dummy. A group of people did, mostly from
Saudi. That's right not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not Iran.
>
>
> > Why are all the people in Iraq going to pay for an attack on 9/11,
> > that had NOTHING to do with them?
>
> There are plenty of radical fundamentalists in Iraq. Look at a map, it's
> the only place to start. They also tried to kill one of our presidents,
> violated the cease fire provisions of the previous war, and wouldn't stop
> shooting at our planes.
That was before the sieze fire, dummy. Nothing wrong with being a
religious fundamentalist as long as it doesn't cause harm to others.
We have the pope in Italy and Bush in US.
>
>
> > Lastly, if you are American, your ideas are much more anti-american
> > than even the terrorists you hate so much. The writers of the
> > Constitution would lock you and your monkey politicians up if you
> > lived in their time, your ideas violate the very core liberty and
> > justice.
>
> No they don't. These ideas are precisely what preserve our liberty and
> justice. The founding fathers would be proud of us. We are adhering to the
> surest path of having the least amount of war. We are acting in a manner
> which will deter future attacks on our country. We are preserving global
> peace and security. Churchill. Read lots and lots of Churchill.
You are so so lost on this one. America is being RAPED by the
neo-cons. The people are losing their rights and civil liberties. US
has one of the worst records on Human rights, did you know that?
>
>
> > It's funny how the people that defend the US War actions so
> > vigorously, ironically enough, call people like me anti-american.
> > Perhaps they should read the founding letters of the US. What they
> > seek is more of a fascism than a democracy.
> >
>
> I don't call you anti-American, I just think you don't understand part of
> what America is.
I lived in America, California (for 4 years). I visited New York and
believe these states\parts of America are the brains of America. New
York suffered the 9/11 attacks yet the people of New York didn't vote
for the hardline war fighting, protecting the American people,
president. Why?
Cosmic00
>
> We were attacked. They started a war with us. We recognize who our
> attackers are and where they are. That's what you do in a war, you take
> There are plenty of radical fundamentalists in Iraq. Look at a map, it's
> the only place to start. They also tried to kill one of our presidents,
> violated the cease fire provisions of the previous war, and wouldn't stop
> shooting at our planes.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing.
Iraq shot at US planes, because the US kept flying them over Northern
Iraq to instigate Saddam. The US was basically acting like a bully.
Then Bush changed it around, and made it look as if Iraq was a threat.
The intelligence community knew very well that Iraq was NOT a threat.
The war was not only about oil, but about weapons contracts. Just
look up information on various websites regarding tanks and military
vehicles. Many of the companies and organizations are seeing this as
an excellent 'test' for American weaponary in real-life situations. I
am sorry to say, but you have been duped. You have been fooled into
thinking this war was just, but it was all about making rich people
richer. People that don't care about you, and they don't care about
me. I know it might be hard to accept, but the truth will eventually
come out.
>
>
> > Lastly, if you are American, your ideas are much more anti-american
> > than even the terrorists you hate so much. The writers of the
> > Constitution would lock you and your monkey politicians up if you
> > lived in their time, your ideas violate the very core liberty and
> > justice.
>
> No they don't. These ideas are precisely what preserve our liberty and
> justice. The founding fathers would be proud of us. We are adhering to the
> surest path of having the least amount of war. We are acting in a manner
> which will deter future attacks on our country. We are preserving global
> peace and security. Churchill. Read lots and lots of Churchill.
Churchill is not an American, his thoughts and speeches come from a
time that there was truly a threat, and his devotion to a statehood is
apparent from his reference to the 'british empire' and 'king'... Very
different from the liberty I am speaking of. Also, Germany was a
powerful force to be reckoned with, and actually proved to be a
challenge. If you are comparing a beaten-over-10-years Iraq with the
powerful German Nazi force of WW2, you are way off the mark.
Here's some quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
"The lamentable resource of war is not authorized for evils of
imagination, but for those actual injuries only which would be more
destructive of our well-being than war itself." -Thomas Jefferson
"Our fellow-citizens think they have a right to full information, in a
case of such great concernment to them. It is their sweat which is to
earn all the expenses of the war, and their blood which is to flow in
expiation of the causes of it. It may be in [our] power to save them
from these miseries by full communications and unrestrained details,
postponing motives of delicacy to those of duty." -Thomas Jefferson
"I opposed the right of the President to declare anything future on
the question, Shall there or shall there not be war?" -Thomas
Jefferson
>
> I don't call you anti-American, I just think you don't understand part of
> what America is.
Do you mean what it has become, or what it was supposed to be? What
America has become is very diferent from what it began as. I just
suggest that all Americans should be very skeptical of war being done
to protect us from 'future events'.
-cos
00:00:00Hg
> Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing.
Neither did your mother with your birth.
catchmerevisited
cosmi...@yahoo.com wrote on 11/10/04 7:17 AM:
i would also add that Churchill said shortly after the conclusion of WW2 "we
slaughtered the wrong pig".
This reference was made directly to Stalin and Roosevelt who were engaged in
banter as to how many Prussians Stalin might get away with killing before
angering Churchill.
i get a kick out of Americans quoting Churchill- they've no fucking idea.
Kavik Kang
"dappa" <mej...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47cd0a77.04111...@posting.google.com...
> I don't usually reply to stupid people (it's too much hard work) but
> I'll make an exception
It's even harder work to reply to smart people when you are so very wrong.
We were attacked by radical fundamentalist islam, and they exist throughout
the region. We don't base our military desicions based on the level of
guilt of a nation, we base them on strategic considerations. Get a map, you
don't need to be a general to understand why we are in Iraq. It's a really
bad idea to attack the United States.
> >
> > > Why are all the people in Iraq going to pay for an attack on 9/11,
> > > that had NOTHING to do with them?
> >
> > There are plenty of radical fundamentalists in Iraq. Look at a map,
it's
> > the only place to start. They also tried to kill one of our presidents,
> > violated the cease fire provisions of the previous war, and wouldn't
stop
> > shooting at our planes.
> That was before the sieze fire, dummy. Nothing wrong with being a
> religious fundamentalist as long as it doesn't cause harm to others.
> We have the pope in Italy and Bush in US.
No, all of that happened after the cease-fire... dummy. And their religious
fundamentalists do cause harm to others, are completely brain dead?
> >
> > > Lastly, if you are American, your ideas are much more anti-american
> > > than even the terrorists you hate so much. The writers of the
> > > Constitution would lock you and your monkey politicians up if you
> > > lived in their time, your ideas violate the very core liberty and
> > > justice.
> >
> > No they don't. These ideas are precisely what preserve our liberty and
> > justice. The founding fathers would be proud of us. We are adhering to
the
> > surest path of having the least amount of war. We are acting in a
manner
> > which will deter future attacks on our country. We are preserving
global
> > peace and security. Churchill. Read lots and lots of Churchill.
>
> You are so so lost on this one. America is being RAPED by the
> neo-cons. The people are losing their rights and civil liberties. US
> has one of the worst records on Human rights, did you know that?
Actually we invented the phrase "human rights", idiot. And we have the best
record, idiot. And far from being lost, the paragraph you were replying too
is, very obviously, 100% completely and totally correct.
> >
> > > It's funny how the people that defend the US War actions so
> > > vigorously, ironically enough, call people like me anti-american.
> > > Perhaps they should read the founding letters of the US. What they
> > > seek is more of a fascism than a democracy.
> > >
> >
> > I don't call you anti-American, I just think you don't understand part
of
> > what America is.
>
> I lived in America, California (for 4 years). I visited New York and
> believe these states\parts of America are the brains of America. New
> York suffered the 9/11 attacks yet the people of New York didn't vote
> for the hardline war fighting, protecting the American people,
> president. Why?
Where should I start? New York and California are not "the brains of
America", that's just rediculous. The American people voted to follow
defense doctrine and keep the world safe and secure because the American
people know exactly what they are doing. You are just a moron who, were it
not for people like me, would be enslaved and would have no rights. America
exists solely due to our defense doctrine.
Kavik Kang
news:<wPwjd.20527$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "~ CHlMPY the 0IL NAZI ~" <ev...@WHlTEHOUSE.GOV> wrote in message
> > news:1099857626.fP/elh70Emwv7ovryPU4kg@teranews...
> > > instead of shootin' little kids for oil...
> >
> > You already have, it's just that your primative armies fall so quickly
that
> > it's hard to even remember. We crushed Iraq's army twice. It takes us
> > about 4-6 weeks to completely anihilate the army of a tiny little
primative
> > country, you've seen it twice now you pathetic little worm.
> >
> > We aren't shooting little kids, or unarmed women. We aren't there for
the
> > oil. We are there to force the surrender of all radical fundamentalist
> > islamic groups in the world or kill all of their members. We won't be
> > leaving until one of those two goals have been achieved. That's what
> > happens when you attack the US, we come to your part of the world and
> > re-shape it to our liking. You can either accept it, or die. The
choice is
> > entirely yours.
>
> No, you are fighting an army which has had 10 years of UN santions,
> and knew that Iraq had no mass weaponary.
Actually the entire world knew that Iraq had WMDs, after all, they had used
them in the past. It's hard to use something that you don't have. But the
war was never about WMDs anyway, and nobody outside of the media ever said
that it was.
> If the US wanted to fight a war they would have gone after North Korea
> who are always telling the Yanks where to go. But the US chooses to
> "engage in dialogue" and we ALL!!! know why, Cos they can fight back.
Why? North Korea has not attacked us. There are no radical fundamentalist
islamic nutcases in North Korea. They have nothing to do with the war on
terror. And we are engaging in dialoge because we are the good guys. North
Korea can't fight back any better than Iraq, we could take North Korea in
under a month. And their nukes are useless against us for anything other
than a suprise pre-emtive attack. You just don't have the slightest idea of
what you are talking about.
Maybe you should follow your own advice and not reply to "stupid people",
which by your definition appears to mean "people who actually know what they
are talking about".
Kavik Kang
> "Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<A9hkd.10109$O11...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > We were attacked. They started a war with us. We recognize who our
> > attackers are and where they are. That's what you do in a war, you take
> > their land and kill them until they give up....
> > There are plenty of radical fundamentalists in Iraq. Look at a map,
it's
> > the only place to start. They also tried to kill one of our presidents,
> > violated the cease fire provisions of the previous war, and wouldn't
stop
> > shooting at our planes.
>
> Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing.
So what? We are at war with radical fundamentalist islam. Get a map. You
don't need to be a general to understand why we are in Iraq. It's a really
bad idea to attack the United States.
> Iraq shot at US planes, because the US kept flying them over Northern
> Iraq to instigate Saddam. The US was basically acting like a bully.
Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement to end the war. The no fly zones were a
part of that agreement. Iraq then began firing at our planes in those
zones. That is a violation of the cease-fire agreement which legally
justifies a resumption of hostilities. It is legal justification for war
within international law all by itself. Iraq had no justification at all to
fire at our planes.
> Then Bush changed it around, and made it look as if Iraq was a threat.
