What Excuse Will the Bushists Use Now to Make Sure There's More War in Our Time
xofpi
When a Bush wants to go to war, Bushists will see to it that war happens. They
will lie, cheat, steal, fake reports of nursery atrocities and rapes and troop
movements, strongarm allies, propagandize and demonize. There will be a war,
whether the UN conditions are met or not.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Iraq.html
Iraqi Diplomat Confirms
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:55 a.m. ET
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Iraq, facing a Friday deadline and the threat of war, has
accepted a tough new U.N. resolution that will return weapons inspectors to the
country after nearly four years, the country's U.N. ambassador said.
``The letter says that Iraq will deal with Security Council resolution 1441
despite its bad contents,'' Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri said Wednesday.
Advertisement
``We are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable,'' he
said. ``We are eager to see them perform their duties in accordance with
international law as soon as possible.''
In the letter, Iraq reiterates that it has no weapons of mass destruction,
Al-Douri said.
``We explained in the letter the whole Iraqi position saying that Iraq ... has
not and will not have any mass destruction weapons, so we are not worried about
the inspectors when they will be back,'' he said.
Al-Douri delivered the letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan's office. Annan
was in the Washington area on Wednesday to deliver a speech and meet with
President Bush, who has repeatedly threatened Iraq with a U.S.-led war if it
fails to comply with inspectors.
The secretary-general on Tuesday dismissed a vote earlier that day by Iraq's
parliament opposing the tough new resolution and expressed hope that the
government would accept the resolution adopted unanimously last Friday by the
U.N. Security Council.
Iraq's acceptance would clear the way for the arrival of an advance team of U.N.
inspectors on Monday.
The team will be led by U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix, who is in charge of
biological and chemical inspections, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head if the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which is in charge of nuclear inspections.
Al-Douri said Iraq hopes its acceptance of the resolution will avoid the threat
of war. ``We are always opting for the path of peace,'' he said.
The resolution demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the inspectors, who can go
anywhere at any time to search for weapons of mass destruction.
It warns that Iraq faces ``serious consequences'' if it doesn't comply -- and
the United States has made clear that an Iraqi failure to cooperate will almost
certainly mean a new war.
On Tuesday, the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's son, Odai Saddam Hussein,
proposed making Arabs part of the U.N. team, echoing a recommendation from the
Arab League.
Blix's office said it has trained inspectors from 49 countries, including six
Jordanians, one Moroccan and five Turks. ``We don't get too many applications
from Arabic countries and we would welcome more applications from people who
have the right expertise,'' one official said, speaking on condition of
anonymity.
ElBaradei said the IAEA in the past had ``many inspectors from many Arab
countries'' and this was not a problem.
Baghdad Babs Streisand
pulls a another stunt like he did with Clinton so many times and WHAM ! Saddam is
maggot food.
Sorry to hear bout your friend Hitler , i know you believed him too .
xofpi
sing but my politics are says...
>
>Only a Stupid Liberal would belive Saddam . All we have to do is wait until Saddam
>pulls a another stunt like he did with Clinton so many times and WHAM ! Saddam is
>maggot food.
Is *that* what you eat?
>Sorry to hear bout your friend Hitler , i know you believed him too .
Hitler was a Republican. He liked to insist that Germany voss not a demograzy,
it voss ein Reich!
Ray McGarity
will not have to go to war.
What a concept.. Our children might even have a chance to live in a world
absent terrorism.
I would rather have a president with courageous, effective policies who
speaks backwardly, than a smooth talker who dodges hard decisions in the
interest of his own political survival.
Are you smart enough to figure out whom I am talking about?
TICA
xofpi
says...
>
>The president will engage in a war now, at this time, so that our children
>will not have to go to war.
That's the line they always use. And suckers like you always fall for it. Or
pretend to fall for it.
>What a concept.. Our children might even have a chance to live in a world
>absent terrorism.
Sure. That's the ticket.
>I would rather have a president with courageous, effective policies who
>speaks backwardly, than a smooth talker who dodges hard decisions in the
>interest of his own political survival.
>
>Are you smart enough to figure out whom I am talking about?
>
>TICA
I'm even smarter!
John Willimans
"Ray McGarity" <ray...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2dwA9.134315$fa.25...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> The president will engage in a war now, at this time, so that our children
> will not have to go to war.
>
You mean in December of 2003 so that *we* will have 4 more years of Bush?
> What a concept.. Our children might even have a chance to live in a world
> absent terrorism.
>
Yeah, right. Terrorism is not about Iraq, it is about very poor people
trying to find a way to fight a war. Good or bad, that is what it is. If
OBL or the Palestinians had bombers, figher jets and nukes, terrorism
wouldn't be around.
