Rebuild Iraq yourselves, you bastards ....
The State of Alberta
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get. It is
the moral thing to do.
But then you Canucks are the most immoral people alive. You told 2.5
million Albertans their human rights were less important than the need for
Ontarians' gas guzzlers - hence the National Energy Policy.
Thank God you canucks are not in Iraq - one week of your government and
they'd pray for Saddam.
> You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq. Now
> the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go to
> hell as a result of this request ......
The UN already gave them approval to invade - the "Security Council" simply
could not decide whether to not contradict itself.
> (K): Goddamn warmongers. You lose YOUR people to the angry Iraquis for
> the next 5 years...... no other countries' people need apply. And when
> you've had a bellyfull of American bodies coming home in bags, maybe
> you'll get the hell out of Iraq. A country you had no business attacking
> 'with or without UN support'.
Soon the fighting will subside - Iraq will not only be restored, but it will
be improved. Have you Canucks built anything besides a trillion in debts?
Alberta secedes.
The State of Alberta
> (K): Firstly, war-loving rightwingers like yourself know nothing about
> the 'moral thing'.
> Secondly, the only help that the Iraqis want is for the U.S. and British
> to get the hell out of their country.
And you genocide loving leftwingers are all hugs and kisses? Nonsense.
> (K): Aw, stop whining, American. It's none of your business what we do
> in any province in Canada.
It matters to the people of that "province" (a term of subjection). They
paid for your luxury with their jobs, homes, businesses and futures.
Pinochet was arrested for less - Trudeau's cabinet of that era must be
arrested and charged with crimes against humanity. Otherwise your beloved
international court, set up by one of the criminals behind the NEP Lloyd
Axworthy (a Princeton grad no less), is meaningless.
> (K): They're already missing Saddam - and it's your Americans and the
Brits
> who are occupying their land.
Yes thank goodness they're missing Saddam.
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > The UN already gave them approval to invade - the "Security Council"
simply
> > could not decide whether to not contradict itself.
>
> (K): The UN never gave any approval to anyone to invade Iraq. THAT
> particular lie won't wash anywhere - not even in your very dumb United
> States.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
Read it and weep - your beloved UN refused to back its own resolution -
supported by all 15 members. The Coalition did what the UN refused to do -
back up its words with action. History will be kinder to the US and its
allies than to the UN.
> (K): Then why are you pleading for help? Your arrogance starting to slip
> a little as your boys get blown to bits?
Because the Coalition is stretched too thin to garrison and rebuild the
whole country. They need the assistance of a country that prides itself on
wasting its young men in squalid countries for decades: Canada, which did
that in Yugoslavia and Cyprus. Instead you sent your boys to Afghanistan.
Have fun.
> (K): Canada will decide if any province 'secedes'. You Americans have
> got your hands full in Iraq, it seems.
Alberta's future is Alberta's affair - Ontario has no power there, unless
you want to send your troops to occupy Alberta. In that case, what the
Coalition is going through in Iraq will seem tame by comparison.
TheMan
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
news:59IPa.441083$Vi5.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
> What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get. It
is
> the moral thing to do.
Invading for Oil is not the moral thing to do.
> > You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq.
Now
> > the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go
to
> > hell as a result of this request ......
>
> The UN already gave them approval to invade - the "Security Council"
simply
> could not decide whether to not contradict itself.
No they didn't. Why didn't the UN go in, instead of a "Coalition of
Willing"? Why didn't Hans Blix say they didn't comply?
The UN never said Iraq didn't comply, the USA said that. The UN also never
gave them approval to invade, your making up lies again.
> > (K): Goddamn warmongers. You lose YOUR people to the angry Iraquis for
> > the next 5 years...... no other countries' people need apply. And when
> > you've had a bellyfull of American bodies coming home in bags, maybe
> > you'll get the hell out of Iraq. A country you had no business
attacking
> > 'with or without UN support'.
>
> Soon the fighting will subside - Iraq will not only be restored, but it
will
> be improved. Have you Canucks built anything besides a trillion in debts?
But why are you there?
Where are the WMD?
-TheMan-
TheMan
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:benjpi$d2i$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>
> Read it and weep - your beloved UN refused to back its own resolution -
> supported by all 15 members. The Coalition did what the UN refused to
do -
> back up its words with action. History will be kinder to the US and its
> allies than to the UN.
Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered access and disarm
itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
Quite clearly they complied, which is why the UN didn't do anything. Not
enough for the oil hungry Americans unfortunately.
-TheMan-
Anonymust.
except the Salvos believe in morals.
Hope this helps, Karen.
http://randomprose.journalspace.com
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
> You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq. Now
> the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go to
> hell as a result of this request ......
> ________________
>
>
> US 'needs help in Iraq'
>
> The Bush administration is coming under growing domestic pressure over its
> Iraq strategy amid continuing attacks on US forces in the country.
>
> The US Senate has voted unanimously to urge President George W Bush to
> consider asking Nato and the United Nations for help in rebuilding Iraq.
>
> The non-binding resolution said that while it was in the interests of the
> United States to remain engaged in Iraq, conditions there posed a serious
> threat to American troops. <=====
>
> Public opinion in the US appears to reflect this disquiet, with polls
> showing a marked decline in support for the Bush administration's policy
> on Iraq.
>
> The Senate vote came after General Tommy Franks, until recently at the
> helm of US-led coalition forces in Iraq, warned that American forces might
> have to remain in the country far longer than anticipated. <====
>
> I'm now concerned that we have the world's best-trained soldiers serving
> as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery
>
> General Franks said attacks on US soldiers, which have killed more than 30
> since the war was declared over, were occurring at a rate of 10 to 25 a
> day.
>
> Friday saw the US pull most of its troops out of a police station in the
> Iraqi town of Falluja, about 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of the capital
> Baghdad, a day after protests at the continued US military presence there.
>
> An American military spokesman said about six soldiers would remain at the
> station to support the new police force in the town, where there have been
> frequent clashes between Iraqis and US forces.
>
> Iraqi police officers had threatened to resign if the Americans did not
> leave the station, as they felt joint patrols with American forces placed
> them at risk of attack.
>
> Overnight, a series of three mortar strikes were launched on an American
> base in the town of Ramadi, 100 kilometres (60 miles) west of Baghdad,
> although there were no injuries reported.
>
> And the US military said two Iraqi civilians were wounded in crossfire
> following a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a US patrol near Baghdad
> airport.
>
> 'Share the burden'
>
> Senators from the opposition Democratic Party - many of whom supported the
> decision to launch the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime -
> are expressing deep concern about events on the ground.
>
> They are also raising questions about the administration's citing of
> Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as a justification for the
> decision to go to war. No such weapons have been found in Iraq.
>
> The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition
>
> The Democrats urged Mr Bush to mend fences with France and Germany - key
> Nato members who were firmly opposed to the war.
>
> Senator John Kerry, who hopes to challenge Mr Bush for the presidency next
> year, said: "We now know that the administration went to war without a
> thorough plan to win the peace.
>
> "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the post-war
> burden internationally for the sake of our country." <====
>
> Senator Carl Levin, leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee,
> said it was "a mystery" why the Bush administration had not made a formal
> request for Nato forces in Iraq.
>
> He expressed the hope that soldiers wearing Nato insignia would not be
> targeted in Iraq with the same ferocity as their American counterparts.
>
> Reluctance
>
> But there appears to be a marked reluctance among other nations to commit
> troops to support US and British forces in Iraq.
>
> Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted there was uncertainty about the
> level of support the US and Britain could expect.
>
> "I can't give you the exact number of nations or how many troops are going
> to be committed," he told CNN.
>
> "The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition."
>
> There is also concern about the cost of the US commitment to Iraq.
>
> The Senate warned that the final bill for reconstruction would run into
> tens of billions of dollars over several years, and projected that Iraqi
> oil revenues will not cover those costs.
>
> Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the cost of continuing
> military operations in Iraq is running at $3.9bn a month, higher than
> anticipated.
>
> Story from BBC NEWS:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3058469.stm
> _________________________________
>
> (K): Goddamn warmongers. You lose YOUR people to the angry Iraquis for
> the next 5 years...... no other countries' people need apply. And when
> you've had a bellyfull of American bodies coming home in bags, maybe
> you'll get the hell out of Iraq. A country you had no business attacking
> 'with or without UN support'.
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Bush is proof that empty warheads can be dangerous
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The State of Alberta
"TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:iuKPa.1355$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Invading for Oil is not the moral thing to do.
The stated aims from the start were to end the Saddam regime and destroy its
weapons of mass destruction. Control over oil was not a political
objective, but it was a military one because of the experience in Gulf I
where Kuwait's oilfields were set on fire to thwart the Coalition forces.
In Gulf II, this objective was rapidly attained at minimal cost in human
lives or enviromental damage. Score one for the good guys.
> No they didn't. Why didn't the UN go in, instead of a "Coalition of
> Willing"? Why didn't Hans Blix say they didn't comply?
Because the UN could not agree on whether to do it or not - they refuse to
be rushed, which simply proves how far behind they are.
> The UN never said Iraq didn't comply, the USA said that. The UN also never
> gave them approval to invade, your making up lies again.
UNSC Resolution 1441, supported by all 15 members of the Security Council,
said that Iraq was in material breech, and were supported by the inspectors.
That same resolution warned Iraq of serious consequences should they not
adhere to it. They didn't, and the Coalition acted. The UN simply wanted
to waste more time and refused to give its support to enforcing its own
resolutions. The situation demanded action, something that bureaucrats can
never offer. The Coalition did what had to be done, and history has proven
them correct. The UN may not fare so well.
> But why are you there?
>
> Where are the WMD?
Where's Saddam? These questions will be answered soon enough, hopefully
before the UN decides what to do with itself.
In the mean time, Iraq will be rebuilt by the Coalition troops from the UK,
Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia,
the Ukraine, and the United States, and international aid agencies. The
world does not have the time to deal with a backwards-looking bureaucracy li
ke the UN, and countries like France or Canada.
The State of Alberta
> Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered access and disarm
> itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
They kicked UNMOVIC out of Iraq in 1998 - so the answer is no.
> Quite clearly they complied, which is why the UN didn't do anything. Not
> enough for the oil hungry Americans unfortunately.
They may have, reluctantly, complied until 1998, but after that the UN made
several unsuccessful attempts to get them to comply.
Bush called Saddam's bluff and ended his regime once and for all, with help
from the UK, Australia, Poland and 35 other countries. Good.
Dictators must be dealt with - they cannot be coddled and appeased, for we
know that never works.
pigskin
You have said all along that the US is going to make big bucks by
confiscating Iraqi oil
and using it for their own purposes.
The war is "all about oil" you have said.
Now you are telling us that the US needs to tax its citizens to pay for the
war and
the rebuilding of Iraq.
So where is all this money from Iraqi oil? It is about oil is it not, or
were you just kidding?
Ivan Satori
Quite clearly they did not. Even Blix' report says that. You might
want to read it some day.
The State of Alberta
> (K): The kicked no one out. The UN left on its own accord. So the answer
> is Yes, they did comply before being invaded by the U.S.
They left because Iraq obstructed their efforts to inspect their weapons
programs - so they answer is no, Iraq resisted the UN's lawful attempts to
enforce Security Council resolutions. They may have put the some of the
final nails in the UN's coffin.
> (K): Who made the U.S. the supreme authority on what was good for the
> countries of the world?
Cowardly countries like Canada that hid behind the UN made the US and its
allies the agents of humanity.
> Bush himself is a dictator.
He was elected by the people of the United States in a closely contested but
legally settled election.
> What would you say to France and Germany and Russia and Canada getting
together and invading
> the U.S. - taking out several thousand of your citizens along the way to
> the White House?
I would say "ha" because it could never happen. It would be fun to watch
those soldiers marched down Constitution Avenue as prisoners while Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and General Myers smiled.
> The only people who have a right to remove a dictator from their country
> are the people of that country themselves. If they cannot do it, they
> deserve to live under that dictator. Bush included.