He didn't have to change anything around, Iraq was a threat.
> The intelligence community knew very well that Iraq was NOT a threat.
No, they knew Iraq was a threat too. Iran is also a threat.
> The war was not only about oil, but about weapons contracts.
It's not about either of those things, it's about enforcing our defense
doctrine.
> Just
> look up information on various websites regarding tanks and military
> vehicles. Many of the companies and organizations are seeing this as
> an excellent 'test' for American weaponary in real-life situations.
Taht's nothing new. Every war is seen by every country as a test of its
military equipment. This isn't even uniquely American, all nations hold the
same exact opinion.
> I am sorry to say, but you have been duped.
I am sorry to say that you are about 4 years of study away from even
beginning to understand the situation in Iraq.
> You have been fooled into
> thinking this war was just, but it was all about making rich people
> richer. People that don't care about you, and they don't care about
> me. I know it might be hard to accept, but the truth will eventually
> come out.
I haven't been fooled, I know why we are in Iraq. You have been fooled by a
silly, transparent conspiricy theory. If you had real knowledge, you
wouldn't need to accept conspiracy theories just so that you had some
explination... any explination. If you actually know something about the
subject, then you could know the truth instead of just conspiracy theories.
>
> >
> >
> > > Lastly, if you are American, your ideas are much more anti-american
> > > than even the terrorists you hate so much. The writers of the
> > > Constitution would lock you and your monkey politicians up if you
> > > lived in their time, your ideas violate the very core liberty and
> > > justice.
> >
> > No they don't. These ideas are precisely what preserve our liberty and
> > justice. The founding fathers would be proud of us. We are adhering to
the
> > surest path of having the least amount of war. We are acting in a
manner
> > which will deter future attacks on our country. We are preserving
global
> > peace and security. Churchill. Read lots and lots of Churchill.
>
> Churchill is not an American, his thoughts and speeches come from a
> time that there was truly a threat, and his devotion to a statehood is
> apparent from his reference to the 'british empire' and 'king'... Very
> different from the liberty I am speaking of. Also, Germany was a
> powerful force to be reckoned with, and actually proved to be a
> challenge. If you are comparing a beaten-over-10-years Iraq with the
> powerful German Nazi force of WW2, you are way off the mark.
You really don't have the slightest idea about what you are talking about.
The doctrine we are enforcing originally comes from Churchill. In a way,
everyone really should be "blaming" Churchill for the war. But there really
isn't any "blame", becuase the war is exactly the correct thing to do.
Unless, of course, you want to be attacked every year for the rest of your
life.
> Here's some quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
>
> "The lamentable resource of war is not authorized for evils of
> imagination, but for those actual injuries only which would be more
> destructive of our well-being than war itself." -Thomas Jefferson
>
> "Our fellow-citizens think they have a right to full information, in a
> case of such great concernment to them. It is their sweat which is to
> earn all the expenses of the war, and their blood which is to flow in
> expiation of the causes of it. It may be in [our] power to save them
> from these miseries by full communications and unrestrained details,
> postponing motives of delicacy to those of duty." -Thomas Jefferson
>
> "I opposed the right of the President to declare anything future on
> the question, Shall there or shall there not be war?" -Thomas
> Jefferson
Again, you don't know anything. This issue was settle at the dawn of the
nuclear age. In the nuclear age, war powers simply must reside with the
president. There is no other option available. Go back to school or
something.
> >
> > I don't call you anti-American, I just think you don't understand part
of
> > what America is.
>
> Do you mean what it has become, or what it was supposed to be? What
> America has become is very diferent from what it began as. I just
> suggest that all Americans should be very skeptical of war being done
> to protect us from 'future events'.
No, I mean he doesn't understand the defense doctrine that provides the
peace and security that allow America to exist. It is a big, huge part of
what America is, we wouldn't exist without it.
Kavik Kang
> in article 6141e3b5.04111...@posting.google.com, Cosmic00 at
> cosmi...@yahoo.com wrote on 11/10/04 7:17 AM:
>
"we
> slaughtered the wrong pig".
> This reference was made directly to Stalin and Roosevelt who were engaged
in
> banter as to how many Prussians Stalin might get away with killing before
> angering Churchill.
> i get a kick out of Americans quoting Churchill- they've no fucking idea.
>
Patton also wanted to invade Russia. History proved them both right, we
should have. And I didn't qoute Churchill, I just suggested that he read
him. After all, most of what is going on right now is based entirely on
Churchill's ideas, which have saved the world for the past 60 years. You,
obviously, are the one who "has no idea".
se...@sentinal.smokegroup.net
<sarcasm> Of _course_ not...
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction.
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the
production of biological weapons
George W. Bush, Sep. 12, 2002
Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the
facilities used to make more of those weapons
George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002
The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological
weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced
thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve
gas, VX nerve gas."
George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that
it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.
George W. Bush Oct 10, 2002
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons
to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will
not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of
mass destruction.
Dick Cheney Dec 1, 2002
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to
produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and
"upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents...
George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to
produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass
destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell February 5, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi
field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator
tells us he does not have.
George Bush February 8, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq
has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.
Ari Fleischer, Mar. 21, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of
mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to
be clearly not.
Colin Powell March 8, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the
Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons
ever devised.
George Bush March 18, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that
such a claim is palpably absurd.
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of
mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be
identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who
guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi
scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed
some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George Bush April 24, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I
suggest they wait a bit.
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so
that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George Bush May 3, 2003
I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons
of mass destruction.
Colin Powell May 4, 2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam
Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush May 6, 2003
</sarcasm>
Kavik Kang
<se...@sentinal.smokegroup.net> wrote in message
news:slrncp0b1...@sentinal.smokegroup.net...
> In article <psukd.23135$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Kavik
Kang wrote:
> > "dappa" <mej...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:47cd0a77.04111...@posting.google.com...
> >> "Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<wPwjd.20527$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >> and knew that Iraq had no mass weaponary.
> >
> > Actually the entire world knew that Iraq had WMDs, after all, they had
used
> > them in the past. It's hard to use something that you don't have. But
the
> > war was never about WMDs anyway, and nobody outside of the media ever
said
> > that it was.
>
> <sarcasm> Of _course_ not...
> Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass
> destruction.
> Dick Cheney August 26, 2002
No where in there does he say that WMDs are "the" reason for invading Iraq,
because nobody ever said or even implied that.
> Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for
the
> production of biological weapons
> George W. Bush, Sep. 12, 2002
Again, nowhere are they saying that WMDs are "the" reason for invading Iraq,
becuase they never were.
> Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the
> facilities used to make more of those weapons
> George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002
They were, the inspectors did say that industry capable of producing such
weapons was being maintained. But still, nowhere and at no time did anyone
outside of the media say that WMDs were "the" reason for invading Iraq.
In none of any of these accurate qoutes does anyone claim that WMDs are the
primary reason for invading Iraq. Nobody ever said that, because nobody
ever believed that. WMDs were and still are a big issue. It's the only
means by which the US can be successfully attacked by our enemies and,
therefore, they are still very important. WMDs are very important for
another reason, an even more important reason. If the US is attacked
extensively by WMDs we *WILL* completely destroy the region from which those
attacks eminate with nuclear weapons (if you don't believe me, just ask the
Russians, they'll tell you the same thing). The entire WMD issue was almost
entirely about our sincere desire to not use nuclear weapons. Enemy WMDs
could force us to use our nuclear weapons, so making sure that we are not
attacked by them is paramount. It is the muslims themselves that we are
trying to protect on this issue, even more than ourselves. The WMD issue is
mostly us doing everything within our power to not nuke the middle east. In
fact, most of what we are doing is being done to ensure that we are not
forced to nuke the entire region.
People better figure out why we are at war fast, because the world *is*
currently in great danger of seeing the first nuclear attacks since WWII.
Most of what we are doing is, in the end, related to our great desire to
avoid nuking the middle east. In the end, that's what this all really comes
down too... are we going to be forced into using nuclear weapons or not? We
are doing everything within our power to avoid it.
catchmerevisited
at Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/10/04 12:37 PM:
if the Allieds had an infinite number of resources and a thriving economy,
i'm sure Churchill would've loved to have gone after Russia.
But without the US (Roosevelt was far too chummy with Stalin), and Britain
so badly scarred....
I am glad at least that you know that much....that says there's SOME hope
for Americans after all.
James Calivar
>>
> if the Allieds had an infinite number of resources and a thriving economy,
> i'm sure Churchill would've loved to have gone after Russia.
> But without the US (Roosevelt was far too chummy with Stalin), and Britain
> so badly scarred....
> I am glad at least that you know that much....that says there's SOME hope
> for Americans after all.
>
I don't think it was so much that "Roosevelt was far too chummy with Stalin" -
rather, Roosevelt was a moderator and a placator, who saw that for the immediate
purpose of eliminating Nazi Germany, teaming up with Stalin was essential. It
would have been quite interesting to see what might have happened after WW2 was
over had Roosevelt lived a few years more.
Steven Hook
>
> "dappa" <mej...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47cd0a77.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > I don't usually reply to stupid people (it's too much hard work) but
> > I'll make an exception
>
> It's even harder work to reply to smart people when you are so very wrong.
maybe it's not htem that're SO wrong
Iraq didn't attack the US, and yet you are attacking Iraq, you're not
attacking terrorists or "radical fundamentalist islam" you are attacking
Iraq
Why is it so hard for you to accept that?
What Rubbish, people like you are responsible for the destruction of
countries, the slaughter of innocent people, the abuse of rights, do you
even know what rights are?
Really, do you even think about the repocussions of what is happening in
Iraq?
your arguments sound as tho you designed the war the way you say:
"We don't base our military desicions based on the level of guilt of a
nation,
we base them on strategic considerations. Get a map, you don't need to
be a general to understand why we are in Iraq. It's a really bad idea
to
attack the United States."
or
"You think Iraq is the war. Iraq is just a base."
or
"Even John Kerry would have continued with the current plan once he
was briefed and understood the situation. Surrender or die, those are
their only options."
or
"Any nation that does that will be our ally, and not our enemy,
and will therefore be assisted without any of our forces entering their
nation (economically, etc). The nations that refuse to do this become
our
enemy, and we must enter their country and wipe out radical
fundamentalist
islam ourselves"
You seem to know more about the war than Bush does, according to him the US
invaded Iraq because it was refusing to reveal it's WMDs and dispose of
them, according to him, this was supposed to be a quick war. but then again,
we all know how much he lies!
4MoreYears
> Iraq didn't attack the US, and yet you are attacking Iraq, you're not
> attacking terrorists or "radical fundamentalist islam" you are attacking
> Iraq
> Why is it so hard for you to accept that?
The U.S. is fighting WITH Iraq.
Coalition troops are helping Iraqi troops kill foreign assholes who are
attacking Iraqis.
Prime Minister Allawi is calling the shots for fighting AGAINST terrorists
in Iraq.
Get your head out of your ass you stupid liberal.
4MoreYears
How is the USSR doing today?