As long as there are oppressed people in this world, there will be
terrorism. Until you understand that, you are useless to society. Worse,
you are a scab on society.
> I would rather have a president with courageous,
Please give me your definition of courageous. Mine must differ
significantly.
> effective
Where's OBL? What positive effects has Bush had with these "couragous"
policies?
policies who
> speaks backwardly,
Yes, he does.
> than a smooth talker who dodges hard decisions in the
> interest of his own political survival.
>
What are you talking about? I assume Bill Clinton is the object of your
affection here, but you don't give any examples, only sound bites.
> Are you smart enough to figure out whom I am talking about?
>
Bugs Bunny?
> TICA
>
>
>
Steven Litvintchouk
John Willimans wrote:
>
> "Ray McGarity" <ray...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:2dwA9.134315$fa.25...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > The president will engage in a war now, at this time, so that our children
> > will not have to go to war.
> >
>
> You mean in December of 2003 so that *we* will have 4 more years of Bush?
>
> > What a concept.. Our children might even have a chance to live in a world
> > absent terrorism.
> >
>
> Yeah, right. Terrorism is not about Iraq, it is about very poor people
> trying to find a way to fight a war. Good or bad, that is what it is. If
> OBL or the Palestinians had bombers, figher jets and nukes, terrorism
> wouldn't be around.
If OBL and the Palestinians wanted to take the moral high ground, they
wouldn't deliberately go after schoolchildren and other civilians. They
would confine their attacks to military targets only.
> As long as there are oppressed people in this world, there will be
> terrorism.
You fucking traitor.
That's utter bullshit, you piece of traitorous shit.
Who is oppressing Osama bin Laden? He's a millionaire businessman with
delusions of grandeur. Who the hell elected him to represent ANYBODY
else on this entire planet? He represents no one but himself and his
delusions.
No Palestinians were involved in 9-11. All 19 of them were middle-class
Saudi and Egyptian nationals. You don't know what you're talking about.
And worse.
You want to rationalize Osama bin Laden's atrocities? That makes you a
traitor to your own country in wartime.
As far as I am concerned, you belong in Guantanamo with the al-Qaeda
terrorists you admire so much.
Of course, since you're not a Muslim, they have no use for you either,
and probably would slit your throat, which I wouldn't shed any tears
over.
>
> > I would rather have a president with courageous,
>
> Please give me your definition of courageous. Mine must differ
> significantly.
Yep. You think it takes courage to surrender.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
Cognitus
"Ray McGarity" <ray...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2dwA9.134315$fa.25...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> will not have to go to war.
Surprised you do not understand YOUR CHILDREN *ARE* GOING TO
WAR (unless you are so young you, personally, do not have children).
>
> What a concept.. Our children might even have a chance to live in a world
> absent terrorism.
Nope, you don't understand that since terrorists have only a flimsy
organization,
they will still be with us. Think of Tim McVey, raised right here in the
USA.....
Some of the terrorists will be OURS. Terrorism existed before civilization
(so-called) and it will continue...
>
> I would rather have a president with courageous, effective policies who
> speaks backwardly,
Surprised to hear you support an ignoramus who cannot even speak
"American" ... but considering your contributions here ............
John Willimans
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3DD2C5C2...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> John Willimans wrote:
> >
> > "Ray McGarity" <ray...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:2dwA9.134315$fa.25...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > The president will engage in a war now, at this time, so that our
children
> > > will not have to go to war.
> > >
> >
> > You mean in December of 2003 so that *we* will have 4 more years of
Bush?
> >
> > > What a concept.. Our children might even have a chance to live in a
world
> > > absent terrorism.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, right. Terrorism is not about Iraq, it is about very poor people
> > trying to find a way to fight a war. Good or bad, that is what it is.
If
> > OBL or the Palestinians had bombers, figher jets and nukes, terrorism
> > wouldn't be around.
>
> If OBL and the Palestinians wanted to take the moral high ground, they
> wouldn't deliberately go after schoolchildren and other civilians. They
> would confine their attacks to military targets only.
>
Many Palestinians do feel that they are targeting military targets only.
Their line goes that any adult male over the age of 18 is either active duty
or reserve military in Israel. So when they bomb a bus and kill males over
18, anyone else killed is just "collateral damage" to use a term loved by
your type.
>
> > As long as there are oppressed people in this world, there will be
> > terrorism.
>
> You fucking traitor.
What did I say that was traitorous? Is it now "unpatriotic" to point out
oppression in the world?
> That's utter bullshit, you piece of traitorous shit.
>
Speaking what you believe is not traitorous in *my* country (United States
of America). Your abuse of the word is a very dangerous thing.
> Who is oppressing Osama bin Laden? He's a millionaire businessman with
> delusions of grandeur. Who the hell elected him to represent ANYBODY
> else on this entire planet? He represents no one but himself and his
> delusions.