Spoken like someone who prefers to stand aside and criticize, rather than
take a risk to effect change. No wonder the left is dead.
The State of Alberta
> (K): If they did that, the people of the world would likely mass and
destroy the
> Americans in Iraq with their bare hands.
LOL. That would be the day. Remember what Churchill wrote:
"The story of the Second Civil War is short and simple. King, Lords and
Commons, landlords and merchants, the City and the countryside, bishops and
presbyters, the Scottish army, the Welsh people, and the English fleet, all
now turned against the New Model Army. The Army beat the lot."
America would destroy them and make it look easy. This "opposition" lacks
any form of leadership, organization or strength.
> The U.S. will steal Iraqi oil.
> They were supposed to use an American war fund to rebuild Iraq and now
> they're looking for monetary and military help from other countries -
> France and Germany mentioned - to help them keep back the Iraqi citizens
> while they go about the business of stealing their oil.
Iraq's oil belongs to its people, much like Alberta's belongs to its people.
Once Iraq's petroleum industry is restored to capacity, the revenues will be
used to not only restore Iraq but improve it. It is amazing what happens
when developing nations do not spend all their money on arms like Saddam
did.
The Coalition needs assistance in the technical reconstruction of Iraq, and
is receiving such help from Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, Italy,
Bulgaria, the Ukraine, the Netherlands and Slovakia, in addition to those
who took part in the War, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and the
Czech Republic. Civilian aid agencies are also helping.
> (K): Of course the U.S. is taxing its citizens to conduct its war on Iraq
> and the so-called 'rebuilding' of it. Just seems like you've run out of
> money and are losing a few too many liberating troops. Now you want help
> from those you told to go to hell - that you 'could and would do it
> yourselves'. Now bloody do it yourselves. Tax your people to death in
> rebuilding Iraq. You bombed it to dust. You bloody rebuild it. And
> don't be suggesting for a minute that any other country owes you help to
> clean up after you.
It appears that many countries are willing to help the Iraqi people recover
from the Saddam regime. This is just like a rich Ontarian (who made their
fortune in America no less) to ignore the plight of those who do not share
their world view. Since you did not stand up for yourselves, you cannot
criticize anyone for doing what was necessary. Canada's reputation as a
country of cowardly freeloaders has been reinforced.
Greg
The State of Alberta wrote:
> "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> news:iuKPa.1355$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>>Invading for Oil is not the moral thing to do.
>
>
> The stated aims from the start were to end the Saddam regime
Rubbish. The stated aims were ONLY to do with WMD. The
recent change in their language DOES NOT justify their lies
at the outset.
and destroy its
> weapons of mass destruction. Control over oil was not a political
> objective, but it was a military one because of the experience in Gulf I
> where Kuwait's oilfields were set on fire to thwart the Coalition forces.
> In Gulf II, this objective was rapidly attained at minimal cost in human
> lives or enviromental damage. Score one for the good guys.
>
>
>>No they didn't. Why didn't the UN go in, instead of a "Coalition of
>>Willing"? Why didn't Hans Blix say they didn't comply?
>
>
> Because the UN could not agree on whether to do it or not - they refuse to
> be rushed, which simply proves how far behind they are.
>
>
>>The UN never said Iraq didn't comply, the USA said that. The UN also never
>>gave them approval to invade, your making up lies again.
>
>
> UNSC Resolution 1441, supported by all 15 members of the Security Council,
> said that Iraq was in material breech, and were supported by the inspectors.
>
> That same resolution warned Iraq of serious consequences should they not
> adhere to it. They didn't, and the Coalition acted. The UN simply wanted
> to waste more time and refused to give its support to enforcing its own
> resolutions. The situation demanded action,
CRAP. As we saw during the invasion Iraq couldn't have even
posed a threat to their nearest neighbours let alone the US.
something that bureaucrats can
> never offer. The Coalition did what had to be done, and history has proven
> them correct. The UN may not fare so well.
>
>
>>But why are you there?
>>
>>Where are the WMD?
>
>
> Where's Saddam? These questions will be answered soon enough, hopefully
> before the UN decides what to do with itself.
>
> In the mean time, Iraq will be rebuilt by the Coalition troops from the UK,
> Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia,
> the Ukraine, and the United States, and international aid agencies. The
> world does not have the time to deal with a backwards-looking bureaucracy li
> ke the UN, and countries like France or Canada.
The US has been undermining the UN for decades. This stands
in stark contrast with their SUPPORT of Saddam for 20 years.
THEY provided the training, resources and support that made
him the monster he became.
>
>
Greg
The State of Alberta wrote:
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:benjpi$d2i$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>
>>(K): Firstly, war-loving rightwingers like yourself know nothing about
>>the 'moral thing'.
>>Secondly, the only help that the Iraqis want is for the U.S. and British
>>to get the hell out of their country.
>
>
> And you genocide loving leftwingers are all hugs and kisses? Nonsense.
Excuse me, it's the US that's been killing kids for profit.
Greg
The State of Alberta wrote:
Only dictators in oil rich countries though!
And dont forget - it's not that long ago that Saddam was the
US's golden haired darling in the middle east. Their track
record is one of extreme tolerence toward even the most evil
bastards.
>
>
Greg
pigskin wrote:
> Let me get this straight.
> You have said all along that the US is going to make big bucks by
> confiscating Iraqi oil
> and using it for their own purposes.
> The war is "all about oil" you have said.
>
> Now you are telling us that the US needs to tax its citizens to pay for the
> war and
> the rebuilding of Iraq.
Who do you think has to pay for the contracts GW amBush
awarded to all his buddies?
Greg
The State of Alberta wrote:
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beo21t$oss$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>
>>(K): The kicked no one out. The UN left on its own accord. So the answer
>>is Yes, they did comply before being invaded by the U.S.
>
>
> They left because Iraq obstructed their efforts to inspect their weapons
> programs - so they answer is no, Iraq resisted the UN's lawful attempts to
> enforce Security Council resolutions. They may have put the some of the
> final nails in the UN's coffin.
They left because of the imminent invasion by the troika of
the willing.
fasgnadh
> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
As one of the majority of Australians against the illegal oil war,
who were betraysed by our P.M., R. Slicker, Bush's lap-puppy,
I feel aggrieved that all of my fellow Australians will have to
bear the costs. The international shame, the emnity, the damage
to our reputation (this is the first time in our history a corrupt
government has dragged us into a pre-emptive war of aggression! )
the suffering we have inflicted, and now face, is more than enough
pain to bear, to have to pay for this mess is insufferable!
I believe a warmonger levy should be imposed. It is the only fair
way for those who wanted this filthy war to bear the cost. Of course
the number who openly support the war is already shrinking, and
the liars who would kill tens of thousands based on no more than
a flimsy fabrication are also likely to be immoral shirkers.
To ensure the guilty are targeted, the levy should be made on
the ruling coalition parties.
Only by punishing those responsible for the crime will we ensure
repetition is less likely.
Our government is has also been lent on to sign exemptions preventing
USSA citizens from being extradited for trial before the International
Court. This attempt to protect the guilty should also be immediately
overturned.
> You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq. Now
> the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go to
> hell as a result of this request ......
Especially as the USSA is backing away from the role it usurped from
the world nations collective body, the UN. Liberia is apparently
not going to receive the sort of massive intervention the lucky Iraqi's
received.. no oil! B^p
> ________________
>
>
> US 'needs help in Iraq'
>
> The Bush administration is coming under growing domestic pressure over its
> Iraq strategy amid continuing attacks on US forces in the country.
>
CNN cable TV reported the first survey showing Bush was losing majority
support on Iraq. It showed them concerned at the mounting death toll,
expecting it to get worse, unhappy at the way things are going in Iraq,
believing that there had been dishonesty over WMD's and that the USSA
had been damaged by the war.
The sheeple are waking up. A damn sight quicker than in Vietnam, too.
> The US Senate has voted unanimously to urge President George W Bush to
> consider asking Nato and the United Nations for help in rebuilding Iraq.
>
What a humialiating backdown.
After all the damage they have done, undermining the UN and
splitting NATO unity! B^p
> The non-binding resolution said that while it was in the interests of the
> United States to remain engaged in Iraq, conditions there posed a serious
> threat to American troops. <=====
>
There certainly hasn't been any improvement in 'security'.
It only deteriorates when you create tens of thousands
of new widows and orphans, dead and maimed.
You can't bomb your way to security. That should have been
apparent on Sept 11. Trillions of dollars and massive military
arsenals do not make you safe.
The USSA should all go see Bowling for Columbine to get
a basic understanding that a nation of armed nuerotics makes for
the highest domestic mudrer rate (outside Liberia?)
Not for peace and security!
> Public opinion in the US appears to reflect this disquiet, with polls
> showing a marked decline in support for the Bush administration's policy
> on Iraq.
>
The wind is changing. There are no more TV special effects, no
computer generated strategy arrows thrusting forward. It's death, anarchy,
international loathing and a huge, choking BILL! B^p
> The Senate vote came after General Tommy Franks, until recently at the
> helm of US-led coalition forces in Iraq, warned that American forces might
> have to remain in the country far longer than anticipated. <====
>
> I'm now concerned that we have the world's best-trained soldiers serving
> as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery
>
I feel sorry for the soldiers, they are political pawns of Emperor Bush
and the oil cartel.
> General Franks said attacks on US soldiers, which have killed more than 30
> since the war was declared over, were occurring at a rate of 10 to 25 a
> day.
You can't kill people, destroy their infrastructure, bring joblessness,
anarchy, disorder, pillage of their heritage and their oil, deny them
democracy and install a puppet regime, shoot them if they protest,
and expect them to love you.
> Friday saw the US pull most of its troops out of a police station in the
> Iraqi town of Falluja, about 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of the capital
> Baghdad, a day after protests at the continued US military presence there.
>
> An American military spokesman said about six soldiers would remain at the
> station to support the new police force in the town, where there have been
> frequent clashes between Iraqis and US forces.
>
> Iraqi police officers had threatened to resign if the Americans did not
> leave the station, as they felt joint patrols with American forces placed
> them at risk of attack.
>
Pretty much how Brits and Aussies feel.
> Overnight, a series of three mortar strikes were launched on an American
> base in the town of Ramadi, 100 kilometres (60 miles) west of Baghdad,
> although there were no injuries reported.
>
> And the US military said two Iraqi civilians were wounded in crossfire
> following a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a US patrol near Baghdad
> airport.
>
> 'Share the burden'
>
> Senators from the opposition Democratic Party - many of whom supported the
> decision to launch the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime -
> are expressing deep concern about events on the ground.
>
> They are also raising questions about the administration's citing of
> Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as a justification for the
> decision to go to war. No such weapons have been found in Iraq.
>
At least there is some process of accountability underway in the UK
and USSA! In Australia the government and it's compliant media
are whitewashing the the whole fiasco. The public seems stupefied.
> The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition
>
Gee thanks. Howard traded with Saddam right up untill following
the Sherrif as part of the Petroleum Posse. That shows how much
he saw Iraq as a threat! B^p Now we have lost Billion dollar markets,
such as wheat, taken by our 'partners' the 2000lb economic Gorillas! B^p
Apparently they are going to give us a 'Trade Agreement" as soon
as our sphincters are stretched.
NAFTA - Not Another Fuckover by Trade with America.
> The Democrats urged Mr Bush to mend fences with France and Germany - key
> Nato members who were firmly opposed to the war.
>
> Senator John Kerry, who hopes to challenge Mr Bush for the presidency next
> year, said: "We now know that the administration went to war without a
> thorough plan to win the peace.
>
Hey, they secured the oil and Secret Police ministries!
> "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the post-war
> burden internationally for the sake of our country." <====
>
Leaving already?
> Senator Carl Levin, leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee,
> said it was "a mystery" why the Bush administration had not made a formal
> request for Nato forces in Iraq.
>
Shame and humiliation?