Oh, that's right, the great Ronald Reagan destroyed the USSR without firing
a shot.
Regan did it with the mighty U.S. dollar.
Russia couldn't keep up in the arms race and went bankrupt.
catchmerevisited
4More...@thewhitehouse.com wrote on 11/11/04 5:01 AM:
Russia's leopards may have painted over their spots, but they still remain.
I believe the US were too quick to take Russia's call for aid at face value.
Recently, we have seen Russia attack breakaway states of its former
Republic, and as late as last month, a retaliation by one such state.
Of course, Putin calls it a "terrorist" attack, in hopes of attaching his
war in significance to the flimsy pretext of Bush's Iraq.
I predict that as pressure mounts in the Baltic independent Republics, Putin
will claim any resistance aa terrorist attack, and use that to his greatest
advantage while rearming his country.
In other words, he wishes to deflect our attention from his real
motivations, which is to extend his empire in Europe and the Middle East
BEYOND the former borders of the USSR.
I cannot but think that Bush must be aware that Putin is ambitious in this
sense, and at least for now is willing to let Putin stretch his wings.
(oh dear, i mixed my metaphors- a leopard with wings.....)
00:00:00Hg
> I believe the US were too quick to take Russia's call for aid at
> face value.
Yep, Let's rebuild the Berlin wall and attach it to the
great wall of China.
catchmerevisited
"Prime MInister" Allawi is a puppet whose strings are pulled by Bush.
Mr. Allawi's first act in government was to INSIST that the US leave- and
the US desisted, and set him firmly in his place.
The Iraqis DON'T take kindly to US invasion, and will resist.
Mr. Allawi himself tried the legal way, by allowing himself be placed in
government by the US (you don't BELIEVE the election was fair, do you?) and
then demand their exit.
lab~rat
<catchmerev...@yahoo.ca> puked:
Didn't they just do away with local elections?
--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.
00:00:00Hg
> 1. Yes, Iraq had "WMD" in the past, because YOU gave them to him.
> However, as the UN inspectors and the invasion proved, he hasn't had them
> for over 15 years.
How does the above equate with the below in your estimation?
> 5. ... One of Saddam's nuclear scientists was
> interviewed on CNN, he said that the attack didn't hamper their program a
> bit, just forced them underground.
> In conclusion:
Your logic like uranium can be split into a chain reaction.
00:00:00Hg
> And by the way Jane's has found out that N. Korea now has submarine launch
> capabilties. Meaning they can now nuke one of your cities and you'd never
> be able to figure out who did it. Hmm, I wonder if that sub the Japanese
> are chasing right now is really Chinese....
Actually, it's turning out to look more French in profile.
Kavik Kang
"Steven Hook" <sh...@NOTbowens.co.za> wrote in message
news:cmvf2j$9sv$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> "Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bsukd.23133$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "dappa" <mej...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:47cd0a77.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > I don't usually reply to stupid people (it's too much hard work) but
> > > I'll make an exception
> >
> > It's even harder work to reply to smart people when you are so very
wrong.
>
> maybe it's not htem that're SO wrong
No, it's them. Either they are wrong or all of the greatest minds in
international relations since 1939 are wrong... one or the other.
Because that is not the case. We are attacking terrorists and radical
fundamentalists in Iraq. We don't choose where our campaign will begin
based on level of guilt, we choose it based on what is best for us... what
is strategically the best choice. We are at war with all Islamic nations
that don't surrender and fully cooperate in the war on terror, we are not at
war with Iraq. When Japan attacked us... we declared war on Germany!
"Germany First" was the motto of WWII... and yet it was Japan that had
attacked us. It really is a bad idea to attack the United States:-)
He never said any of those things. He never said WMDs were "the" reason for
invading Iraq. He never said the war would be quick, in fact, he said it
would probably last "10 years or more". Of course, it obviously wouldn't
take 10 years to defeat Iraq, we've done it twice now and it takes about a
month. They said "10 years or more" because the war is not with Iraq, it is
with the entire region. You are just completely wrong on both points. And
as far as I can tell, he hasn't lied yet.
Kavik Kang
Well, duh. We obviously aren't going anywhere, we are at war you idiot.
Iraq is the base of operations for that war, Iraq is our territory until the
war is over. That's kind of how a war works. The point you are missing is
that there is a war going on, and in wars nations take control of other
nations. That's what a war is. Do you have an actual point, or are you
just trying to show everyone that you don't understand what a war is?
Kavik Kang
"Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:baa03ba8.04111...@posting.google.com...news:<psukd.23135$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
> > And their nukes are useless against us for anything other
> > than a suprise pre-emtive attack. You just don't have the slightest
idea of
> > what you are talking about.
> >
> > Maybe you should follow your own advice and not reply to "stupid
people",
> > which by your definition appears to mean "people who actually know what
they
> > are talking about".
>
> weapon". See what one of these can do to a column of tanks, a carrier
> group, or a US base and tell us again how "useless" their nukes are.
Which is exactly why Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons, duh. And
when I said a small strike was useless I meant a small strike against the US
mainland. Only a massive strike will cause any damage:-)
> And by the way Jane's has found out that N. Korea now has submarine
> launch capabilties. Meaning they can now nuke one of your cities and
> you'd never be able to figure out who did it. Hmm, I wonder if that
> sub the Japanese are chasing right now is really Chinese....
Again, you prove that you don't know what you are talking about. We would
know exactly who did it. I won't say why, but we would know exactly where
it came from and who's sub it was. People who don't understand war
shouldn't make false assumptions based on their lack of knowledge. In
reality, that sub could never launch a nuke at the US mainland, but I'm not
going to go into why in a public newsgroup, I'll only say that, again, just
as you rediculously think Iraq is more than the US military can handle, you
greatly undersestimate the capablities of the US military... in this case,
especially the navy:-)
Kavik Kang
>
> OK, this guy has reached a new level in stupidity. Time to set the
> record straight:
You would have to understand the record in order to "set it straight".
> 1. Yes, Iraq had "WMD" in the past, because YOU gave them to him.
> However, as the UN inspectors and the invasion proved, he hasn't had
> them for over 15 years. Ancient history does not justify a war
> killing 100,000 civilians, neither does taking a few potshots at some
> unarmed drones.
The whole world believed that he still had WMDs, because he probably did.
He had plenty of time to get rid of them or hide them, but since it wasn't
the reason for the war anyway, it really isn't all that relevant. And they
weren't shooting at unmanned drones, they were shooting at our manned
airplanes, which is an act of war and has been since the dawn of time. They
also tried to kill our former president (also an act of war), and violated
most of the terms of the cease-fire from the previous war (also an act of
war). But none of that really matters, since radical fundamemtalist muslims
started World War III with us and now we will win the war. When Japan
attacked us in 1941, our response was to invade Tunisia!!! Finally, 100,000
civilians have not been killed, 10,000-20,000 have been, probably closer to
10,000.
> 2. Iraq didn't attack you. In fact, Iraq was one of the few
> countries in the Middle East where the fundamentalists DIDN'T have a
> foothold (they have one now, thanks to you). Saddam couldn't have
> them there without diluting his own power base, so he kept Iraq
> secular. Of course now...
We are at war with the entire region, not Iraq. Iraq has the great
misfortune of being prefectly suited to our goals. That's too bad for Iraq.
It didn't do Tunisia much good, either. It's a really bad idea to attack
the United States.
> 3. Setting up a future "base of operations" for future invasions is
> not justification for war, no more than Hitler's annexation of
> Austria.
No, attacking New York is a justification for war. They started World War
III, that was a really bad idea since they are incapable of fighting that
war anywhere but on internet.
> 4. If you think an Iran invasion is in the works you're fucking
> dreaming. Paul Bremer and the military brass have been saying for
> months now, they haven't got enough troops to stablize Iraq, let alone
> go invading other countries. And considering that the US is already
> $500 billion in the hole, that the Army has only met 30% of their
> recruiting target, it's safe to say more won't be coming unless George
> brings back the draft (and we know we wouldn't do that...right?).
> Iran has three times the area of Iraq, twice the population, and their
> military hasn't been gutted by ten years of sanctions. There is no
> way you guys could pull off an invasion.
Hahaha, another person who thinks we can't even defeat Iraq, haha. It sure
is a good thing the Russians never attacked, they apparently would have
rolled over us in a day! You have no idea what you are talking about. We
can invade every country in the region simultaniously and still take on
another war in a different part of the world. Iran is a primative minor
nation of no military signifigance what-so-ever. We can defeat Iran in 4-6
weeks, it wouldn't be any more difficult that defeating Iraq. Both nations
are equally incapable of resisting a US invasion. You really don't have the
slightest idea what you are talking about. In fact, it's hardly even worth
arguing with you, since everyone in the world knows that the US can handle
an infinately larger war than simply dealing with a collection of minor,
militarily insignifcant, primative nations. You really are living in a
fantasy land.
> 5. Air strikes against Iran? Yeah, what good would that do? I
> remember when you guys discovered a "secret" Iranian nuclear facility.
> Turns out they'd registered it with the IAEC long ago. The moral:
> you guys can't even find what they're not even trying to hide. Even
> if successful, all you'd do is force them underground, like the
> Israeli attack on that Iraqi reactor. One of Saddam's nuclear
> scientists was interviewed on CNN, he said that the attack didn't
> hamper their program a bit, just forced them underground.
Air strikes? We aren't going to bomb them, we are going to replace their
government. Unless, of course, they surrender and become our allys.
Exactly like the president said. And Iran is not allowed to have nuclear
weapons. They are run by radical fundamentalists that we are at war with.
They are not allowed to have them simply because we say so, no further
explination on our part is required. And they are trying to build nuclear
weapons, we know this because they have already developed their long-range
missile. The only practical use of long-range missiles is to carry nuclear
warheads. Iran will surrender or Iran will be invaded. Iran will not be
allowed to become a nuclear power. We don't play games when it comes to
nukes. And, just so you know in advance, if they actually put an armed
missile on the pad against our will... our doctrine doesn't tell us to
launch an air strike, our doctrine tells us that the proper response is to
nuke their nuke. If they want to attempt to join the nuclear club against
our orders, we'll gladly give them a welcome they'll never forget.
> In conclusion: You're an enormous idiot. Somewhere on the lines of
> that military general who gave the insurgents in Fallujah weeks of
> advance warning that an invasion was coming, and then act surprised
> that most of them left.
Actually, you just don't understand anything about the situation. You
understand it so little, that you actually believe that Iraq is too powerful
a nation for the US to handle. That really says it all by itself. And we
informed the people of Fallujah of the attack well in adance so that
innocent civilians would have warning and be able to leave. It's just
another example of proof that we are the "good guys" and that we do
everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Since the terrorists are
incapable of fighting us, we can afford to warn of major attacks in or near
civilian population centers well in advance in the interests of sparing the
innocent. That general wasn't stupid, that general is a humanitarian...
like most American generals. You just don't understand the first thing
about any of this stuff.
catchmerevisited
Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/11/04 3:58 PM:
>
> "catchmerevisited" <catchmerev...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:BDB8FDBD.CF71%catchmerev...@yahoo.ca...