I agree.
>
> No Palestinians were involved in 9-11.
Yep, but there are Palestinians who are terrorists, are there not?
> All 19 of them were middle-class
> Saudi and Egyptian nationals.
Where was Massoui (or whatever that fucks name is) from? You know, the
"20th hijacker". Was he Egyptian or Saudi? How about these guys we just
took out in Yemen. Were they middle class Saudi and Egyptian nationals?
How about the ones that blew up the embassies in Africa? Cole attack?
Buffalo six? Were these *all* middle class Saudi and Egyptian nationals?
Your simplistic thinking is what is going to ruin this country. And George
W. Bush is the king of simple thinking, so we are all in for a load of shit.
> You don't know what you're talking about.
You obviously don't, either.
>
> And worse.
> You want to rationalize Osama bin Laden's atrocities? That makes you a
> traitor to your own country in wartime.
Rationalize? No. More like "know thy enemy"
> As far as I am concerned, you belong in Guantanamo with the al-Qaeda
> terrorists you admire so much.
>
And I am sure that if Bush had his way, there would be about 50 million U.S.
citizens in Guantanamo.
> Of course, since you're not a Muslim, they have no use for you either,
> and probably would slit your throat, which I wouldn't shed any tears
> over.
>
Calm down there killer. I am not on OBLs side no matter how much you wish
that I were. OBL is exploiting the situation that *millions* of oppressed
Arabs live in. I didn't even say we were oppressing them (that is your own
guilty concience talking).
All I am saying is that to defeat terrorism, you must first understand what
causes it. According to you and the rest of the Republicans, it is because
all of these people are "evil". Well, then you must think that 90% of the
Palestinians are "evil", as that is how many probably support terrorist
attacks against Israel.
I, however, don't think in such simple terms. I like to dig deeper, gain an
understanding, and then attack the problem.
We *need* to defeat OBL. On that you and I agree. It is the method of
defeating that we differ on.
>
> >
> > > I would rather have a president with courageous,
> >
> > Please give me your definition of courageous. Mine must differ
> > significantly.
>
> Yep. You think it takes courage to surrender.
>
Where did I say that we should surrender?
Put the text here ->
King Pineapple
news:BRzA9.4709$vM1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> We *need* to defeat OBL. On that you and I agree. It is the method of
> defeating that we differ on.
But YOUR way didn't work, and 9/11 was the result.
"It helps when you criticize other peoples grammer to have you own in
order. Otherwise you look like an ass".
Leading NG dem John Willimans
John Willimans
"King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kfBA9.3051$Bh1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> DNC Dipstick "John Willimans" <jo...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:BRzA9.4709$vM1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> >
> > We *need* to defeat OBL. On that you and I agree. It is the method of
> > defeating that we differ on.
>
> But YOUR way didn't work, and 9/11 was the result.
>
So, going after and staying focused on those who have attacked us doesn't
work? Re-evaluating our relationships with *all* nations won't help? Do
you know what my way is?
I certainly don't know what yours is, unless it is just to attack the entire
Middle East (and more and more the Pacific Rim) until it is one big piece of
glass. Or else you think you can somehow become the new master of a couple
of billion servants.
And before you say President Bush is trying to spread Democracy, you guys
better decide if you think *we* live in a Democracy. One day President Bush
is trying to "spread" Democracy, the next day, the U.S. is a Republic,
certainly not a Democracy.
Dave Simpson
> When a Bush wants to go to war, Bushists will see to it that war happens. They
> will lie, cheat, steal,
Bush is not a Democrat.
Get your head out of your ass, and grow up.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> I would rather have a president with courageous, effective policies who
> speaks backwardly, than a smooth talker who dodges hard decisions in the
> interest of his own political survival.
That smooth talker named Clinton was a criminal, scumbag, and traitor.
Dave Simpson
xofpi
says...
>
>"xofpi" wrote:
>
>> When a Bush wants to go to war, Bushists will see to it that war happens. They
>> will lie, cheat, steal,
>
> Bush is not a Democrat.
Even if they were Democrats, there is something in their nature that would make
them lie, cheat, steal, etc. to make sure we have this war. It's been planned
since Bush I's administration. They will have this war, damn the consequences.
> Get your head out of your ass, and grow up.
Now there's brilliant argument. "Get your head out of your ass, and grow up."
Brilliant.
> Dave Simpson
4 MORE YEARS!
DEMOCRAPS glorify every year???
--GOP! BUSH 2004!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*WORK HARDER* Thousands on Welfare Depend on you!
Proud Member of the VAST Right Wing Conspiracy!
"xofpi" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:WQvA9.49984$15.1...@www.newsranger.com...