> He expressed the hope that soldiers wearing Nato insignia would not be
> targeted in Iraq with the same ferocity as their American counterparts.
>
> Reluctance
>
> But there appears to be a marked reluctance among other nations to commit
> troops to support US and British forces in Iraq.
>
What a surprise. From mammoth world support post-S11, to pariah.
People fear an Imperial regime, they don't like it.
> Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted there was uncertainty about the
> level of support the US and Britain could expect.
>
> "I can't give you the exact number of nations or how many troops are going
> to be committed," he told CNN.
>
> "The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition."
>
> There is also concern about the cost of the US commitment to Iraq.
>
> The Senate warned that the final bill for reconstruction would run into
> tens of billions of dollars over several years, and projected that Iraqi
> oil revenues will not cover those costs.
>
With Bushs tax cuts for teh rich, services for ordinary Americans
will have to be slashed to pay for the oil plutocrats adventures.
> Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the cost of continuing
> military operations in Iraq is running at $3.9bn a month, higher than
> anticipated.
>
Shit, for $3.9 Billion a month we could have solved world hunger,
relocated the Palestinians to the Costa del Sol, and hired an army
of M.E. bounty hunters to bring in Osama, and still hade change
to build a decent healthcare system for Americans.
Nothing like full bellies, no-one shooting at you and cable TV
to quell an uprising! B^p
Stupid republicans.
Terry Pearson
it's Alberta that decides
--
Terry Pearson
The philosophy of socialism equates to
poverty thinking. The rich get rich and
the poor get poor. They both planned it
that way.
http://rtpt_2000.tripod.com
The Daily Blog
http://rtpt_2000.tripod.com/blog.html
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:benjpi$d2i$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
> >> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> >> - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your
bloody
> >> incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> >> for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get.
It is
> > the moral thing to do.
>
> (K): Firstly, war-loving rightwingers like yourself know nothing about
> the 'moral thing'.
> Secondly, the only help that the Iraqis want is for the U.S. and British
> to get the hell out of their country.
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > But then you Canucks are the most immoral people alive. You told 2.5
> > million Albertans their human rights were less important than the need
for
> > Ontarians' gas guzzlers - hence the National Energy Policy.
>
> (K): Aw, stop whining, American. It's none of your business what we do
> in any province in Canada.
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > Thank God you canucks are not in Iraq - one week of your government and
> > they'd pray for Saddam.
>
> (K): They're already missing Saddam - and it's your Americans and the
Brits
> who are occupying their land.
>
> >> You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq.
Now
> >> the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go
to
> >> hell as a result of this request ......
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > The UN already gave them approval to invade - the "Security Council"
simply
> > could not decide whether to not contradict itself.
>
> (K): The UN never gave any approval to anyone to invade Iraq. THAT
> particular lie won't wash anywhere - not even in your very dumb United
> States.
>
> >> (K): Goddamn warmongers. You lose YOUR people to the angry Iraquis for
> >> the next 5 years...... no other countries' people need apply. And when
> >> you've had a bellyfull of American bodies coming home in bags, maybe
> >> you'll get the hell out of Iraq. A country you had no business
attacking
> >> 'with or without UN support'.
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > Soon the fighting will subside - Iraq will not only be restored, but it
will
> > be improved. Have you Canucks built anything besides a trillion in
debts?
>
> (K): Then why are you pleading for help? Your arrogance starting to slip
> a little as your boys get blown to bits?
>
> "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > Alberta secedes.
>
> (K): Canada will decide if any province 'secedes'. You Americans have
> got your hands full in Iraq, it seems.
>
Robert
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
> What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get. It
is
> the moral thing to do.
>
The moral thing to do was not to start this stupid war
>
Paul Moore
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in
message news:59IPa.44108
> news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask
"the UN"
> > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for
your bloody
> > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting
masses to pay
> > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's
pockets.
>
> What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they
can get. It is
> the moral thing to do.
Don't be an idiot! Who cares about the Iraqi people!? Certainly
not Karen Gordon! As far as she is concerned every dead Iraqi
child is only one more triumphant statistic to use in her
endless, bigoted, anti-American posts. If Iraq became a paradise
on Earth no one would be more horrified than Karen Gordon. Of
course, she'd just find some other reason to hatre Americans.
Paul Moore
"Robert" <wayne_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DBTPa.263$0j4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
The moral thing to do is just ignore what was happening and lead
out happy, wealthy lives without care for the horrific human
rights abuses in Iraq? Whatever PR moves were made before the
war, whatever lies were told, the people there are better off now
than they were, and will undoubtedly soon be much better off.
Paul Moore
"TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:qwKPa.1367$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
message
> news:1PIPa.441437$Vi5.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >
> > "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:benjpi$d2i$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >
> > http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
> >
> > Read it and weep - your beloved UN refused to back its own
resolution -
> > supported by all 15 members. The Coalition did what the UN
refused to
> do -
> > back up its words with action. History will be kinder to the
US and its
> > allies than to the UN.
>
> Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered access
and disarm
> itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
Uhm, no. Right up until they left the UN weapons inspectors
continued to complain about the Iraq government refusing to allow
it proper access to records, documents, scientists and
information it needed to verify whether Iraq was complying.
Paul Moore
"Greg" <gwa...@ilse.net.au> wrote in message
news:3F0FCA3C...@ilse.net.au...
>
>
> The State of Alberta wrote:
> > "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> > news:qwKPa.1367$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Bush called Saddam's bluff and ended his regime once and for
all, with help
> > from the UK, Australia, Poland and 35 other countries. Good.
> >
> > Dictators must be dealt with - they cannot be coddled and
appeased, for we
> > know that never works.
>
> Only dictators in oil rich countries though!
Unfortunately yes. This is certainly hypocritical, but is it
immoral? Isn't it better to remove at least a few dictators, even
if it's out of self interest, than to remove none? Wars are
hugely expensive in every coin you can think of. Small wonder
there has to be tremendous justification for a country to involve
itself in one.
> And dont forget - it's not that long ago that Saddam was the
> US's golden haired darling in the middle east.
In another universe, perhaps, but not this one. This is pure
hyperbole. Hussein was never a US ally. He was, if anything, a
Soviet ally for most of his reign. Why do you think all his
weapons were Soviet built? The US and gulf states merely helped
prop him up during his fighting with Iran, in effect, supporting
the lesser Satan against the Great Satan.
Paul Moore
access and disarm
> >> itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
>
no.
>
the answer
> is Yes, they did comply before being invaded by the U.S.
Your ignorance is showing again. Iraq did throw the UN out
several years ago, and only reluctantly allowed them back in with
US and UK troops on their border poised to attack. They then did
everything they could to resist the requirements of the
inspection team, including threatening scientists with death and
the death of their families if they spoke to them without their
Iraqi state police minders present.
> (K): Who made the U.S. the supreme authority on what was good
for the
> countries of the world?
Well, someone has to be. Clearly we can't trust hysterical, hate
filled ideologues like you.
> Bush himself is a dictator.
The term is reserved for people who hold power without the
consent of their people, not those who aren't vicious bigots from
the far left like Karen Gordon.
> The only people who have a right to remove a dictator from
their country
> are the people of that country themselves. If they cannot do
it, they
> deserve to live under that dictator.
And once again Karen Gordon shows how caring she is about the
poor and miserable of the world living under the brutal heel of
vicious, raping, torturing, murdering dictators. This is what I
despise about ideologues like Gordon. They care nothing at all
about people. They care only about their ideological constracts
and fanatically held political beliefs. Stalin was like that,
killed millions without a thought just to bring about his
political constructs. Gordon is in that mold, just dumber, lazier
and without the neccesary charisma to ever achieve anything in
life.
Erik Trammel
Karen Gordon wrote:
> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers.
Irrational anti-U.S. rant has been deleted.
Why should the U.S. be required to rebuild Iraq since
the country has been in decline ever since Saddam Hussein
took power and started emulating his heroes, Lenin, Stalin and
Hitler. Iraq's run down condition today is not the fault of the
U.S. but of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people.
What Islamic nation today is in relatively good shape? Certainly
not Saudi Arabia with 25% unemployment or Iran with a 60% fall in its
standard of living since the fall of the Shah in 1979.
Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia are all
impoverished nations. We could add Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Yemen,
Lebanon, Pakistan and even Turkey which is turning to Islamic
fundamentalism.
In my opinion Iraq cannot be "rebuilt" and Americans should not even
attempt this daunting task. Just as UN Secretary Kofi Anan recently
blamed Africans themselves for their current plight, Islam is to blame
for its squalor. Giving taxpayers' money to Arab or other Muslim states
is a useless gesture, just as the recent U.S. grant of $20 million to
Arafat's and Abbas' PLA is simply money down the toilet.
The State of Alberta
"Erik Trammel" <tra...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3F101B73...@rogers.com...
> Irrational anti-U.S. rant has been deleted.
Thank you!
> Why should the U.S. be required to rebuild Iraq since
> the country has been in decline ever since Saddam Hussein
> took power and started emulating his heroes, Lenin, Stalin and
> Hitler. Iraq's run down condition today is not the fault of the
> U.S. but of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people.
Iraq should be rebuilt to restore the country to working order, and to
foster the development of a stable, democratic, and prosperous country and
people. We did the same after WWII in Europe and Asia and it worked.
> What Islamic nation today is in relatively good shape? Certainly
> not Saudi Arabia with 25% unemployment or Iran with a 60% fall in its
> standard of living since the fall of the Shah in 1979.
> Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia are all
> impoverished nations. We could add Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Yemen,
> Lebanon, Pakistan and even Turkey which is turning to Islamic
> fundamentalism.
Now is the chance to introduce such concepts to the Arab world.
> In my opinion Iraq cannot be "rebuilt" and Americans should not even
> attempt this daunting task. Just as UN Secretary Kofi Anan recently
> blamed Africans themselves for their current plight, Islam is to blame
> for its squalor. Giving taxpayers' money to Arab or other Muslim states
> is a useless gesture, just as the recent U.S. grant of $20 million to
> Arafat's and Abbas' PLA is simply money down the toilet.
Dictatorship is more responsible than Islam - without any incentive to
distribute the wealth to the people, extreme hatred has been allowed to
develop and we saw the effects on 9-11. (There is an obvious parallel to
the Ontarian/Non-Ontarian relationship in Canada here). If Iraq can be
transformed into a developed secular state, then the way can be shown to the
Arabs that terrorism is not the way. Hey - we convinced Europe that fascism
and communism were terrible, and they seemed to catch on.
TheMan
"Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ToUPa.14201$1aB1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Robert" <wayne_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:DBTPa.263$0j4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in
> message
> > news:59IPa.441083$Vi5.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > >
> > > "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > > news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > > > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't
> ask "the UN"
> > > > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay
> for your bloody
> > > > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting
> masses to pay
> > > > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's
> pockets.
> > >
> > > What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they
> can get. It
> > is
> > > the moral thing to do.
> > >
> >
> > The moral thing to do was not to start this stupid war
>
> The moral thing to do is just ignore what was happening and lead
> out happy, wealthy lives without care for the horrific human
> rights abuses in Iraq?
Ohhh Boo Fucking Hoo for the Iraqi people, that got the AVERAGE middle
eastern tin-pot dictator. Only difference with this tin pot dictator is that
the USA wasn't friends with him.
Jordan, Saudia Arabia, etc etc all have human right abusers running the
show, yet not a peep about their human rights abuses cos they are friends
with the USA. It's funny you guys take the humanitarian excuse as a way out
when your caught out about your Oil War and the WMD lies.
-TheMan-
TheMan
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
>
> "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> news:qwKPa.1367$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered access and disarm
> > itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
>
> They kicked UNMOVIC out of Iraq in 1998 - so the answer is no.
Resolution 1441 was introduced in 2002 you dumbfuck. Hence they complied.
> > Quite clearly they complied, which is why the UN didn't do anything. Not
> > enough for the oil hungry Americans unfortunately.