>> in article 10p6plo...@corp.supernews.com, 4MoreYears at
>> 4More...@thewhitehouse.com wrote on 11/11/04 5:04 AM:
>>
>>>
>> "Prime MInister" Allawi is a puppet whose strings are pulled by Bush.
>> Mr. Allawi's first act in government was to INSIST that the US leave- and
>> the US desisted, and set him firmly in his place.
>> The Iraqis DON'T take kindly to US invasion, and will resist.
>> Mr. Allawi himself tried the legal way, by allowing himself be placed in
>> government by the US (you don't BELIEVE the election was fair, do you?)
> and
>> then demand their exit.
>
> Well, duh. We obviously aren't going anywhere, we are at war you idiot.
> Iraq is the base of operations for that war, Iraq is our territory until the
> war is over. That's kind of how a war works. The point you are missing is
> that there is a war going on, and in wars nations take control of other
> nations. That's what a war is. Do you have an actual point, or are you
> just trying to show everyone that you don't understand what a war is?
>
Bush's stated objectives in Iraq:
"prove" there were WMD's (still waiting)
depose Saddam (done)
place a "Democratic regime" as Government (done)
what more can be done but let Iraq resolve the rebel incursion on its own,
and if necesary, appeal to UN forces? the US will only incite further
provocation just by remaining- to say nothing of the tense situation in the
US among US citizens, being as heavily divided as they are.
catchmerevisited
Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/11/04 4:35 PM:
>
> "Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:baa03ba8.0411...@posting.google.com...
>> "Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<psukd.23135$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>>
>> OK, this guy has reached a new level in stupidity. Time to set the
>> record straight:
>
> You would have to understand the record in order to "set it straight".
>
>
>> 1. Yes, Iraq had "WMD" in the past, because YOU gave them to him.
>> However, as the UN inspectors and the invasion proved, he hasn't had
>> them for over 15 years. Ancient history does not justify a war
>> killing 100,000 civilians, neither does taking a few potshots at some
>> unarmed drones.
>
> The whole world believed that he still had WMDs, because he probably did.
> He had plenty of time to get rid of them or hide them, but since it wasn't
> the reason for the war anyway, it really isn't all that relevant. And they
> weren't shooting at unmanned drones, they were shooting at our manned
> airplanes, which is an act of war and has been since the dawn of time. They
> also tried to kill our former president (also an act of war), and violated
> most of the terms of the cease-fire from the previous war (also an act of
> war). But none of that really matters, since radical fundamemtalist muslims
> started World War III with us and now we will win the war. When Japan
> attacked us in 1941, our response was to invade Tunisia!!! Finally, 100,000
> civilians have not been killed, 10,000-20,000 have been, probably closer to
> 10,000.
>
irrelevant. now that an "elected" Government is in place, Iraq has a leader.
WHat's left to do is for the US to withdraw and allow this government to
prove its leaderhip, and if necesary, call on UN for aid. THe US forces are
provcation just by being there, representing the US. They are unwanted by
the Iraqi government and its people, and were in fact asked to leave.
This was a leadership test:
a) if allawi hadn't asked the US to leave, he would have been unpopular
b) if US refused to leave (and they did), he would prove to himself and Iraq
citizens that he was meant to serve Bush, and be "Prime Minister" in name
only.
Bush fucked up his one chance for a graceful exit.
>
>> 2. Iraq didn't attack you. In fact, Iraq was one of the few
>> countries in the Middle East where the fundamentalists DIDN'T have a
>> foothold (they have one now, thanks to you). Saddam couldn't have
>> them there without diluting his own power base, so he kept Iraq
>> secular. Of course now...
>
> We are at war with the entire region, not Iraq. Iraq has the great
> misfortune of being prefectly suited to our goals. That's too bad for Iraq.
> It didn't do Tunisia much good, either. It's a really bad idea to attack
> the United States.
you're not AT war with Iraq anymore.
just getting in the way of a civil war, begun by US interference and as long
as the US forces remain, will be provocation enough to continue.
>
>
>> 3. Setting up a future "base of operations" for future invasions is
>> not justification for war, no more than Hitler's annexation of
>> Austria.
>
> No, attacking New York is a justification for war. They started World War
> III, that was a really bad idea since they are incapable of fighting that
> war anywhere but on internet.
that was Afghanistan you moron!
not only that, but even IFF it was Iraq, you already have Hussein, and
"gave" to Iraq their first "elected" government.
>
>
>> 4. If you think an Iran invasion is in the works you're fucking
>> dreaming. Paul Bremer and the military brass have been saying for
>> months now, they haven't got enough troops to stablize Iraq, let alone
>> go invading other countries. And considering that the US is already
>> $500 billion in the hole, that the Army has only met 30% of their
>> recruiting target, it's safe to say more won't be coming unless George
>> brings back the draft (and we know we wouldn't do that...right?).
>> Iran has three times the area of Iraq, twice the population, and their
>> military hasn't been gutted by ten years of sanctions. There is no
>> way you guys could pull off an invasion.
>
> Hahaha, another person who thinks we can't even defeat Iraq, haha. It sure
> is a good thing the Russians never attacked, they apparently would have
> rolled over us in a day! You have no idea what you are talking about. We
> can invade every country in the region simultaniously and still take on
> another war in a different part of the world. Iran is a primative minor
> nation of no military signifigance what-so-ever. We can defeat Iran in 4-6
> weeks, it wouldn't be any more difficult that defeating Iraq. Both nations
> are equally incapable of resisting a US invasion. You really don't have the
> slightest idea what you are talking about. In fact, it's hardly even worth
> arguing with you, since everyone in the world knows that the US can handle
> an infinately larger war than simply dealing with a collection of minor,
> militarily insignifcant, primative nations. You really are living in a
> fantasy land.
there's nothing left to defeat- you put in a leadership you thought would be
favourable to the States, and he politely asked you to leave.
THe US are- again, an invasion force.
It may be but a matter of time before Allawi uses his last regiment against
you, to insist your immediate withdrawal.
>
>> 5. Air strikes against Iran? Yeah, what good would that do? I
>> remember when you guys discovered a "secret" Iranian nuclear facility.
>> Turns out they'd registered it with the IAEC long ago. The moral:
>> you guys can't even find what they're not even trying to hide. Even
>> if successful, all you'd do is force them underground, like the
>> Israeli attack on that Iraqi reactor. One of Saddam's nuclear
>> scientists was interviewed on CNN, he said that the attack didn't
>> hamper their program a bit, just forced them underground.
>
> Air strikes? We aren't going to bomb them, we are going to replace their
> government.
like you did in Iraq?
> Unless, of course, they surrender and become our allys.
your losing the allies you had.
> Exactly like the president said. And Iran is not allowed to have nuclear
> weapons. They are run by radical fundamentalists that we are at war with.
this is ironic coming from a supporter of a radical fundamentalist.
> They are not allowed to have them simply because we say so, no further
> explination on our part is required.
American arrogance. Would that we would strip the US of all THEIR nukes and
WMD's "just because we said so".
> And they are trying to build nuclear
> weapons, we know this because they have already developed their long-range
> missile. The only practical use of long-range missiles is to carry nuclear
> warheads. Iran will surrender or Iran will be invaded. Iran will not be
> allowed to become a nuclear power. We don't play games when it comes to
> nukes. And, just so you know in advance, if they actually put an armed
> missile on the pad against our will... our doctrine doesn't tell us to
> launch an air strike, our doctrine tells us that the proper response is to
> nuke their nuke. If they want to attempt to join the nuclear club against
> our orders, we'll gladly give them a welcome they'll never forget.
talk about "radical fundamentalist"
yeah, nuke YOURSELF a new asshole
>> In conclusion: You're an enormous idiot. Somewhere on the lines of
>> that military general who gave the insurgents in Fallujah weeks of
>> advance warning that an invasion was coming, and then act surprised
>> that most of them left.
>
> Actually, you just don't understand anything about the situation. You
> understand it so little, that you actually believe that Iraq is too powerful
> a nation for the US to handle. That really says it all by itself. And we
> informed the people of Fallujah of the attack well in adance so that
> innocent civilians would have warning and be able to leave. It's just
> another example of proof that we are the "good guys" and that we do
> everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Since the terrorists are
> incapable of fighting us, we can afford to warn of major attacks in or near
> civilian population centers well in advance in the interests of sparing the
> innocent. That general wasn't stupid, that general is a humanitarian...
> like most American generals. You just don't understand the first thing
> about any of this stuff.
>
>
right 'bout now, Hitler's looking like a moderate in comparison to this
war-mongrel.
Kavik Kang
Those are just a few of many reasons we are there. How are we supposed to
fight the terrorists without having an army in the region?
Kavik Kang
It's not irrelivant. We aren't there because of Iraq.
> WHat's left to do is for the US to withdraw and allow this government to
> prove its leaderhip, and if necesary, call on UN for aid. THe US forces
are
> provcation just by being there, representing the US. They are unwanted by
> the Iraqi government and its people, and were in fact asked to leave.
You really are having trouble understanding what a war is.
> This was a leadership test:
> a) if allawi hadn't asked the US to leave, he would have been unpopular
> b) if US refused to leave (and they did), he would prove to himself and
Iraq
> citizens that he was meant to serve Bush, and be "Prime Minister" in name
> only.
>
> Bush fucked up his one chance for a graceful exit.
We aren't looking for any kind of exit, so he didn't screw anything up.
> > We are at war with the entire region, not Iraq. Iraq has the great
> > misfortune of being prefectly suited to our goals. That's too bad for
Iraq.
> > It didn't do Tunisia much good, either. It's a really bad idea to
attack
> > the United States.
>
> you're not AT war with Iraq anymore.
No, now it is a base of operations under construction.
> just getting in the way of a civil war, begun by US interference and as
long
> as the US forces remain, will be provocation enough to continue.
Well, we won't be in the city's much longer. In 6-12 months we'll be way
out in the middle of nowhere. Other than all the aircraft flying around,
they'll hardly know where there.
> > No, attacking New York is a justification for war. They started World
War
> > III, that was a really bad idea since they are incapable of fighting
that
> > war anywhere but on internet.
>
> that was Afghanistan you moron!
No, it was a result of the mere existance of the radical fundamentalist
movement. We're after the right people, we're sure of that. We've already
been through this, we have our own wackos just like theirs over here. We
know how to deal with them. You notice, ours aren't blowing themselves up
in Mecca or anything like that. We'll teach them how to control their
wackos wether they want to learn or not.
> not only that, but even IFF it was Iraq, you already have Hussein, and
> "gave" to Iraq their first "elected" government.
This isn't about Iraq any more than Tunisia had anything to do with Japan.
> > Hahaha, another person who thinks we can't even defeat Iraq, haha. It
sure
> > is a good thing the Russians never attacked, they apparently would have
> > rolled over us in a day! You have no idea what you are talking about.
We
> > can invade every country in the region simultaniously and still take on
> > another war in a different part of the world. Iran is a primative minor
> > nation of no military signifigance what-so-ever. We can defeat Iran in
4-6
> > weeks, it wouldn't be any more difficult that defeating Iraq. Both
nations
> > are equally incapable of resisting a US invasion. You really don't have
the
> > slightest idea what you are talking about. In fact, it's hardly even
worth
> > arguing with you, since everyone in the world knows that the US can
handle
> > an infinately larger war than simply dealing with a collection of minor,
> > militarily insignifcant, primative nations. You really are living in a
> > fantasy land.
>
> there's nothing left to defeat-
There's an entire movement throughout the region to defeat.
> you put in a leadership you thought would be
> favourable to the States, and he politely asked you to leave.
Even if that's true, which I doubt, it is irrelivant. We didn't go to Iraq
to leave, we went to Iraq to fight a war that goes far beyond just Iraq.
Hopefully it will be a peaceful war and no other countries will be invaded.
But unless the Iranian people just rise up and overthrow their government
out of the blue, I think there will probably be at least one more war.
You're still having trouble understanding what a war is.
> THe US are- again, an invasion force.
Not really, and we aren't really liberators either. That's one of the
reasons they call this a different kind of war. There is simply a necessity
to do what we are doing. "Private groups" can't find security due to their
lack of being a fixed location of land. The country that harbors such a
group that has attacked another nation must fully cooperate in bringing that
group to justice, or that country must be assumed to be an ally of the
attackers. This is all new stuff, but I think they are taking the right
course on that issue. Anything else would result in world-wide anarchy. In
this case, there are a conglomerate of groups present in many nations that
have attacked us. Each nation can choose to do the right thing, and be our
ally as a result, or can choose to attempt to protect our enemy's within
their borders. If they chose to do so, we won't respect their borders.
Does it make more sense put that way?
> It may be but a matter of time before Allawi uses his last regiment
against
> you, to insist your immediate withdrawal.
Uh oh... How could we ever defend ourselves???
> > Air strikes? We aren't going to bomb them, we are going to replace
their
> > government.
>
> like you did in Iraq?
Exactly.
> > Unless, of course, they surrender and become our allys.
>
> your losing the allies you had.
No we aren't.
> > Exactly like the president said. And Iran is not allowed to have
nuclear
> > weapons. They are run by radical fundamentalists that we are at war
with.
>
> this is ironic coming from a supporter of a radical fundamentalist.
Bush is just following defense doctrine. While you talking to the Russians
about nuclear weapons, make sure to remember to ask them about Dick Cheney.
We don't assume that our leaders are "great men" or "royal", so in our
system the president relys heavily on advisors on pretty much any issue that
their is. Bush isn't the military genius, Cheney is. Just ask the
Russians, they know all about about him. Cheney is the best thing about
Bush, Kerry didn't have a Cheney, or he might have had a chance.
> > They are not allowed to have them simply because we say so, no further
> > explination on our part is required.
>
> American arrogance. Would that we would strip the US of all THEIR nukes
and
> WMD's "just because we said so".
Yes... They world would be much more safe if you held the nukes...
Iran is run by the enemy, they can't have nukes at this point in time. And
it isn't arrogance, it's just more evidence that you don't understand what a
war is.
> > And they are trying to build nuclear
> > weapons, we know this because they have already developed their
long-range
> > missile. The only practical use of long-range missiles is to carry
nuclear
> > warheads. Iran will surrender or Iran will be invaded. Iran will not
be
> > allowed to become a nuclear power. We don't play games when it comes to
> > nukes. And, just so you know in advance, if they actually put an armed
> > missile on the pad against our will... our doctrine doesn't tell us to
> > launch an air strike, our doctrine tells us that the proper response is
to
> > nuke their nuke. If they want to attempt to join the nuclear club
against
> > our orders, we'll gladly give them a welcome they'll never forget.
>
> talk about "radical fundamentalist"
> yeah, nuke YOURSELF a new asshole
The Russians would do the same thing. If they want to play with nukes,
after they've proven they don't understand the game by defying one of the
superpowers with regards to nukes, then we'll show them how the nuclear game
is played. If that situation were to develop, they would have proven at
that point that the only way they'll learn is through example.
> > Actually, you just don't understand anything about the situation. You
> > understand it so little, that you actually believe that Iraq is too
powerful
> > a nation for the US to handle. That really says it all by itself. And
we
> > informed the people of Fallujah of the attack well in adance so that
> > innocent civilians would have warning and be able to leave. It's just
> > another example of proof that we are the "good guys" and that we do
> > everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Since the terrorists
are
> > incapable of fighting us, we can afford to warn of major attacks in or
near
> > civilian population centers well in advance in the interests of sparing
the
> > innocent. That general wasn't stupid, that general is a humanitarian...
> > like most American generals. You just don't understand the first thing
> > about any of this stuff.
> >
> >
> right 'bout now, Hitler's looking like a moderate in comparison to this
> war-mongrel.
Actually these are the very ideas that defeated Hitler. Those are the
people that taught us this. You have it completely backwards.
catchmerevisited
at Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/12/04 8:21 PM:
the problem is, "terrorits" aren't confined to any particular country, or
even a specific ideology.
Interesting how for the most part, we accepted the terrorism of those who
wished Ireland to secede from Britain's grasp, and even legitimised this
murderous action.
But, if this action is done against the US, that should somehow be
different?
And, for the record, terrorism is a tool used "to govern by fear".
Military tactics in Falujah etc. aren't those of terrorists- that is
rebellion, and as long as the US are there, the fighting will only get
worse.
American forces are seen as provocation by the local Iraqis, and Alawi
already lost the ability to form an effective government that the people
would obey, simply b/c the US refused a request.
catchmerevisited
at Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/12/04 8:46 PM:
>
> "catchmerevisited" <catchmerev...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:BDBA306E.D4BC%catchmerev...@yahoo.ca...
>> in article dzTkd.874$G36...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Kavik Kang
> at
>> Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/11/04 4:35 PM:
>>
>>>
>> irrelevant. now that an "elected" Government is in place, Iraq has a
> leader.
>
> It's not irrelivant. We aren't there because of Iraq.
Then why ARE you there?
>
>
>> WHat's left to do is for the US to withdraw and allow this government to
>> prove its leaderhip, and if necesary, call on UN for aid. THe US forces
> are
>> provcation just by being there, representing the US. They are unwanted by
>> the Iraqi government and its people, and were in fact asked to leave.
>
> You really are having trouble understanding what a war is.
it seems from above, that Americans and the World were deceived as to the
reason for Bush entering Iraq.
So, thinking that this was supposed to be a relatively minor sortie, one
might be forgiven for likewise ignoring the broad hints at a larger
objective.
>
>
>> This was a leadership test:
>> a) if allawi hadn't asked the US to leave, he would have been unpopular
>> b) if US refused to leave (and they did), he would prove to himself and
> Iraq
>> citizens that he was meant to serve Bush, and be "Prime Minister" in name
>> only.
>>
>> Bush fucked up his one chance for a graceful exit.
>
> We aren't looking for any kind of exit, so he didn't screw anything up.
Then Bush shouldn't have placed a government in power quite yet.
THen, as always, the People have been deceived.
>
>>> Hahaha, another person who thinks we can't even defeat Iraq, haha. It
> sure
>>> is a good thing the Russians never attacked, they apparently would have
>>> rolled over us in a day! You have no idea what you are talking about.
> We
>>> can invade every country in the region simultaniously and still take on
>>> another war in a different part of the world. Iran is a primative minor
>>> nation of no military signifigance what-so-ever. We can defeat Iran in
> 4-6
>>> weeks, it wouldn't be any more difficult that defeating Iraq. Both
> nations
>>> are equally incapable of resisting a US invasion. You really don't have
> the
>>> slightest idea what you are talking about. In fact, it's hardly even
> worth
>>> arguing with you, since everyone in the world knows that the US can
> handle
>>> an infinately larger war than simply dealing with a collection of minor,
>>> militarily insignifcant, primative nations. You really are living in a
>>> fantasy land.
>>
>> there's nothing left to defeat-
>
> There's an entire movement throughout the region to defeat.
Civillian rebels- you want to eliminate the entire population? Commit
genocide?
I will be the first to line up to form the next Nuremberg Trial, if such is
the case.
>
>
>> you put in a leadership you thought would be
>> favourable to the States, and he politely asked you to leave.
>
> Even if that's true, which I doubt, it is irrelivant. We didn't go to Iraq
> to leave, we went to Iraq to fight a war that goes far beyond just Iraq.
> Hopefully it will be a peaceful war and no other countries will be invaded.
> But unless the Iranian people just rise up and overthrow their government
> out of the blue, I think there will probably be at least one more war.
> You're still having trouble understanding what a war is.
a "peaceful war"?
yep, them cannons blast out flowers, milk and honey, and the soldiers sing
'60s songs and hand out candy to their would-be enemy combatants.
Why didn't I think of that?
>
>
>> THe US are- again, an invasion force.
>
> Not really, and we aren't really liberators either. That's one of the
> reasons they call this a different kind of war. There is simply a necessity
> to do what we are doing. "Private groups" can't find security due to their
> lack of being a fixed location of land. The country that harbors such a
> group that has attacked another nation must fully cooperate in bringing that
> group to justice, or that country must be assumed to be an ally of the
> attackers. This is all new stuff, but I think they are taking the right
> course on that issue. Anything else would result in world-wide anarchy. In
> this case, there are a conglomerate of groups present in many nations that
> have attacked us. Each nation can choose to do the right thing, and be our
> ally as a result, or can choose to attempt to protect our enemy's within
> their borders. If they chose to do so, we won't respect their borders.
> Does it make more sense put that way?
>
what group? civillain rebels?
Let's put it this way- threaten the World, and the World will retaliate.
Threaten even Canada, and our friendship will cease.
American government doesn't "respect" any nation's borders as it is- even
their Allies to the North.
You yanks coerced the NAFTA on us, and then at your earliest convenience
(softwood dispute for one) choose to ignore its provisions- yet when the
provisions of NAFTA have been broken in an incident relating to YOU, that's
another matter entirely.
Post 9/11, while we Canadians gladly went to Afghanistan with you, refused
to go to Iraq.
Our Government put in place every measure demanded of us by US Government in
terms of ensuring "National Security", though as a nation we resent this
interference.
We look at Afghanistan, an recognise that the US had exploited and abused
their soil for over 40 years, and recognise that the Afghanis had a
legitimate complaint- though blowing up the WTC was excessive, and for which
Osama is directly responsible.
Using this incident to carry on a larger objective says much about the
current administration in the White House, and who the real terrorist may
be.
>
>
>>> Air strikes? We aren't going to bomb them, we are going to replace
> their
>>> government.
>>
>> like you did in Iraq?
>
> Exactly.
don't count on a quick "victory" there.
>
>
>>> Unless, of course, they surrender and become our allys.
>>
>> your losing the allies you had.