>
> They may have, reluctantly, complied until 1998, but after that the UN
made
> several unsuccessful attempts to get them to comply.
>
> Bush called Saddam's bluff and ended his regime once and for all, with
help
> from the UK, Australia, Poland and 35 other countries. Good.
Bush lied, and invaded for Oil, and now has been caught out.
Now lets do another multiple choice question shall we:
Q. When did the USA stop being friends with Iraq, was it:
a) When he was attacking Iran with chemical weapons
b) When he abused, killed, tortured and abused the people in his country
c) When he attacked the USA's other ally, Kuwait.
Hypocrisy from morons like you who refuse to look at the full history make
me laugh.
-TheMan-
TheMan
"Ivan Satori" <isa...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:26a55c7f.03071...@posting.google.com...
I did. It said Iraq was being pro-active in disarment, and only a few minor
issues remained.
Maybe you should stop reading shit on Fox news and come back to the real
world.
-TheMan-
TheMan
Bullshit. The UN had full access to scientists, Iraq had provided all
documentation it could and most of all NOTHING WAS FOUND.
You can't say they didn't comply, when they allowed unfettered access and
have no WMD. They were disarmed, they complied and Bush lied.
-TheMan-
TheMan
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beo21t$oss$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >
> > "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > >> Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered
> access and disarm
> > >> itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
> >
> > "The State of Alberta" (freea...@canadasucks.orb) writes:
> > > They kicked UNMOVIC out of Iraq in 1998 - so the answer is
> no.
> >
> > (K): The kicked no one out. The UN left on its own accord. So
> the answer
> > is Yes, they did comply before being invaded by the U.S.
>
> Your ignorance is showing again. Iraq did throw the UN out
> several years ago, and only reluctantly allowed them back in with
> US and UK troops on their border poised to attack.
Provide evidence of your lie please.
Here's evidence of the truth, I'll be waiting for you to show evidence of
your LIES:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
Will be happy to post many more links about this subject if you wish to get
educated on the truth. Iraq NEVER kicked the UN out, the UN pulled it's
weapons inspectors out before a coalition bombing of the country in 1998.
Please apologise to the newsgroup for spreading bullshit lies.
-TheMan-
Phoenix Rising
Erik,
It's true that most people always bring problems on themselves and
then find ways to blame others; Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats
blame Republicans, Muslims blame Jews, the Third World blames the First
World, liberals blame conservatives, conservatives blame liberals,
French blame civilized countries, etc.
That being said, it is in our interests to ensure that Iraqi
reconstruction is a success story because doing so will legitimize the
strategy and doctrine we used in embarking on this course of action in
the first place. At the end of the day, theoretical and philosophical
arguments are fun and entertaining, but it's results that count. By
successfully reconstructing Iraq, we make the strategy of preemption and
regime change that much more effective because it increases the
credibility of the threat that we might use it again. This is why
anti-American bigots like Karen are so desperate to see us fail,
whatever disastrous consequences that might visit upon the Iraqi people.
Watching the country collapse into fundamentalism would be well worth
it in her mind because anything that makes America look bad is, in her
warped reality, a good thing. If half the world's population would die
but it could somehow be blamed on America, she'd be all for letting it
happen.
A strong Iraq is in America's interests now the same way a strong
West Germany was in America's interests following WWII. A weak Iraq is
in Karen's interests the same way a weak West Germany was in her Soviet
forebears' interests following WWII.
--Phoenix Rising
Paul Moore
lead
> > out happy, wealthy lives without care for the horrific human
> > rights abuses in Iraq?
>
> Ohhh Boo Fucking Hoo for the Iraqi people, that got the AVERAGE
middle
> eastern tin-pot dictator.
Ah, the caring, thoughtful views of the sensitive left.
Paul Moore
>
> "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com> wrote in message
>
news:2rUPa.14218$1aB1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com..
.
access
> > and disarm
> > > itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
> >
> > Uhm, no. Right up until they left the UN weapons inspectors
> > continued to complain about the Iraq government refusing to
allow
> > it proper access to records, documents, scientists and
> > information it needed to verify whether Iraq was complying.
>
> Bullshit. The UN had full access to scientists, Iraq had
provided all
> documentation it could and most of all NOTHING WAS FOUND.
The UN wanted to speak privately to those scientists on the
reasonable grounds that they would be far too intimdated to speak
honestly in front of the Iraqi secret police. The Iraqi
government threatened to kill any scientist, and their families,
who agreed. That is more than enough to violate the UN demands.
>
> You can't say they didn't comply,
Yeah, I can.
Greg
Paul Moore
>
> Here's evidence of the truth, I'll be waiting for you to show
evidence of
> your LIES:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
>
> Will be happy to post many more links about this subject if you
wish to get
> educated on the truth.
I guess you're one of those frenzied, wild eyed lunatic types you
occasionally run into on usenet who sees the entire world in
terms of various bizarre conspiracies, right? You read whatever
you like into anything and damned what it actually says? The link
you pasted shows Iraq refusing again and again to cooperate,
culminating in the gulf war.
But hey, if you're a bug-eyed screwball I guess you can believe
whatever you like, right?
Tell me, do you wear tinfoil on your head to foil (pun intended)
alien mind reading rays?
Paul Moore
>>Paul Moore wrote:
>>>And dont forget - it's not that long ago that Saddam was the
>>>US's golden haired darling in the middle east.
>>In another universe, perhaps, but not this one. This is pure
>>hyperbole. Hussein was never a US ally. He was, if anything, a
>>Soviet ally for most of his reign. Why do you think all his
>>weapons were Soviet built? The US and gulf states merely helped
>>prop him up during his fighting with Iran, in effect,
supporting
>>the lesser Satan against the Great Satan.
>Other examples then - Marcos, Pinochet. The US support, and
often creates, these monsters. They will only interdict if >they
have something to gain. Now they know they can LIE to justify
invasion nobody is safe. They cannot be trusted.
First, Marcos and Pinochet were in a time of superpower
confrontation. It can be argued that supporting them was immoral.
It can also be argued that it was realpolitik, of supporting the
enemy of their enemy - our enemy, by the way - in order to defend
themselves (and us) from Soviet expansionism and imperialism. In
that context what they did is probably somewhat forgiveable, at
least from the viewpoint of history.
As for lying to justify invasions, well, the more you do it the
harder it gets. I think the US government would have to have
tremendous evidence in order to convince its people, never mind
anyone else, of the need of another pre-emptive war.
BTW, everyone continues to assume there were no WMDs. I am not
convinced. Most of the top Iraqi leadership is still missing,
likely gone across the border to Syria and Iran. There's no
reason to believe a lot of material didn't go with them by the
tractor trailor full.
pigskin
So you still have not explained how the US will make money from Iraqi oil
and at the same time need to get money from the US taxpayer.
Its one or the other but not both.
A gross error in logic.
But then again why do I bother.
Illogical statements are your hallmark.
Keep you day job. If you have one.
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:beo7da$9lv$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "pigskin" (a...@b.com) writes:
> > Let me get this straight.
> > You have said all along that the US is going to make big bucks by
> > confiscating Iraqi oil
> > and using it for their own purposes.
> > The war is "all about oil" you have said.
>
> (K): I've always said it was about oil. I have never said the Americans
> were going to start selling Iraqi oil right away to make money. If they
> did that, the people of the world would likely mass and destroy the
> Americans in Iraq with their bare hands. The U.S. will steal Iraqi oil.
> They were supposed to use an American war fund to rebuild Iraq and now
> they're looking for monetary and military help from other countries -
> France and Germany mentioned - to help them keep back the Iraqi citizens
> while they go about the business of stealing their oil.
>
> "pigskin" (a...@b.com) writes:
> > Now you are telling us that the US needs to tax its citizens to pay for
the
> > war and
> > the rebuilding of Iraq.
> > So where is all this money from Iraqi oil? It is about oil is it not,
or
> > were you just kidding?
>
> (K): Of course the U.S. is taxing its citizens to conduct its war on Iraq
> and the so-called 'rebuilding' of it. Just seems like you've run out of
> money and are losing a few too many liberating troops. Now you want help
> from those you told to go to hell - that you 'could and would do it
> yourselves'. Now bloody do it yourselves. Tax your people to death in
> rebuilding Iraq. You bombed it to dust. You bloody rebuild it. And
> don't be suggesting for a minute that any other country owes you help to
> clean up after you.
>
>
> > "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> >> - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your
bloody
> >> incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> >> for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
> >>
> >> You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq.
Now
> >> the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go
to
> >> hell as a result of this request ......
> >> ________________
> >>
> >>
> >> US 'needs help in Iraq'
> >>
> >> The Bush administration is coming under growing domestic pressure over
its
> >> Iraq strategy amid continuing attacks on US forces in the country.
> >>
> >> The US Senate has voted unanimously to urge President George W Bush to
> >> consider asking Nato and the United Nations for help in rebuilding
Iraq.
> >>
> >> The non-binding resolution said that while it was in the interests of
the
> >> United States to remain engaged in Iraq, conditions there posed a
serious
> >> threat to American troops. <=====
> >>
> >> Public opinion in the US appears to reflect this disquiet, with polls
> >> showing a marked decline in support for the Bush administration's
policy
> >> on Iraq.
> >>
> >> The Senate vote came after General Tommy Franks, until recently at the
> >> helm of US-led coalition forces in Iraq, warned that American forces
might
> >> have to remain in the country far longer than anticipated. <====
> >>
> >> I'm now concerned that we have the world's best-trained soldiers
serving
> >> as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery
> >>
> >> General Franks said attacks on US soldiers, which have killed more than
30
> >> since the war was declared over, were occurring at a rate of 10 to 25 a
> >> day.
> >>
> >> Friday saw the US pull most of its troops out of a police station in
the
> >> Iraqi town of Falluja, about 50 kilometres (30 miles) west of the
capital
> >> Baghdad, a day after protests at the continued US military presence
there.
> >>
> >> An American military spokesman said about six soldiers would remain at
the
> >> station to support the new police force in the town, where there have
been
> >> frequent clashes between Iraqis and US forces.
> >>
> >> Iraqi police officers had threatened to resign if the Americans did not
> >> leave the station, as they felt joint patrols with American forces
placed
> >> them at risk of attack.
> >>
> >> Overnight, a series of three mortar strikes were launched on an
American
> >> base in the town of Ramadi, 100 kilometres (60 miles) west of Baghdad,
> >> although there were no injuries reported.
> >>
> >> And the US military said two Iraqi civilians were wounded in crossfire
> >> following a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a US patrol near Baghdad
> >> airport.
> >>
> >> 'Share the burden'
> >>
> >> Senators from the opposition Democratic Party - many of whom supported
the
> >> decision to launch the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein's
regime -
> >> are expressing deep concern about events on the ground.
> >>
> >> They are also raising questions about the administration's citing of
> >> Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as a justification for the
> >> decision to go to war. No such weapons have been found in Iraq.
> >>
> >> The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> >> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition
> >>
> >> The Democrats urged Mr Bush to mend fences with France and Germany -
key
> >> Nato members who were firmly opposed to the war.
> >>
> >> Senator John Kerry, who hopes to challenge Mr Bush for the presidency
next
> >> year, said: "We now know that the administration went to war without a
> >> thorough plan to win the peace.
> >>
> >> "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the post-war
> >> burden internationally for the sake of our country." <====
> >>
> >> Senator Carl Levin, leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence
Committee,
> >> said it was "a mystery" why the Bush administration had not made a
formal
> >> request for Nato forces in Iraq.
> >>
> >> He expressed the hope that soldiers wearing Nato insignia would not be
> >> targeted in Iraq with the same ferocity as their American counterparts.
> >>
> >> Reluctance
> >>
> >> But there appears to be a marked reluctance among other nations to
commit
> >> troops to support US and British forces in Iraq.
> >>
> >> Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted there was uncertainty about
the
> >> level of support the US and Britain could expect.