>
> No we aren't.
oh, but you are- the people of Australia, Britain and Canada grow weary of
the US' posturing.
Not for long will the Americans stride the world like the Colossus.
Your Rome WILL collapse.
>
>
>
>>> They are not allowed to have them simply because we say so, no further
>>> explination on our part is required.
>>
>> American arrogance. Would that we would strip the US of all THEIR nukes
> and
>> WMD's "just because we said so".
>
> Yes... They world would be much more safe if you held the nukes...
>
> Iran is run by the enemy, they can't have nukes at this point in time. And
> it isn't arrogance, it's just more evidence that you don't understand what a
> war is.
who then, are the "enemy"?
>
>>> Actually, you just don't understand anything about the situation. You
>>> understand it so little, that you actually believe that Iraq is too
> powerful
>>> a nation for the US to handle. That really says it all by itself. And
> we
>>> informed the people of Fallujah of the attack well in adance so that
>>> innocent civilians would have warning and be able to leave. It's just
>>> another example of proof that we are the "good guys" and that we do
>>> everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Since the terrorists
> are
>>> incapable of fighting us, we can afford to warn of major attacks in or
> near
>>> civilian population centers well in advance in the interests of sparing
> the
>>> innocent. That general wasn't stupid, that general is a humanitarian...
>>> like most American generals. You just don't understand the first thing
>>> about any of this stuff.
>>>
>>>
>> right 'bout now, Hitler's looking like a moderate in comparison to this
>> war-mongrel.
>
> Actually these are the very ideas that defeated Hitler. Those are the
> people that taught us this. You have it completely backwards.
>
funny thing; it was Hitler's designs on empire-building that saw his defeat.
Likely the same may happen against the US.
Kavik Kang
> in article Ckgld.2338$G36....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Kavik
Kang
> at Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/12/04 8:46 PM:
>
> >>>
> > leader.
> >
> > It's not irrelivant. We aren't there because of Iraq.
>
> Then why ARE you there?
To win World War III and prevent the radical fundamentalist islamic groups
from forcing us to destroy the middle east.
> >> WHat's left to do is for the US to withdraw and allow this government
to
> >> prove its leaderhip, and if necesary, call on UN for aid. THe US forces
> > are
> >> provcation just by being there, representing the US. They are unwanted
by
> >> the Iraqi government and its people, and were in fact asked to leave.
> >
> > You really are having trouble understanding what a war is.
>
> it seems from above, that Americans and the World were deceived as to the
> reason for Bush entering Iraq.
No, the very first things they said are exactly what they are doing. After
all, if they hadn't told me, I wouldn't know about it.
> So, thinking that this was supposed to be a relatively minor sortie, one
> might be forgiven for likewise ignoring the broad hints at a larger
> objective.
They weren't hints, it was pretty plain. I'd bet the Russians understood
exactly what they were saying.
> >
> >
> >> This was a leadership test:
> >> a) if allawi hadn't asked the US to leave, he would have been unpopular
> >> b) if US refused to leave (and they did), he would prove to himself and
> > Iraq
> >> citizens that he was meant to serve Bush, and be "Prime Minister" in
name
> >> only.
> >>
> >> Bush fucked up his one chance for a graceful exit.
> >
> > We aren't looking for any kind of exit, so he didn't screw anything up.
>
> Then Bush shouldn't have placed a government in power quite yet.
Why not? We don't want to run Iraq, Iraqi's should run Iraq, it's their
country. A lot of those people fighting us are exactly some of the people
we are after. Some of them are among the most fanatical nutcases there
are... since they were willing to come all the way to Iraq just to not fight
us and hide in mosques.
> >> not only that, but even IFF it was Iraq, you already have Hussein, and
> >> "gave" to Iraq their first "elected" government.
> >
> > This isn't about Iraq any more than Tunisia had anything to do with
Japan.
>
> THen, as always, the People have been deceived.
Nobody was decieved, they've said exactly what they are doing publicly right
from the beginning.
> >> there's nothing left to defeat-
> >
> > There's an entire movement throughout the region to defeat.
>
> Civillian rebels- you want to eliminate the entire population? Commit
> genocide?
There are very few "civilian rebels". They are mostly terrorists and the
very fanatics that we are after. True resistance fighters will have nothing
to fight for once Iraqi's control Iraq.
> I will be the first to line up to form the next Nuremberg Trial, if such
is
> the case.
For what? Defending ourselves or from saving them from themselves?
> > Even if that's true, which I doubt, it is irrelivant. We didn't go to
Iraq
> > to leave, we went to Iraq to fight a war that goes far beyond just Iraq.
> > Hopefully it will be a peaceful war and no other countries will be
invaded.
> > But unless the Iranian people just rise up and overthrow their
government
> > out of the blue, I think there will probably be at least one more war.
> > You're still having trouble understanding what a war is.
>
> a "peaceful war"?
Yes... Peaceful as in all of the countries harboring enemy organizations
decide to become our allies and bring those groups to justice and educate
their public about those cults. If they all did that, there wouldn't be any
more war. It's up to them, not us. If they choose to attempt to protect
our enemy, to become their allys, that is their choice. We are not starting
a war, we are finishing one. It's a really bad idea... well... you know
the rest.
> yep, them cannons blast out flowers, milk and honey, and the soldiers sing
> '60s songs and hand out candy to their would-be enemy combatants.
> Why didn't I think of that?
That's just another thing they said right from the very beginning... "This
is a different kind of war."
> > Not really, and we aren't really liberators either. That's one of the
> > reasons they call this a different kind of war. There is simply a
necessity
> > to do what we are doing. "Private groups" can't find security due to
their
> > lack of being a fixed location of land. The country that harbors such a
> > group that has attacked another nation must fully cooperate in bringing
that
> > group to justice, or that country must be assumed to be an ally of the
> > attackers. This is all new stuff, but I think they are taking the right
> > course on that issue. Anything else would result in world-wide anarchy.
In
> > this case, there are a conglomerate of groups present in many nations
that
> > have attacked us. Each nation can choose to do the right thing, and be
our
> > ally as a result, or can choose to attempt to protect our enemy's within
> > their borders. If they chose to do so, we won't respect their borders.
> > Does it make more sense put that way?
> >
> what group? civillain rebels?
Radical fundamentialist islamic groups, have you been living in a cave for 5
years?
> Let's put it this way- threaten the World, and the World will retaliate.
We aren't threatening the world. This collection of minor nations is
nowhere near being "the world".
> Threaten even Canada, and our friendship will cease.
Why would we threaten Canada? We joke about having a "secret Canadian
invasion plan", but they know we're just kidding:-)
> American government doesn't "respect" any nation's borders as it is- even
> their Allies to the North.
Yes we do. We don't respect the borders of enemy nations, though. That's
only one of the many reasons that it wouldn't be a good idea to become one.
> You yanks coerced the NAFTA on us, and then at your earliest convenience
> (softwood dispute for one) choose to ignore its provisions- yet when the
> provisions of NAFTA have been broken in an incident relating to YOU,
that's
> another matter entirely.
I don't really know much about that stuff...
> Post 9/11, while we Canadians gladly went to Afghanistan with you, refused
> to go to Iraq.
That's OK, thanks for the help in Afghanistan. Rush Rules! :-)
> >> like you did in Iraq?
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> don't count on a quick "victory" there.
Iran won't be any more difficult that Iraq. If you are hunting with a 120mm
cannon it doesn't make much difference if the target is a mouse or a rabbit.
> >>> Unless, of course, they surrender and become our allys.
> >>
> >> your losing the allies you had.
> >
> > No we aren't.
>
> oh, but you are- the people of Australia, Britain and Canada grow weary of
> the US' posturing.
It isn't "posturing". Who would we have to "posture" for? Are we trying to
impress the aliens or something? That just makes no sense. We're really
just doing everything within our power to avoid using nuclear weapons.
> Not for long will the Americans stride the world like the Colossus.
> Your Rome WILL collapse.
No... That's the whole danger. The closest that could possibly happen too
that is that we could be brought to the brink. If we haddn't done it yet,
that would be when we pelted the middle east with literally hundreds of 20
megaton nukes with the intent of killing every living thing in the region.
That's the whole danger. When it really comes down to it, that is the whole
reason that we are fighting this war. Just think it through... It isn't
tough talk. Ask the Russians. If they make it us or them, it will be them.
We guarntee it.
> >> right 'bout now, Hitler's looking like a moderate in comparison to this
> >> war-mongrel.
> >
> > Actually these are the very ideas that defeated Hitler. Those are the
> > people that taught us this. You have it completely backwards.
> >
> funny thing; it was Hitler's designs on empire-building that saw his
defeat.
> Likely the same may happen against the US.
We don't have any "designs of empire building", that's just rediculous. We
don't care about their barren wasteland of a desert. And you still have it
backwards, these really are the ideas of the people who defeated Hitler.
You couldn't have it more backwards.
Kavik Kang
> in article _Yfld.2320$G36...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Kavik Kang
> at Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/12/04 8:21 PM:
>
But we're only after the radical fundamentalist islamic ones. Countries
can't be allowed to shield "private organizations" from retaliation simply
by saying "they are here, but we aren't going to do anything about them, and
you can't attack us because we haven't done anything". The world just
doesn't work that way, it would be utter chaos. The president's solution is
the only logical solution to this problem, the nations which harbor such
groups must deal with them immidiately. If they refuse, we can only assume
that they support the enemy. That's what he meant by "every nation has a
choice, are they on our side or the side of the terrorists". They have a
choice to make in World War III... do they arrest these groups and educate
their people against joining such cults, or do they choose to attempt to
protect the our enemies which have attacked us and must be dealt with. Such
nations have a choice between joining our side, or joining the enemy side.
"Private organizations" cannot be allowed to have security simply because
they don't occupy land.
> Interesting how for the most part, we accepted the terrorism of those who
> wished Ireland to secede from Britain's grasp, and even legitimised this
> murderous action.
It's a really bad idea to attack the United States:-)
> But, if this action is done against the US, that should somehow be
> different?
Of course it is. We can destroy the world in under 45 minutes, and we will
if we need too. That's not easy. Countries always want things from us,
because we are a superpower. If countries thought that they could get what
they want by attacking us, we would be attacked often. If we are attacked
often enough, we eventually just have to let the nukes fly to save
ourselves. We try to stop this from happenning when... well, we never stop
trying to stop this from happening, but right now some people might be
trying to make us blow up their part of the world, and we are trying our
best not to do it. When it comes down to it, in the end, that's what this
is all about. It's a lot different when we are attacked. Different
countries hold different places within the world. It might not be fair, but
the fact exists... and if we ignore that we'll blow up the world.
> And, for the record, terrorism is a tool used "to govern by fear".
> Military tactics in Falujah etc. aren't those of terrorists- that is
> rebellion, and as long as the US are there, the fighting will only get
> worse.
That is also a definition. There are several definitions of terrorisim. If
someone were to put them all together, which I'm sure someone somewhere
already has, you'd have a complete definition.