> >>
> >> "I can't give you the exact number of nations or how many troops are
going
> >> to be committed," he told CNN.
> >>
> >> "The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States,
> >> Great Britain and the original members of the coalition."
> >>
> >> There is also concern about the cost of the US commitment to Iraq.
> >>
> >> The Senate warned that the final bill for reconstruction would run into
> >> tens of billions of dollars over several years, and projected that
Iraqi
> >> oil revenues will not cover those costs.
> >>
> >> Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the cost of continuing
> >> military operations in Iraq is running at $3.9bn a month, higher than
> >> anticipated.
> >>
> >> Story from BBC NEWS:
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3058469.stm
> >> _________________________________
> >>
> >> (K): Goddamn warmongers. You lose YOUR people to the angry Iraquis for
> >> the next 5 years...... no other countries' people need apply. And when
> >> you've had a bellyfull of American bodies coming home in bags, maybe
> >> you'll get the hell out of Iraq. A country you had no business
attacking
> >> 'with or without UN support'.
>
Niloc
>
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beo7da$9lv$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>> (K): If they did that, the people of the world would likely mass and
> destroy the
>> Americans in Iraq with their bare hands.
>
> LOL. That would be the day. Remember what Churchill wrote:
>
> "The story of the Second Civil War is short and simple. King, Lords and
> Commons, landlords and merchants, the City and the countryside, bishops
> and presbyters, the Scottish army, the Welsh people, and the English
> fleet, all now turned against the New Model Army. The Army beat the lot."
>
> America would destroy them and make it look easy. This "opposition" lacks
> any form of leadership, organization or strength.
You had better watch your backs because YOUR enemy doesnt care if they die
so long as they get at you. You cannot defend against that ever and it will
only be a matter of time before YOUR enemy have access to WMD. Then maybe
we might see just how much stomach you and your 'stay at home' warriors
have for carnage. I expect a few of your Iraq 'liberators' will take up the
gun when they come home and show what they are really all about.
>> The U.S. will steal Iraqi oil.
>> They were supposed to use an American war fund to rebuild Iraq and now
>> they're looking for monetary and military help from other countries -
>> France and Germany mentioned - to help them keep back the Iraqi citizens
>> while they go about the business of stealing their oil.
>
> Iraq's oil belongs to its people, much like Alberta's belongs to its
> people.
Iraq's oil belonged to it's people only when Saddaam nationalised the oil
industry and not before. Now that Saddaam is out of the way I very much
doubt wether the Seppo's will let the keys to the oil fields slip out of
their tight fisted, greedy little hands a second time.
> Once Iraq's petroleum industry is restored to capacity, the
> revenues will be
> used to not only restore Iraq but improve it. It is amazing what happens
> when developing nations do not spend all their money on arms like Saddam
> did.
So what you are saying is that the country that had the highest standard of
living, highest literacy rate, etc in the middle east under Saddaam Hussein
was reduced to third world standard because Saddaam bought weapons under
the oil for food program and this new style of genocide had nothing to do
with twelve years of sanctions that included such things as ambulances,
coffins, and dolls amongst its list of prohibited imports?
> The Coalition needs assistance in the technical reconstruction of Iraq,
> and is receiving such help from Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, Italy,
> Bulgaria, the Ukraine, the Netherlands and Slovakia, in addition to those
> who took part in the War, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and the
> Czech Republic. Civilian aid agencies are also helping.
>
>> (K): Of course the U.S. is taxing its citizens to conduct its war on Iraq
>> and the so-called 'rebuilding' of it. Just seems like you've run out of
>> money and are losing a few too many liberating troops. Now you want help
>> from those you told to go to hell - that you 'could and would do it
>> yourselves'. Now bloody do it yourselves. Tax your people to death in
>> rebuilding Iraq. You bombed it to dust. You bloody rebuild it. And
>> don't be suggesting for a minute that any other country owes you help to
>> clean up after you.
>
> It appears that many countries are willing to help the Iraqi people
> recover
> from the Saddam regime.
They need to recover from the 12 year sanctions regime that destroyed the
country.
--
"When Adolf Eichmann was tried in Jerusalem in 1961 for his role
in the extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis, he was accorded
the full rights of an accused person under the law of the state of Israel.
The presiding judge, Moshe Landau, said that Eichmann's case would
be conducted, like any other criminal case, in the light of the
fundamental principle that "every man is deemed to be innocent
and that his case must be tried only on the basis of the evidence
brought before the court. What was granted to Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961
will be denied to David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay in 2003." - Peter Coghlan
Julian D.
wrote:
Julian's Maxim #19:
Any time you argue and protest against the removal of a murderous
dictator, you will lose.
JD
"We need honest, reasoned debate, and not fear-mongering.
To those . . .who scare peace-loving people with phantoms
of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid
terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish
our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and
pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill
to remain silent in the face of evil."
-- John Ashcroft -
Testifying before congress defending military tribunals
and upholding the Constitution of the United States of America
TheMan
I'm not part of the left, i'm a middle winger.
Now again I ask, why is the USA so quiet about Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Israel
and all the other nasty little human rights abusers in the middle east?
-TheMan-
TheMan
>
> "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> news:9WVPa.2147$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com> wrote in message
> >
> news:2rUPa.14218$1aB1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com..
> .
> > > > Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered
> access
> > > and disarm
> > > > itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
> > >
> > > Uhm, no. Right up until they left the UN weapons inspectors
> > > continued to complain about the Iraq government refusing to
> allow
> > > it proper access to records, documents, scientists and
> > > information it needed to verify whether Iraq was complying.
> >
> > Bullshit. The UN had full access to scientists, Iraq had
> provided all
> > documentation it could and most of all NOTHING WAS FOUND.
>
> The UN wanted to speak privately to those scientists on the
> reasonable grounds that they would be far too intimdated to speak
> honestly in front of the Iraqi secret police.
Who's says thats the case? From what I heard the Iraqi scientists didn't
want to speak to the UN. Who says your version of the story is true?
Ohhh thats right... the Yank propaganda again. If the Yanks said it, it must
be true!
-TheMan-
TheMan
>
> "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> news:_6WPa.2152$wU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com> wrote in message
> > Provide evidence of your lie please.
> >
> > Here's evidence of the truth, I'll be waiting for you to show
> evidence of
> > your LIES:
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
> >
> > Will be happy to post many more links about this subject if you
> wish to get
> > educated on the truth.
>
> I guess you're one of those frenzied, wild eyed lunatic types you
> occasionally run into on usenet who sees the entire world in
> terms of various bizarre conspiracies, right?
Dickhead it's right in front of your EYES:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
Stop believing the Yank propaganda BULLSHIT and come back down to Earth for
christ sakes.
>You read whatever
> you like into anything and damned what it actually says? The link
> you pasted shows Iraq refusing again and again to cooperate,
> culminating in the gulf war.
Please apoligise to the newsgroup for posting such propaganda bullshit lies
in here. We have heard these lies circulating in the uneducated Bushies, and
we keep correcting you all, and yet you still continue on with them. You've
got Georges hand so far up your crack it's not funny, I suggest you stop
reading the propaganda and start reading history books instead.
-TheMan-
Steel Golem
"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
>
> > Did Iraq comply to resolution 1441 to allow unfettered access and disarm
> > itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction? YES or NO?
>
Um when exactly was 1441 penned? Sometime after 1998...
>
> > Quite clearly they complied, which is why the UN didn't do anything. Not
> > enough for the oil hungry Americans unfortunately.
>
> They may have, reluctantly, complied until 1998, but after that the UN
made
> several unsuccessful attempts to get them to comply.
Once again the justification for the war was 1441, once again after 1998...
Paul Moore
>
> "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com> wrote in message
>
news:o%%Pa.21111$sI91...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com..
.
> >
> > "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> > > Ohhh Boo Fucking Hoo for the Iraqi people, that got the
AVERAGE
> > middle
> > > eastern tin-pot dictator.
> >
> > Ah, the caring, thoughtful views of the sensitive left.
>
> I'm not part of the left, i'm a middle winger.
I'm always amused to see people who are clearly left of centre
insisting they're actually middle of the road.
It's because you guys don't know where the centre is.
> Now again I ask, why is the USA so quiet about Jordan, Saudia
Arabia, Israel
> and all the other nasty little human rights abusers in the
middle east?
You want them to invade every country in the middle east? The US
regularly makes its opinion known about the human rights abuses
in places like Syria and Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia and
Israel. Perhaps you're simply not listening.
Gregory Shearman
>>
>> Bullshit. The UN had full access to scientists, Iraq had
>provided all
>> documentation it could and most of all NOTHING WAS FOUND.
>
>The UN wanted to speak privately to those scientists on the
>reasonable grounds that they would be far too intimdated to speak
>honestly in front of the Iraqi secret police.
No, the USA wanted to kidnap those scientists and to
"interrogate" them..... this was unacceptable. Iraq made it plain
that the scientists were free to oblige the "request", but none
did so.
I dislike your misinformation on this subject.
>The Iraqi government threatened to kill any scientist, and
>their families, who agreed. That is more than enough to violate
>the UN demands.
Where's your evidence for this fantasy?
I think the Iraqi scientists were more scared of being kidnapped
and put in cages in Cuba.....
>> You can't say they didn't comply,
>
>Yeah, I can.
You can say it, but you'll be believed as much as the moron in
the white house.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
Thom
wrote:
>
>"TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
>news:0P4Qa.2557$wU5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com> wrote in message
>>
>news:o%%Pa.21111$sI91...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com..
>.
>> >
>> > "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
>
>> > > Ohhh Boo Fucking Hoo for the Iraqi people, that got the
>AVERAGE
>> > middle
>> > > eastern tin-pot dictator.
>> >
>> > Ah, the caring, thoughtful views of the sensitive left.
>>
>> I'm not part of the left, i'm a middle winger.
>
>I'm always amused to see people who are clearly left of centre
>insisting they're actually middle of the road.
>It's because you guys don't know where the centre is.
well its certainly not where the republicans think it is. They still
can't admit the USSR and all its tenticles are gone.
There is left (mostly gone now) Center and Right. Within each one of
those areas is room for movement. By your statements theres no such
thing as a liberal or open minded republican.
>
>> Now again I ask, why is the USA so quiet about Jordan, Saudia
>Arabia, Israel
>> and all the other nasty little human rights abusers in the
>middle east?
No oil?
>
>You want them to invade every country in the middle east? The US
>regularly makes its opinion known about the human rights abuses
>in places like Syria and Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia and
>Israel. Perhaps you're simply not listening.
The questiuon is not whether he wants to invade every country in the
middle east, its whether Bush does.
THOM
>
>
>
>
Paul Moore
"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:xxjQa.317$sI.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:34:11 GMT, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>
> >> Bullshit. The UN had full access to scientists, Iraq had
> >provided all
> >> documentation it could and most of all NOTHING WAS FOUND.
> >
> >The UN wanted to speak privately to those scientists on the
> >reasonable grounds that they would be far too intimdated to
speak
> >honestly in front of the Iraqi secret police.
>
> No, the USA wanted to kidnap those scientists and to
> "interrogate" them..... this was unacceptable. Iraq made it
plain
> that the scientists were free to oblige the "request", but none
> did so.
With the threat that their families would be executed I'm not
surprised.
> I dislike your misinformation on this subject.
People who admire terrorists and murderers and despise democracy
and capitalism generally aren't in favour of truth either.
TheMan
"Thom" <thoma...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f121ec5...@news.melbpc.org.au...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:55:26 GMT, "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> >news:0P4Qa.2557$wU5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >>
> >> "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >news:o%%Pa.21111$sI91...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com..
> >.
> >> >
> >> > "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> > > Ohhh Boo Fucking Hoo for the Iraqi people, that got the
> >AVERAGE
> >> > middle
> >> > > eastern tin-pot dictator.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, the caring, thoughtful views of the sensitive left.
> >>
> >> I'm not part of the left, i'm a middle winger.