> American forces are seen as provocation by the local Iraqis, and Alawi
> already lost the ability to form an effective government that the people
> would obey, simply b/c the US refused a request.
Still having trouble understanding what a war is:-(
Siobhan Medeiros
Yeah, what's a few million deaths and one of your financial/political
centers reduced to radioactive waste? Yeah, no damage there.
>
> > And by the way Jane's has found out that N. Korea now has submarine
> > launch capabilties. Meaning they can now nuke one of your cities and
> > you'd never be able to figure out who did it. Hmm, I wonder if that
> > sub the Japanese are chasing right now is really Chinese....
>
> Again, you prove that you don't know what you are talking about. We would
> know exactly who did it. I won't say why, but we would know exactly where
> it came from and who's sub it was.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw040802_1_n.shtml
>People who don't understand war
> shouldn't make false assumptions based on their lack of knowledge. In
> reality, that sub could never launch a nuke at the US mainland, but I'm not
> going to go into why in a public newsgroup,
What, it's top secret? LOL.
> I'll only say that, again, just
> as you rediculously think Iraq is more than the US military can handle, you
> greatly undersestimate the capablities of the US military...
Yeah, things are going just ducky in Iraq, no problems there. One
year past "mission accomplished" and things are running like a swiss
watch. Just as smoothly as say, North Vietnam or Somalia.
>in this case,
> especially the navy:-)
I think you are the one grossly overestimating their abilities.
There's more to an effective military than just being a money pit.
You know, I think that Iran has a pretty good case for declaring war
on you. Wasn't it you guys who overthrew their government when they
were a functioning democracy? And wasn't it you guys who shot down
one of their airlines and killed hundreds of people?
catchmerevisited
Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/13/04 8:49 PM:
> "catchmerevisited" <catchmerev...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:BDBB98DD.D764%catchmerev...@yahoo.ca...
>> in article _Yfld.2320$G36...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Kavik Kang
>> at Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/12/04 8:21 PM:
>>>
>> the problem is, "terrorits" aren't confined to any particular country, or
>> even a specific ideology.
>
> But we're only after the radical fundamentalist islamic ones. Countries
> can't be allowed to shield "private organizations" from retaliation simply
> by saying "they are here, but we aren't going to do anything about them, and
> you can't attack us because we haven't done anything". The world just
> doesn't work that way, it would be utter chaos. The president's solution is
> the only logical solution to this problem, the nations which harbor such
> groups must deal with them immidiately. If they refuse, we can only assume
> that they support the enemy. That's what he meant by "every nation has a
> choice, are they on our side or the side of the terrorists". They have a
> choice to make in World War III... do they arrest these groups and educate
> their people against joining such cults, or do they choose to attempt to
> protect the our enemies which have attacked us and must be dealt with. Such
> nations have a choice between joining our side, or joining the enemy side.
> "Private organizations" cannot be allowed to have security simply because
> they don't occupy land.
its our country- you'll have to negotiate with our leaders and supply proof;
after all, in some countries, Democracy still exists.
Bush is far from 'logical'- else he would do more than play lip-service to
the political ideologue that your Constitution represents.
Anyone who would act like Bush does, within a nation such as the USA, and
make the once- respected nation take the reputation worse than that of the
former USSR, is in nature, anti-american, and anti-democracy.
this was carried out in part with his governance over his people by terror-
he (Bush) IS TERRORIST #01!
>
>
>> Interesting how for the most part, we accepted the terrorism of those who
>> wished Ireland to secede from Britain's grasp, and even legitimised this
>> murderous action.
>
> It's a really bad idea to attack the United States:-)
far worse for the US to attack any of their former Allies.
>
>> But, if this action is done against the US, that should somehow be
>> different?
>
> Of course it is. We can destroy the world in under 45 minutes, and we will
> if we need too. That's not easy. Countries always want things from us,
> because we are a superpower. If countries thought that they could get what
> they want by attacking us, we would be attacked often. If we are attacked
> often enough, we eventually just have to let the nukes fly to save
> ourselves. We try to stop this from happenning when... well, we never stop
> trying to stop this from happening, but right now some people might be
> trying to make us blow up their part of the world, and we are trying our
> best not to do it. When it comes down to it, in the end, that's what this
> is all about. It's a lot different when we are attacked. Different
> countries hold different places within the world. It might not be fair, but
> the fact exists... and if we ignore that we'll blow up the world.
evil personified- nothing else matters to such as you, if you can't get what
you want.
Even Hitler had limits as to what he would do.
>
>
>> And, for the record, terrorism is a tool used "to govern by fear".
>> Military tactics in Falujah etc. aren't those of terrorists- that is
>> rebellion, and as long as the US are there, the fighting will only get
>> worse.
>
> That is also a definition. There are several definitions of terrorisim. If
> someone were to put them all together, which I'm sure someone somewhere
> already has, you'd have a complete definition.
>
you just threatened to blow up the world- only a terrorist would even think
to suggest such a thing.
>
>> American forces are seen as provocation by the local Iraqis, and Alawi
>> already lost the ability to form an effective government that the people
>> would obey, simply b/c the US refused a request.
>
> Still having trouble understanding what a war is:-(
>
>
likely it's just beginning.
Hitler in his early years was popular too, you'll remember....this time
around, it's the States.
Don't think for one minute that we will continue to tolerate this much
longer.
Kavik Kang
> in article MtBld.3436$G3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Kavik Kang
at
> Kavik...@hotmail.com wrote on 11/13/04 8:49 PM:
>
No, it's a war. We don't negotiate during wars. That's part of the meaning
of "unconditional surrender". There are two sides to the war, we
"negotiate" with those who are on our side, the enemy simply does what we
say or suffers the consequences of their decision. It's their choice, they
can be our ally or they can choose to be our enemy. They cannot choose to
protect our attackers and be free of consequence.
> Bush is far from 'logical'- else he would do more than play lip-service to
> the political ideologue that your Constitution represents.
Bush is bust defending what the Constitution represents right now.
> Anyone who would act like Bush does, within a nation such as the USA, and
> make the once- respected nation take the reputation worse than that of the
> former USSR, is in nature, anti-american, and anti-democracy.
You've said so many stuid things in one sentance I think you deserve an
award or something. Kerry would have acted like Bush, he even said so. So
would any other US president, they'd all be doing the same thing. Bush has
nothing to do with it. And if you think we are anything like the Russians
than you really are lucky that we won the Cold War... lucky that'll you are
free to be so ignorant.
> this was carried out in part with his governance over his people by
terror-
> he (Bush) IS TERRORIST #01!
You're kind of crazy, like that pearl guy, aren't you?
> >> Interesting how for the most part, we accepted the terrorism of those
who
> >> wished Ireland to secede from Britain's grasp, and even legitimised
this
> >> murderous action.
> >
> > It's a really bad idea to attack the United States:-)
>
> far worse for the US to attack any of their former Allies.
No, it really isn't. We aren't attacking our allies, but if we did, it
wouldn't turn out all that bad for us. No irresistable force would come
sailing over the horizon and invade us. It really wouldn't be bad for us.
That's one of the many points of that phrase.
> >> But, if this action is done against the US, that should somehow be
> >> different?
> >
> > Of course it is. We can destroy the world in under 45 minutes, and we
will
> > if we need too. That's not easy. Countries always want things from us,
> > because we are a superpower. If countries thought that they could get
what
> > they want by attacking us, we would be attacked often. If we are attack
ed
> > often enough, we eventually just have to let the nukes fly to save
> > ourselves. We try to stop this from happenning when... well, we never
stop
> > trying to stop this from happening, but right now some people might be
> > trying to make us blow up their part of the world, and we are trying our
> > best not to do it. When it comes down to it, in the end, that's what
this
> > is all about. It's a lot different when we are attacked. Different
> > countries hold different places within the world. It might not be fair,
but
> > the fact exists... and if we ignore that we'll blow up the world.
>
> evil personified- nothing else matters to such as you, if you can't get
what
> you want.
Huh? We are just trying to save the world here... more specifically, to
save your world from your wackos.
> Even Hitler had limits as to what he would do.
No he didn't.
> >> And, for the record, terrorism is a tool used "to govern by fear".
> >> Military tactics in Falujah etc. aren't those of terrorists- that is
> >> rebellion, and as long as the US are there, the fighting will only get
> >> worse.
> >
> > That is also a definition. There are several definitions of terrorisim.
If
> > someone were to put them all together, which I'm sure someone somewhere
> > already has, you'd have a complete definition.
> >
> you just threatened to blow up the world- only a terrorist would even
think
> to suggest such a thing.
I didn't threaten to blow up the world. Dwight Eisenhower threatened to
blow up the world. His threat still stands, too. It's called Mutually
Assured Destruction and it means that if we are attacked by even just one
nuke, we will destroy the world. We have only one response to a nuclear
attack, we "assure" the complete and total destruction of our attackers.
This is nothing new, it's decades old and probably the only reason that
there was never a nuclear war. It prevents nuclear war and it is the only
thing that does. If the muslims are stupid enough to attack us with a
nuclear weapon, we have no choice but to elminate the middle east. If we
don't nobody will take MAD seriously and the world will be open to endless
"limited nuclear war". The only thing new about it is that in this case the
whole world won't be destroyed, only your world will be destroyed. We
aren't going to just sit here and let their people nuke us little by little,
if they hit us once they are gone. That's why you don't nuke a superpower,
if you can't take them all the way out you are done for. I hope the Muslims
figure this out soon, and I really think they should talk to the Russians
about it. They don't have to take our word for it, our old advaseries can
explain it too them. Maybe even better than we can, since their perspective
is more similar to theirs. We're doing everything we can to stop your
radical fundamentalist muslims from destroying the middle east, we're even
fighting a war to try and stop them. A little help would be nice...
> >> American forces are seen as provocation by the local Iraqis, and Alawi
> >> already lost the ability to form an effective government that the
people
> >> would obey, simply b/c the US refused a request.
> >
> > Still having trouble understanding what a war is:-(
> >
> >
> likely it's just beginning.
That is unfortunate.
> Hitler in his early years was popular too, you'll remember....this time
> around, it's the States.
No. Hitler was trying to exterminate a portion of the population, we are
trying to save a portion of the population from being exterminated. There
isn't any similarity at all.
> Don't think for one minute that we will continue to tolerate this much
> longer.
Just don't use any nukes. Shooting at us is one thing, a nuke is an
entirely different matter. It is so vitally important that the people of
the middle east understand this. There is no question about it, the
decision was made decades ago and the very fate of humanity rests in the
balance, we absolutely will nuke the entire region if just one nuke goes off
anywhere inside the US. Just ask the Russians, they know all about it.
Kavik Kang
> "Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<gzTkd.875$G36...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > > weapon". See what one of these can do to a column of tanks, a carrier
> > > group, or a US base and tell us again how "useless" their nukes are.
> >
> > Which is exactly why Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons, duh.
And
> > when I said a small strike was useless I meant a small strike against
the US
> > mainland. Only a massive strike will cause any damage:-)
> >
>
> Yeah, what's a few million deaths and one of your financial/political
> centers reduced to radioactive waste? Yeah, no damage there.