> >
> >I'm always amused to see people who are clearly left of centre
> >insisting they're actually middle of the road.
> >It's because you guys don't know where the centre is.
>
> well its certainly not where the republicans think it is. They still
> can't admit the USSR and all its tenticles are gone.
>
> There is left (mostly gone now) Center and Right. Within each one of
> those areas is room for movement. By your statements theres no such
> thing as a liberal or open minded republican.
Apparantly unless i'm sucking USA cock, I'm a leftie.
Doesn't work that way. If anything I'm more rightwing then left-wing as I
believe in putting Australia's interests above sucking USA cock. Just
because Bush tells the world to jump doesn't mean we will.
-TheMan-
Shane Penney
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, The State of Alberta wrote:
> What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get. It is
> the moral thing to do.
Bull! The Americans can't afford their little venture into Iraq and
therefore want others to contribute. I thought the far right was
against handouts. I don't want Candian taxpayers to be paying for
American screwups in any form (military, or rebuilding).
> But then you Canucks are the most immoral people alive.
That's right. We know all about the morally superior people in the
State of Alberta.
> Thank God you canucks are not in Iraq -
At least we agree on something.
Shane
Shane Penney
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, TheMan wrote:
> Invading for Oil is not the moral thing to do.
It is for the State of Alberta.
Shane
Gregory Shearman
>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:58:11 GMT, "Robert" <wayne_s...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
>>news:59IPa.441083$Vi5.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>>>
>>> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>>> news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>>> > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
>>> > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
>>> > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
>>> > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>>>
>>> What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get. It
>>is
>>> the moral thing to do.
>>>
>>
>>The moral thing to do was not to start this stupid war
>
>
>Julian's Maxim #19:
>
>Any time you argue and protest against the removal of a murderous
>dictator, you will lose.
So, you'll be against the impeachment of George W. Bush, then?
>
>"We need honest, reasoned debate, and not fear-mongering.
>To those . . .who scare peace-loving people with phantoms
>of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid
>terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish
>our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and
>pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill
>to remain silent in the face of evil."
>
>-- John Ashcroft -
>Testifying before congress defending military tribunals
>and upholding the Constitution of the United States of America
What a fucking hypocrite! Wasn't he the moron who introduced the
Patriot Act?
It is easy to lose your freedom, but the blood of martyrs is
required to regain them. Watch your leaders and stop them before
they do you irreparable damage.
Gregory Shearman
>
>"TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
>news:0P4Qa.2557$wU5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@#rogers.com> wrote in message
>>
>news:o%%Pa.21111$sI91...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com..
>.
>> >
>> > "TheMan" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
>
>> > > Ohhh Boo Fucking Hoo for the Iraqi people, that got the
>AVERAGE
>> > middle
>> > > eastern tin-pot dictator.
>> >
>> > Ah, the caring, thoughtful views of the sensitive left.
>>
>> I'm not part of the left, i'm a middle winger.
>
>I'm always amused to see people who are clearly left of centre
>insisting they're actually middle of the road.
>It's because you guys don't know where the centre is.
I'm always amused to see people who view politics as a binary
landscape. I'd be called extreme right-wing with my views on
tiny government and military men/women as president in control of
armed forces.... but people call me lefty... go figure....
>> Now again I ask, why is the USA so quiet about Jordan, Saudia
>Arabia, Israel
>> and all the other nasty little human rights abusers in the
>middle east?
>
>You want them to invade every country in the middle east? The US
>regularly makes its opinion known about the human rights abuses
>in places like Syria and Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia and
>Israel. Perhaps you're simply not listening.
The USA has been vetoing action on Israel for years and has
actively been funding terrorists for the last hundred years. But
they don't see themselves as a terrorist state.
Gregory Shearman
>
>So you still have not explained how the US will make money from Iraqi oil
>and at the same time need to get money from the US taxpayer.
>Its one or the other but not both.
The CORPORATIONS driving the US ADMINISTRATION make money out of
Iraqi oil, the US taxpayer pays for keeping the army in Iraq and
paying for funerals for all the soldiers killed because of the
lying president.
>A gross error in logic.
Nope... you are just limited in your ability to reason.
>But then again why do I bother.
I don't know. Perhaps you should read more.
Julian D.
Shearman) wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:18:25 -0400, Julian D. wrote:
>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:58:11 GMT, "Robert" <wayne_s...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
>>>news:59IPa.441083$Vi5.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>>>>
>>>> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>>>> news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>>>> > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
>>>> > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
>>>> > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
>>>> > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>>>>
>>>> What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get. It
>>>is
>>>> the moral thing to do.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The moral thing to do was not to start this stupid war
>>
>>
>>Julian's Maxim #19:
>>
>>Any time you argue and protest against the removal of a murderous
>>dictator, you will lose.
>
>So, you'll be against the impeachment of George W. Bush, then?
Don't be ridiculous. There's no reason for impeachment. Bush got rid
of a murderous dictator. If he listened to the UN or the wacky
liberal appeasers in this country, Hussein would STILL be in power.
>>
>>"We need honest, reasoned debate, and not fear-mongering.
>>To those . . .who scare peace-loving people with phantoms
>>of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid
>>terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish
>>our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and
>>pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill
>>to remain silent in the face of evil."
>>
>>-- John Ashcroft -
>>Testifying before congress defending military tribunals
>>and upholding the Constitution of the United States of America
>
>What a fucking hypocrite! Wasn't he the moron who introduced the
>Patriot Act?
Yes. And why is he a moron for doing it? I have just as much freedom
and rights as before September 11, 2001. So do all Americans. The
Supreme Court will not rule against any part of the Patriot Act. Why?
Because it's Constitutional.
>It is easy to lose your freedom, but the blood of martyrs is
>required to regain them. Watch your leaders and stop them before
>they do you irreparable damage.
There's no loss of freedom. Don't be a terrorist or harbor them,
don't plan to kill Americans or do so, don't give money to terrorist
organizations.
JD
Thom
wrote:
left of what though. The ground changed when the USSR died. The
right wing now wants to paint centerists as LEFT
>
>Doesn't work that way. If anything I'm more rightwing then left-wing as I
>believe in putting Australia's interests above sucking USA cock. Just
>because Bush tells the world to jump doesn't mean we will.
As long as Jackboot Johnny is PM we will. That gutless little troll
does what he'se told it seems.
Thats why I vote Green with a Labor preference
THOM
>
>-TheMan-
>
>
Rat & Swan
Quite true. Liberty is the rightful *property* of the people who have
won it! NOBODY can *give* you liberty, for in the act of giving, the
giver is sufficiently powerful that the liberty given may be taken back
at the whim of the giver. No, Liberty must be taken or won... and
then... *held* by those liberated IN their own power, not power
delegated BY them to another party.
We, the citizens of America have placed our liberty in the hands of
others for "safekeeping" and it will be our downfall. For the power we
have entrusted to our government is the power to take our liberty away.
We've been fools and the full breadth and scope of our folly will return
to haunt us.
What we need *now* is not petty name calling nor fruitless arguments on
newsgroups. "Bush lied! Clinton lied! Bush lied! Clinton lied!....." and
so on ad nauseam, gets us *nowhere* and only feeds into the power we
have *given away*!
In the end, it doesn not **matter** who gave or got a blowjob or who
ordered what... the roots of our current trouble stretch farther back.
If we can but divorce ourselves from the labels, the parties, the petty
pointless bickering and partisanship, we can see that the processes of
turning us into a conquered and hoodwinked people are nearly complete.
And those who have so eagerly seized what we handed to them sit on
**both** sides of the aisle!
What do we do? Frankly, I do not know... but do *something* we MUST...
or sit back and become used to being dogs at the table of those more
powerful than we. Those who protest the abridgement of our freedoms do
NOT "hate America". we must resist the temptation to narrow the argument
down to Republican versus Democrat. The struggle is wealthy versus poor,
strong versus weak, the few versus the many... and wealth power and
influence rest on BOTH conservative and liberal. There are liberals of
wealth and power who would sell us out in an instant... HAVE sold us
out, for their OWN gain! There are conservatives of wealth and power who
will and HAVE done the same. This idiotic wrangling does **nothing** to
address the real problems. Nothing.
Until we can stand up and look outward *over* the heads of BOTH
parties... AlL parties, for that matter, and SEE what has been done to
us WITH our consent (unwitting though it may have been) we will remain
dogs at the feet of our masters.
Discuss.
Swan
neptune3
The rulers of America got wanted the wanted. The govenment that was
giving aid to the "suicide bombers" in Israel is out of business. Now
people can gripe that it was all a mistake. So what, they think. It's
done and they got what we wanted. Now they want people to say it was
for oil, and not mention the real reason - Jews.
"Witnesses watched as more than 60 Palestinian shops were bulldozed to
the ground this week in one West Bank village, while the owners stood
by and watch helplessly. But not one American in ten saw or heard
about this in the US press. An educated American pro-life activist was
surprised to disbelief when I told him that the Israeli death losses
run about one-fourth the number or Palestinians killed by Israelis. He
thought the statistics were reversed, having never heard or seen a
count in the US press, he has been brain scrubbed. Misinformation by
the US press is not excusable in the Internet age. So Israel has
provided an Orwellian propaganda filter called the Israeli Ministry of
Foreign Affairs (IMFA) that makes it all possible. It provides the
convenient excuse the US press needs to look the other way and print
abridged stories, keeping most of us ignorant. The propaganda arm of
the Israeli military has once again been caught purposefully lying
about the death count among its forces. We believe their purpose in
doing this is to condition Americans into accepting Israel's use of
American-made weapons of mass destruction against the vulnerable
civilian population in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel's willing
facilitator is the US Media, which spreads their distorted stories in
the USA. This same pattern of misrepresentation is repeated again and
again, proving how important and routine propaganda is to Israel. On
December 5th, the IMFA released an account of two suspected sacrifice
bombers (wrongly called suicide bombers*) who allegedly killed 22
persons and wounded more than 100. But the press release failed to
mention that there were also Israeli military casualties in the raid.
Furthermore, their account omitted the fact that a female army
sergeant was among the killed. The omission is significant. It fits
perfectly into the predictable pattern of how the IMFA deceives
Americans almost daily. This practice repeatedly uses almost every
report of Israeli deaths to distort the facts of their conflict with
the Palestinians. We will now teach you how to read between the lies
and know when the story is distorted.
THE PATTERN OF DECEPTION
On November 19, 2002, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (IMFA)
re-manufactured a similar story about a Palestinian sacrifice raid on
a military target. Twelve Israeli soldiers and paramilitary fighting
men were killed and there was no collateral damage (civilians dead).
The propagandists changed the "facts" to call the raid a "Massacre of
innocent (Israeli) civilians," as the story was carried in the US
press. It is a total and complete bald-faced lie which We Hold These
Truths alone corrected it in our article: U. S. Media, Caught Lying...
Again http://www.whtt.org/articles/021224.htm
This writer put the facts together from the Israeli military's own
documents one month after the event was misreported. Do you, dear
reader, know how to recognize such lies for yourself so you don't have
to wait for us to unravel it for you? To do this one must first
understand the quaint language of the IMFA. We call these lies
"z-facts" (short for Zionist facts) meaning lies that are couched in
official, narrative sounding language but are indeed untrue. Here is
how the Hebron report was distorted by z- facts, which the Media
reported as rear facts. The first release from the IMFA read:
"THE TERROR ATTACK IN HEBRON CLAIMED 12 LIVES." and "PALESTINIAN
GUNMEN" had opened fire on "JEWISH WORSHIPPERS WALKING HOME FROM
RELIGIOUS SERVICES,"
Z-facts differ from bald-faced lies because they do not state outright
all the killed or wounded are civilians, but it is clearly implied.