I personally believe that both us and the Russians have had the capablity to
intercept small strikes for many years now. There are several low-tech
means of accomplishing this that could have been planned since as early as
the 1960's. So I don't personally believe that a small strike would get any
through:-)
> >
> > > And by the way Jane's has found out that N. Korea now has submarine
> > > launch capabilties. Meaning they can now nuke one of your cities and
> > > you'd never be able to figure out who did it. Hmm, I wonder if that
> > > sub the Japanese are chasing right now is really Chinese....
> >
> > Again, you prove that you don't know what you are talking about. We
would
> > know exactly who did it. I won't say why, but we would know exactly
where
> > it came from and who's sub it was.
>
> http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw040802_1_n.shtml
I know they have a submarine, idiot. Getting it anywhere near the US is an
entirely different matter. If it carries nukes, we will know where it is at
all times. They are North Korea, not Russia, they can't hide their only sub
from us or even a dozen of them. If they get hundreds like the Russians
once had, maybe then they'd be a threat. I know a lot about naval combat.
And as far as us not knowing who they are just because they are in a sub,
like I originally said, you just don't know what you are talking about.
> >People who don't understand war
> > shouldn't make false assumptions based on their lack of knowledge. In
> > reality, that sub could never launch a nuke at the US mainland, but I'm
not
> > going to go into why in a public newsgroup,
>
> What, it's top secret? LOL.
No. Although I don't know anything that is classified, I do know a lot
about US military equipment and tactics. I'm careful not to discuss any of
those issues because I don't want to teach any crazy people anything useful.
> > I'll only say that, again, just
> > as you rediculously think Iraq is more than the US military can handle,
you
> > greatly undersestimate the capablities of the US military...
>
> Yeah, things are going just ducky in Iraq, no problems there.
No, there really aren't.
> One
> year past "mission accomplished" and things are running like a swiss
> watch. Just as smoothly as say, North Vietnam or Somalia.
That was a stupid thing for him to say, especially considering that everyone
knew we were just getting started. Of course, he meant defeating Saddam's
army and securing the country, but it still was a stupid thing to say.
> >in this case,
> > especially the navy:-)
>
> I think you are the one grossly overestimating their abilities.
> There's more to an effective military than just being a money pit.
The Navy? No, not at all. A single North Korean sub is certainly not even
a concern for the US Navy.. If you think we're tough on land you don't even
want to look out to sea...
> You know, I think that Iran has a pretty good case for declaring war
> on you.
They don't need to have a case. Any nation can declare war on any other
nation at any time and for any reason, or even for no reason at all. Iran
declaring war on us is pretty comical, especially considering that navy
they'd have to get through to get here. If they really work hard at it, and
if we just sit there and let them do it, they might actually be able to
build a navy to challenge ours in two or three hundred years. We can wait
if they really want to go for it...
> Wasn't it you guys who overthrew their government when they
> were a functioning democracy? And wasn't it you guys who shot down
> one of their airlines and killed hundreds of people?
When did Iraq have a functioning democracy? 100% of the people voted for
Saddam, that isn't a functioning democracy. But we really don't care about
any of that, we're too busy trying to save the middle east from itself.
Steven Hook
ignoring me, am I too un-chalanging to deserve a response?
Siobhan Medeiros
> "Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:baa03ba8.0411...@posting.google.com...
> > "Kavik Kang" <Kavik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<psukd.23135$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > OK, this guy has reached a new level in stupidity. Time to set the
> > record straight:
>
> You would have to understand the record in order to "set it straight".
>
>
> > 1. Yes, Iraq had "WMD" in the past, because YOU gave them to him.
> > However, as the UN inspectors and the invasion proved, he hasn't had
> > them for over 15 years. Ancient history does not justify a war
> > killing 100,000 civilians, neither does taking a few potshots at some
> > unarmed drones.
>
> The whole world believed that he still had WMDs, because he probably did.
Hans Blix didn't.
> He had plenty of time to get rid of them or hide them, but since it wasn't
> the reason for the war anyway, it really isn't all that relevant. And they
> weren't shooting at unmanned drones, they were shooting at our manned
> airplanes, which is an act of war and has been since the dawn of time.
Which never succeeded in damaging a single manned aircrfat, and they
paid for it by having their SAM sites blown up. Next question.
> They
> also tried to kill our former president (also an act of war),
Oh, then by that logic Chile and Cuba would be justified in declaring
war against you and killing 100,000 of your civilians.
and violated
> most of the terms of the cease-fire from the previous war (also an act of
> war). ]
Which was taken care of by UN approved military action under Clinton.
Before the war, Saddam was practically jumping through hoops.
> But none of that really matters, since radical fundamemtalist muslims
> started World War III with us and now we will win the war. When Japan
> attacked us in 1941, our response was to invade Tunisia!!! Finally, 100,000
> civilians have not been killed, 10,000-20,000 have been, probably closer to
> 10,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html
Care to try again?
>
>
> > 2. Iraq didn't attack you. In fact, Iraq was one of the few
> > countries in the Middle East where the fundamentalists DIDN'T have a
> > foothold (they have one now, thanks to you). Saddam couldn't have
> > them there without diluting his own power base, so he kept Iraq
> > secular. Of course now...
>
> We are at war with the entire region, not Iraq. Iraq has the great
> misfortune of being prefectly suited to our goals. That's too bad for Iraq.
> It didn't do Tunisia much good, either. It's a really bad idea to attack
> the United States.
>
I see, "we were attacked so we get to invade whoever we want".
Riiiigght.. You gonna invade Canada next?
>
> > 3. Setting up a future "base of operations" for future invasions is
> > not justification for war, no more than Hitler's annexation of
> > Austria.
>
> No, attacking New York is a justification for war. They started World War
> III, that was a really bad idea since they are incapable of fighting that
> war anywhere but on internet.
Right now the people who attacked you are winning. You've just
provided them with a new base to replace Afghanistan, and Bin Laden is
experiencing a recruitment bonanza thanks to your idiotic invasion of
Iraq. Next time, try invading the people who actually attacked you.
>
>
> > 4. If you think an Iran invasion is in the works you're fucking
> > dreaming. Paul Bremer and the military brass have been saying for
> > months now, they haven't got enough troops to stablize Iraq, let alone
> > go invading other countries. And considering that the US is already
> > $500 billion in the hole, that the Army has only met 30% of their
> > recruiting target, it's safe to say more won't be coming unless George
> > brings back the draft (and we know we wouldn't do that...right?).
> > Iran has three times the area of Iraq, twice the population, and their
> > military hasn't been gutted by ten years of sanctions. There is no
> > way you guys could pull off an invasion.
>
> Hahaha, another person who thinks we can't even defeat Iraq, haha. It sure
> is a good thing the Russians never attacked, they apparently would have
> rolled over us in a day!
Actually, most military experts agree that the USSR could have taken
over Europe anytime they felt like it in a conventional-only war.
ANother study taken in the mid-seventies estimated that in a full-on
war, the US air force would be blown out of the sky in two weeks time
because of Russian advances in SAM technology.
> You have no idea what you are talking about. We
> can invade every country in the region simultaniously and still take on
> another war in a different part of the world. Iran is a primative minor
> nation of no military signifigance what-so-ever.
Then why did you both invading it?
< We can defeat Iran in 4-6
> weeks, it wouldn't be any more difficult that defeating Iraq.
LOL. Iran has three times the area, twice the population, an
American=made airforce, and has a military which hasn't been under
sanctions for ten years. If you think Iran wouldn't be more of a
fight, then you're totally clueless.
Both nations
> are equally incapable of resisting a US invasion.
Iraq's doing a pretty decent job of resisting now.
You really don't have the
> slightest idea what you are talking about. In fact, it's hardly even worth
> arguing with you, since everyone in the world knows that the US can handle
> an infinately larger war than simply dealing with a collection of minor,
> militarily insignifcant, primative nations. You really are living in a
> fantasy land.
What, you're going to have Captain Kirk beam down another 140,000
troops from teh Enterprise? Why don't you bother askign the question
posed and tell me where you're going to get those troops from without
reinstating the draft?
>
>
> > 5. Air strikes against Iran? Yeah, what good would that do? I
> > remember when you guys discovered a "secret" Iranian nuclear facility.
> > Turns out they'd registered it with the IAEC long ago. The moral:
> > you guys can't even find what they're not even trying to hide. Even
> > if successful, all you'd do is force them underground, like the
> > Israeli attack on that Iraqi reactor. One of Saddam's nuclear
> > scientists was interviewed on CNN, he said that the attack didn't
> > hamper their program a bit, just forced them underground.
>
> Air strikes? We aren't going to bomb them, we are going to replace their
> government. Unless, of course, they surrender and become our allys.
> Exactly like the president said.
See above.
>And Iran is not allowed to have nuclear
> weapons. They are run by radical fundamentalists that we are at war with.
> They are not allowed to have them simply because we say so, no further
> explination on our part is required.
And, as you've shown in Iraq, NOT having them won't do them any good
whatsoever. No wonder they're building them as fast as they can.
> And they are trying to build nuclear
> weapons, we know this because they have already developed their long-range
> missile. The only practical use of long-range missiles is to carry nuclear
> warheads. Iran will surrender or Iran will be invaded. Iran will not be
> allowed to become a nuclear power. We don't play games when it comes to
> nukes. And, just so you know in advance, if they actually put an armed
> missile on the pad against our will... our doctrine doesn't tell us to
> launch an air strike, our doctrine tells us that the proper response is to
> nuke their nuke. If they want to attempt to join the nuclear club against
> our orders, we'll gladly give them a welcome they'll never forget.
It could be they'll give YOU a welcome you'll never forget. Kiss
Washington goodbye.
>
>
> > In conclusion: You're an enormous idiot. Somewhere on the lines of
> > that military general who gave the insurgents in Fallujah weeks of
> > advance warning that an invasion was coming, and then act surprised
> > that most of them left.
>
> Actually, you just don't understand anything about the situation. You
> understand it so little, that you actually believe that Iraq is too powerful
> a nation for the US to handle. That really says it all by itself. And we
> informed the people of Fallujah of the attack well in adance so that
> innocent civilians would have warning and be able to leave.
Yah, along with the terrorists. Smooth move.
It's just
> another example of proof that we are the "good guys"
Yeah, good guys who have killed 100,000 civlians so far. In fact,
more civlians than "bad guys" by my count.
and that we do
> everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Since the terrorists are
> incapable of fighting us, we can afford to warn of major attacks in or near
> civilian population centers well in advance in the interests of sparing the
> innocent.
So how come US soldiers and nationals are getting kidnapped and killed
left, right and centre?
That general wasn't stupid, that general is a humanitarian...
> like most American generals. You just don't understand the first thing
> about any of this stuff.
Liek the guy who decided that 380 tons of high explosive didn't need
guarding? RIiiight...
Bush's bullshit dispensers must be proud to know that there actually
is someone out there who buys their crap.