(In those rare cases where everyone killed are indeed civilian, the
IMFA says so and saves its lies for a later day.) The truth is told
only if it suits the teller. By calling an attack on an armed military
unit a "terror attack" on "Jewish worshipers" and "claiming 12 lives,"
the z-facts leave the a clear impression that those killed were
civilians. Any honest account would have called it "an attack on
Israeli military unit by Palestinian guerillas" etc. In our previous
article we explained the procedure as follows: "The Israeli Ministry
of Foreign Affairs is a propaganda arm of the Israeli Defense Force
(IDF). --They are the first to know who is killed. But they cause the
story to be circulated that all killed were civilians because it
serves their purpose. Then, once the misinformation has reached the
American public, the corrected story is allowed to surface in Israel,
though the false images are never corrected in the eyes of the
American public." http://www.whtt.org/articles/021224.htm (please
forgive us for quoting ourselves, but we are the best source)
In January 5th story Israel did it again. This time every one of our
readers should have detected the lie without being told. The press in
both countries used the same predictable, deceptive language. Each
stated "22 Israelis" had been killed and many more wounded. Had all
those killed or wounded had been non-military the report would most
likely have called them "civilians." The generic term "Israelis"
suggest to us that the IMFA is hiding something, not wanting to
identify who was really killed. They were.
Later the same day, a sad corrected story was carried with the names
of those killed. The IMFA stated that all of the victims had been
identified and included Staff Sgt. Mazal Orkobi of Azor. Ha'aretz
subsequently revealed in an obituary that Sgt. Orkobi was a 20 year-
old female who was on her first day of active duty with the Israeli
Defense Forces. But this part of the story never reached the USA. Nor
can we find a disclosure as to how many of the 120 wounded were
military. As usual, the IMFA did not disclose those who were in the
active reserves but not on duty at the time of death...
But because military were killed and possibly wounded, no
one can conclude they targeted civilians. In all but a few sacrifice
bombings military are killed or wounded. The IMFA had two reasons for
keeping Sergeant Orkobi's name out of the print. They can garner
sympathy for their air raids if the American public believes the
sacrifice bombers are targeting civilians only. Israel kills
Palestinian civilians by the dozens and do not even bother to
apologize.
The second reason Israel keeps Sergeant Orkobi's name out of
American's minds is that most do not know that Israeli's draft their
girls and puts them in harms way. If American Christians knew about
the mistreatment of Israeli women, including the use of Military-paid
abortion as a birth control method, many would wonder about their
unquestioned support of the Israeli war machine.
Christian Israeli Patriots such as Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and
Jerry Falwell, who Ariel Sharon calls the Christian Zionists, might be
embarrassed to explain their undying devotion to a regime which drafts
women into combat, marches them hip to hip with men, and provides free
abortions for the resulting problems. Some might wake up and actually
wonder if boys and girls are conditioned to kill and torture
Palestinian including children. Israel and a complicit US Media solve
these twin problems by doctoring press releases with false statements
that omit the loss of military personnel in guerilla raids. Female
names are never associated with the military even though they make up
about 1/3 of the total draftees.
* ("Suicide bomber:" Suicide is the act of taking ones one life for
the purpose of ending it. Sacrifice bombers have never been shown to
have a desire to stop living; their motive is to find and destroy
enemy personal regardless of the cost. Thus the term "sacrifice
bombers" is more accurate in describing them. The former is an Israeli
propaganda label. )
REFERENCES LITERATURE FROM WHTT: Israel's policy of abusing its own
women is detailed in two previous articles by this author. "THE
EMBARRASSING ABUSE OF WOMEN IN ISRAEL'S WAR AGAINST MEN" Charles E
Carlson (http://www.whtt.org/articles/020607.htm ) and "ISRAEL'S
SLAUGHTER OF ISRAELIS ABORTION AND A DOUBLE-MINDED PEOPLE" By Se·n D.
Mac an Airchinnigh (http://www.whtt.org/rpr/021104.htm)
FROM OUR BOOKSTORE: http://www.whtt.org/bookstor.htm For the truth
about the Occupied Territories: THE PEOPLE AND THE LAND, by
award-winning photographer Tom Hayes. Perhaps the most important
documentary ever made about Israel and Palestine. The Public
Broadcasting Corporation paid for this film, then refused to air it.
An unforgettable documentation of bravery which exposes the brutality
and repression by the Israeli military. Filmed in Gaza, The West Bank,
and Haifa at great risk to the film crew and Palestinian civilians. A
film for those who are seeking the truth about the war of rocks
against rifles, bombs vs. tanks. Show this to your church or Bible
Study. One hour, professional quality. T-101 $25.00
(http://www.whtt.org/bookstor.htm)
Read SPECIAL REPORT: SHERRY'S WAR, the anatomy of grassroots Christian
heresy. This Report is based on correspondence with Christian laymen
about their beliefs and what they consider a mandate to support the
State of Israel, regardless of the harm it does, including genocide.
Sherry is a mother, concerned for her fellow humans, and a model
church-attendee, but Sherry is also a warrior. She knows what Jesus
said about loving one's neighbors and even enemies. But her
correspondence reveals she can not bring herself to love the
Palestinians. Sherry's cult of Christianity causes her to believe that
there is a "militant Islamic agenda" to eliminate both Christians and
"God's chosen people." Sherry supports Israel's actions without
question, because she believes it is scriptural and prophetic. Sherry
could be the lady (or man) sitting next to us every Sunday in church,
perhaps sharing your breakfast table, and often at the pulpit of your
church. This article examines the flawed logic and biblical
misinformation that transform this soccer mom into an instrument for
war and death. A 20-page Pamphlet "October, 2001 report" $6.00. Volume
Discounts
SPECIAL REPORT: THE SOURCE OF OUR WAR PROBLEM: WHY JUDEO-CHRISTIANS DO
NOT DEMAND PEACE, A How a convicted serial forger was used to falsify
and corrupt the Christian Bible. The role of the Oxford University
Press owned Scofield Reference Bible in controlling Christian thought,
effectively creating Christian Zionism from the ranks of emerging
evangelicalism, and how it was transformed into radical anti-Islamic
bias. Special attention is given to the role of the Southern Baptist
Convention and of prominent televangelists. This report may be the
first to compare the several successive editions of the Scofield
Reference Bible since 1908, and to demonstrate a pernicious pro-Israel
political bias inserted between the lines of the respected King James
Edition. It makes a strong case for laying the responsibility for the
Mideast wars upon the leadership of American churches. A must for
Pastors and leaders. Audio Tape and hard copy.
Book: One Nation Under Israel - by Andrew Hurley. Former United States
Senator J. William Fulbright, Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, stated repeatedly in 1973, "Israel controls the
(U.S.) Senate". Fulbright soon became a "former Senator". Chapter 10
has a character study of terrorist now President, Ariel Sharon.
President George H.W. Bush admitted in a media interview in 1991 that
he had been virtually blackmailed to grant a $10 billion dollar loan
guaranty to the State of Israel, compliments of the American
taxpayers. He described his contact as an agent of "AIPAC... a very a
very strong Jewish lobby", ... Mr. Bush later approved the loan
without objection from Congress. 345 page soft cover $17.50.
Audiotape: ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK - by Cesar Aharon
with C. E. Carlson, explains how the present violence was caused by
the creation of the Israelis by forcing armed squatters to hold Arab
territory. $6.00
Audiotape: SHIREEN FROM GAZA - C. E. Carlson's taped interview of this
young Muslim English Student in Gaza City, who tells of the lives and
hope of the Palestinian family caught up in a war they do not want,
and are powerless to stop. Mr. Carlson provides an account of his
visit to Gaza, where the five were in March, 2002, focusing on the
family and the so called "suicide bombers." This vital question is
asked and answered: do Muslim parents train children for war and body
bomb raids as the American and Israeli press claim?"
We Hold These Truths (http://www.whtt.org)
P.O. Box 14491 Scottsdale, AZ
85267 480-947-3329
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com
Gregory Shearman
>>
>> No, the USA wanted to kidnap those scientists and to
>> "interrogate" them..... this was unacceptable. Iraq made it
>plain
>> that the scientists were free to oblige the "request", but none
>> did so.
>
>With the threat that their families would be executed I'm not
>surprised.
Really? So what is stopping them from talking now that Saddam is
gone?
Perhaps they were more afraid of being kidnapped and having
their families threatened by the USA.
>> I dislike your misinformation on this subject.
>
>People who admire terrorists and murderers and despise democracy
>and capitalism generally aren't in favour of truth either.
I only accused you of misinformation, but if you admire
terrorists and murderers (such as Bush and the terrorists he
funds) and despise democracy, as Bush does... then more fool
you.
Gregory Shearman
>>>
>>>Any time you argue and protest against the removal of a murderous
>>>dictator, you will lose.
>>
>>So, you'll be against the impeachment of George W. Bush, then?
>
>Don't be ridiculous. There's no reason for impeachment. Bush got rid
>of a murderous dictator.
Which part of the UN charter says it is legal to invade a
country because you don't like its leader?
Bush lied and mislead his own legislators. That's why he should
be impeached.
>If he listened to the UN or the wacky
>liberal appeasers in this country, Hussein would STILL be in power.
And thousands of civilians would be alive, the survivors would
not be living in the rubble of US bomb attacks and a hundred or
so US families would not be grieving.
>>>"We need honest, reasoned debate, and not fear-mongering.
>>>To those . . .who scare peace-loving people with phantoms
>>>of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid
>>>terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish
>>>our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and
>>>pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill
>>>to remain silent in the face of evil."
>>>
>>>-- John Ashcroft -
>>>Testifying before congress defending military tribunals
>>>and upholding the Constitution of the United States of America
>>
>>What a fucking hypocrite! Wasn't he the moron who introduced the
>>Patriot Act?
>
>Yes. And why is he a moron for doing it? I have just as much freedom
>and rights as before September 11, 2001. So do all Americans. The
>Supreme Court will not rule against any part of the Patriot Act. Why?
>Because it's Constitutional.
Really? Perhaps more to the point that the people being herded
up and "disappeared", don't have the money to mount a defence in
the new McCarthyist USA.
>>It is easy to lose your freedom, but the blood of martyrs is
>>required to regain them. Watch your leaders and stop them before
>>they do you irreparable damage.
>There's no loss of freedom. Don't be a terrorist or harbor them,
>don't plan to kill Americans or do so, don't give money to terrorist
>organizations.
Who decides who is a "terrorist"? It all the same McCarthyist
"communist" rubbish that will be ridiculed when history turns
its impartial eye upon the actions of your "leaders".
We saw the same rubbish with McCarthy... people 'deemed'
"communists" were denied employment and treated cruelly...
Kolu Koleff
As the joke goes: The middle east where no good deed goes unpunished.
Just remember for every bozo like you who says that the US shouldn't
intervene there is someone who says: "Why doesn't the US do
something." Of course if the US does try to help someone a jerk
like you will scream foul.
>
"Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
Bradly Wiebe
Robert wrote:
> "The State of Alberta" <freea...@canadasucks.orb> wrote in message
> news:59IPa.441083$Vi5.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >
> > "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> > > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> > > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> > > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
> >
> > What about the Iraqi people - they need as much help as they can get. It
> is
> > the moral thing to do.
> >
>
> The moral thing to do was not to start this stupid war
>
It wasn't a war. It was an invasion.
A wise decision for Canada would be to assist in the cleanup.
Shane Penney
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Bradly Wiebe wrote:
> A wise decision for Canada would be to assist in the cleanup.
I don't want any of my tax dollars going to the US in order to appease
them. The US seems to think they should have all the political clout.
If so, they should pay for it as well.
Shane
Scotius
World". The UN is a political body whose founders advertised it as a
way for the superpowers to talk things out as a last measure before
going to war. THAT is what the UN is. To say that the rest of the
World is the UN is a huge misstatement.
As to the "bloody, war supporting masses", I haven't seen
anyone crash jets into large towers in any of the Arab countries, and
I would bet if they had, the US citizenry would feel some pity for
them, rather than dancing in the streets. For instance, when Iran
suffered a major Earthquake around 1990, and the US sent HUGE amounts
of tents, food, clothing, etc, and some Iranian politico said "Even
from under the rubble, our people chant 'death to America' ", I think
the US capacity for sympathetic help was obvious.
On 11 Jul 2003 23:44:14 GMT, ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Karen Gordon)
wrote:
>(K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
>- aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
>incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
>for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
Tim
Scotius wrote:
> No Karen, the UN is not "other non invading countries of the
> World". The UN is a political body whose founders advertised it as a
> way for the superpowers to talk things out as a last measure before
> going to war. THAT is what the UN is. To say that the rest of the
> World is the UN is a huge misstatement.
> As to the "bloody, war supporting masses", I haven't seen
> anyone crash jets into large towers in any of the Arab countries, and
> I would bet if they had, the US citizenry would feel some pity for
> them, rather than dancing in the streets.
They don't have a lot of pity for them when the US and British
governments overthrow their governments. Or help dictators stay in
power. Or help train their (the dictator's) secret police to torture and
murder political dissidents. But besides that, you're probably right.
For instance, when Iran
> suffered a major Earthquake around 1990, and the US sent HUGE amounts
> of tents, food, clothing, etc, and some Iranian politico said "Even
> from under the rubble, our people chant 'death to America' ", I think
> the US capacity for sympathetic help was obvious.
Please see above comment. Ever heard of the Shah of Iran? SAVAK? Read
about them and call us back when you're done.
Garth Foster
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
I dont give a shit about whether Irak gets rebuilt or not. No way
would I pay even a dollar for the purpose. If the UN wants to give
Irak some aid thats there busness.
> > You told the UN to go to hell when they told you to not attack Iraq. Now
> > the UN has every reason to tell the US and Britain and Australia to go to
> > hell as a result of this request ......
Ive got no time for the UN there a bunch of pissweak wankers. I dont
care whether they help rebuild Irak or not. But I sure as hell reckon
the US and Britain and Australia should cease paying there
subscriptions to the UN. UN should get all its funding from the 3rd
world plus France.
> The UN already gave them approval to invade - the "Security Council" simply
> could not decide whether to not contradict itself.
<snip>
Yea there hopeless alright.
Kolu Koleff
"Nemesis" <nemesis@??.ork> wrote in message
news:ls5bhvopr1cjf21i2...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:08:29 +1000, "Kolu Koleff"
> <ko...@ozemail.com.au> spake thus:
>
> >Of course ridding Iraq of the butcher Saddam counts for nothing.
> >As the joke goes: The middle east where no good deed goes unpunished.
> >Just remember for every bozo like you who says that the US shouldn't
> >intervene there is someone who says: "Why doesn't the US do
> >something." Of course if the US does try to help someone a jerk
> >like you will scream foul.
> >>
>
> then I am sure the whole world may have applauded, hwoever you went in
> becuase Bush said there was an immediate threat to the US from Saddam
> and has not provided one shred of proof to back up his claim.
>
> Whilst US troops die on a daily basis for Bush's lie the rest of the
> world can only watch and listen to US soldiers bitch about how they
> wish they were wounded so they could come
> How US soliders are calling for Rumsfeld to resign....
> Shit even the US military bought the lies of a quick war and we'll be
> welcome as liberators.....
>
> the reality...your planes now come under missile attack, your troops
> die on a daily basis, civilians who work with the Allies are executed
> and politicians who are installed by the US are also executed
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3070223.stm
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3072221.stm
>
> It is not us crying foul now it is ytour own bloody troops LOL the US
> military so tough they can take on the world expcet of course when
> they decide to fight back and they want to run home to mummy
>
> Perhaps Bush should explain point by point to the troops occuyping
> Iraq what "in for the long haul" means...of course that would need him
> to have the guts to step foot in the country instead of admiring the
> view from 20,000 feet....I mean he declared major hostilities over so
> he must think it is pretty safe
>
So it would be better if the US had left Saddam in power?
Is that your point?
>
> __
> Still no WMD and the US still full of shit
Tim
His point was made in the second paragraph. If they were being honest,
the world would have applauded and even helped out up front.
Maybe you should take a reading comprehension course.
Karen Gordon
> "Nemesis" <nemesis@??.ork> wrote in message
>>
>> then I am sure the whole world may have applauded, hwoever you went in
>> becuase Bush said there was an immediate threat to the US from Saddam
>> and has not provided one shred of proof to back up his claim.
>>
>> Whilst US troops die on a daily basis for Bush's lie the rest of the
>> world can only watch and listen to US soldiers bitch about how they
>> wish they were wounded so they could come
>> How US soliders are calling for Rumsfeld to resign....
>> Shit even the US military bought the lies of a quick war and we'll be
>> welcome as liberators.....
>>
>> the reality...your planes now come under missile attack, your troops
>> die on a daily basis, civilians who work with the Allies are executed
>> and politicians who are installed by the US are also executed
>>
>> military so tough they can take on the world expcet of course when
>> they decide to fight back and they want to run home to mummy
>>
>> Perhaps Bush should explain point by point to the troops occuyping
>> Iraq what "in for the long haul" means...of course that would need him
>> to have the guts to step foot in the country instead of admiring the
>> view from 20,000 feet....I mean he declared major hostilities over so
>> he must think it is pretty safe
"Kolu Koleff" (ko...@ozemail.com.au) writes:
> So it would be better if the US had left Saddam in power?
> Is that your point?
(K): What ?! The masterful and powerful self-appointed cops for the
world missed getting Saddam Hussein, just like they missed getting
Osama bin laden? Crikey..... I wouldn't be putting money on this losing
horse anymore.
Saddam Hussein IS in power. So is Osama bin laden. Only thing you Yanks
accomplished was the mass slaughter of civilian Iraqis and now a one-a-day
American is shipped home in a body bag. Helluva victory. How many more
Americans just bought gas-guzzling SUVs this past week?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for that son of a Bush!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monty
wrote:
>Saddam Hussein IS in power. So is Osama bin laden. Only thing you Yanks
>accomplished was the mass slaughter of civilian Iraqis and now a one-a-day
>American is shipped home in a body bag. Helluva victory. How many more
>Americans just bought gas-guzzling SUVs this past week?
Sept 11 fiasco due to the incompetancy of the yanke security services
and he is striking out at everybody he can .
Monty .
Julian D.
wrote:
>
In two weeks I'm buying a Hummer.
Vroom Vroom!
Kolu Koleff
"Tim" <noco...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3F1AD599...@rogers.com...
Maybe you should read the lefty, let's do nothing and let millions die
as long as it pisses off the US manifesto.
Kolu Koleff
"Nemesis" <nemesis@??.ork> wrote in message
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:21:23 +1000, "Kolu Koleff"
> world - how many has the Govt of China massacred?
> China kills 1000's, invades and occupies tibet, slaughters 100's there
> and is left alone?
>
China is recognised as the US's prime enemy but perhaps for once the US is
showing the guile that the left is expert in. The US can't tackle China now
so perhaps China does become democratic or perhaps the US will
handle it later. What's your point anyway? It is wrong to undo one
wrong if you don't undo all wrongs?
> One wonders what the US classes as barbrous and inhumane treatment of
> people? What makes china diff to Iraq? They both kill their own,
> dissent is put down brutally and both have invaded neighbours.
>
> If Saddam was a direct immediate threat to the world then yes he
> should have been taken out...but as the lies of Bush become clear
> there is and was no threat?
> Where are the weapons that can be launchend in 45mins?
> Where are the WMD?
>
> Saddam was not a threat to the US / UK immediately and like any other
> dictoator who we turn blind eyes to then Saddam should have been left
> ijn power until he was a threat.
> It is good for the pople he is gone but that was never the intention
> of this war to "free" the Iraqi's that was a by product of ridding the
> region of a threat from WMD.
>
Freeing the Iraqis of Saddam was a stated objective. The WMD
was the major objective but personally I don't weep over Saddam's
going, do you?
>
> I see a few more yanks had their brains spread over Iraq over the
> weekend
>
Pleases you does it? And some more Iraqi kids are out off gaol
for not having joined Saddam's party.
>
> Is the avaergew Yank soldier so dumb that he doesn't know what he is
> doing out there?
> 1. He is occupying a nation
> 2. He is liberating the pole and his President feels his life is
> expendable in the war to rid Iraq of WMD, except that there are no WMD
> but the grunt is still expenadle.
> 3. He is target practice for Iraqi freedom fighters
>
> Someone ought to set up a fund where the world can contribute to the
> widows of those who die fighting the US occupiers....you know alojng
> the lines of Noraid...after all if the yanks think it good enough to
> fund terror and reward murder then we should be able to do the same
> for those that risk their lives to free Iraq of occupying forces.
>
You support Saddam do you? I prefer democracy.
Tim
Well, it's obvious if you read enough on the subject and have any
analytical skills.
Kolu Koleff
about sums up left wing analytical skills.
Kolu Koleff
"Nemesis" <nemesis@??.ork> wrote in message
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:25:36 +1000, "Kolu Koleff"
> stated fact.....no force to elicit regime change but would use force
> to after the **immediate** threat from WMD.
> So if there no WMD and Bush said no use of force to get regime change
> what is the US doing there?
>
God bless the US. Saddam is gone and no one else would do it. I
personally don't care about WMD if a butcher is brought low. Where is your
concern for human life?
>
> >> I see a few more yanks had their brains spread over Iraq over the
> >> weekend
> >>
> >Pleases you does it? And some more Iraqi kids are out off gaol
> >for not having joined Saddam's party.
> >>
>
> occupying a country and getting killed is par for the course
>
> >> Is the avaergew Yank soldier so dumb that he doesn't know what he is
> >> doing out there?
> >> 1. He is occupying a nation
> >> 2. He is liberating the pole and his President feels his life is
> >> expendable in the war to rid Iraq of WMD, except that there are no WMD
> >> but the grunt is still expenadle.
> >> 3. He is target practice for Iraqi freedom fighters
> >>
> >> Someone ought to set up a fund where the world can contribute to the
> >> widows of those who die fighting the US occupiers....you know alojng
> >> the lines of Noraid...after all if the yanks think it good enough to
> >> fund terror and reward murder then we should be able to do the same
> >> for those that risk their lives to free Iraq of occupying forces.
> >>
> >You support Saddam do you? I prefer democracy.
> >>
>
> Installed US puppets in a non representitive council does not count,
> the US has already stated Iraq can have democracy as long as it is
> democracy US style! eg the US does not want fundies to take over
> (which is fair enough) but surely in democracy that is up to the
> people of Iraq to deicde not the US....otherwise that is Dictatorship
> not democracy.
Gregory Shearman
>>
>> Bush said he would not use force to forward regime change! That was a
>> stated fact.....no force to elicit regime change but would use force
>> to after the **immediate** threat from WMD.
>> So if there no WMD and Bush said no use of force to get regime change
>> what is the US doing there?
>>
>God bless the US. Saddam is gone and no one else would do it. I
>personally don't care about WMD if a butcher is brought low. Where is your
>concern for human life?
So, what about the thousands of innocent Iraqi lives snuffed out
by the great "humanitarian" Bush? What about the US controlled
UN sanctions that killed half a million kiddies in Iraq? Oh
dear! What a wonderful humanitarian is the US president...
You have told us that you accept lies.... as long as they are
used to depose leaders of foreign regimes... we can only hope
that the USA ALWAYS likes the leader of Australia, eh?
>> Still no WMD and the US still full of shit
Yep... they lied, Iraqis died.
Skip Freeman
> "Karen Gordon" <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:beni4e$8db$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > (K): The bloody gall of the bloody warmongers. You don't ask "the UN"
> > - aka other non-invading countries of the world - to pay for your bloody
> > incursion into Iraq. You tax YOUR bloody war-supporting masses to pay
> > for the rebuilding and don't be reaching into anyone else's pockets.
>
> the moral thing to do.
When *you* gonna join up? Uncle Sam (says he) needs you.
-Skip