3 Terrorists Killed in Iraq - Amazing Footage!
Morton Davis
"Frog" <FrogRe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:AVS8YB9Q380...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
> Right-Thinking from the Left Coast
> http://www.right-thinking.com
>
> This is why you don't want to screw with the armed forces of the
> United States.
> ====
> "Graphic video footage from the gun camera of a U.S. Apache
> helicopter provides a window into the rules of engagement that
> often determine life and death in Iraq.
>
> "The video, obtained by ABCNEWS, shows grainy images of three
> Iraqis on the ground handling a long cylindrical object that the
> helicopter pilots believe is a weapon.
>
> "The pilots, from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, ask their
> commanders for permission to engage, then take the three men out
> one by one, using the Apache's devastating 30 mm cannons." --
> http://snipurl.com/3t8a (video link below)
> ====
> -------------
> Talk about terrorist assholes getting blown out of their socks!!
> Man!!! Video here http://snipurl.com/3t91 (click on image to
> view - 4 MB movie)
>
> For the leftist crybabies, this link goes over the rules of
> engagement: http://snipurl.com/3t8a
>
> This movie should be required viewing for all the jihadi scum
> who think they can come into Iraq and play fuck-fuck with the US
> military. It should also be required viewing for ding dongs
> like Howard Dean and all the other Democrat turkeys who think
> that just any old troops from anywhere are capable of meshing
> with the US military. This is TECHNO-WAR, dummies!
>
>
It was posted here last week.
-*MORT*-
"There are 131,000 persons in Canada who have been prohibited from owning
firearms by the courts, another 36,000 with active restraining orders and
more than 9,000 persons who have had their firearms licenses refused or
revoked. The trouble is the government doesn't make any attempt to track
them so police will know where the bad guys actually are." According to
Opposition MP, Gary Breitkreuz. "Two million law-abiding licensed firearms
owners are required by the Firearms Act to report their change of address
within 30 days or face up to 2 years in jail. But thousands of
proven-to-be-dangerous persons are free to roam Canada without telling the
police where they live. This is absurd".
Mitchell Holman
@Gilgamesh-Frog.org:
>
> This movie should be required viewing for all the jihadi scum
> who think they can come into Iraq and play fuck-fuck with the US
> military. It should also be required viewing for ding dongs
> like Howard Dean and all the other Democrat turkeys who think
> that just any old troops from anywhere are capable of meshing
> with the US military. This is TECHNO-WAR, dummies!
Posted by someone who obviously wasn't
around for all the boasting about "TechnoWar"
40 years ago and how those Vietcong didn't
have a chance against the US military.
Really, Froggy, try not to be soooo
naive about these things.
Morton Davis
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9470B2B57...@216.148.227.77...
-*MORT*-
PLMerite
The VC didn't have a chance, and they were killed in droves.
The war was lost by the U.S. because the lefties here were supporting the
enemy.
Looked in the mirror recently?
Regards, PLMerite
ClueStickMan
The VC were completely destroyed as a fighting force during the Tet
offfensive. The NVA had to take over the war at that point.
The war was lost because it was being run by politicians who did not
have the will to win, which in turn caused the citizenry to become
disenchanted with the war effort. It had nothing to do with the
ability of the military.
Webzpider
"PLMerite" <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in message
news:SIkNb.15198$et1....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Webzpider
The latest statement from *MORT*, clinically free from any trace of
intelligence:
"Hey webby, why don't you GO BUY A FUCKING NUCLEAR WEAPON. Use your
"grandaddy's" money.
Prove to us how easy it is to aquire a nuke, FUCKTARD."
Tsarkon
geneva convention but once again the US doesn't give a shit. Way to se
the example Amerika.
Dickmcb
"ClueStickMan" <ClueSt...@Get.A.Clue.Com> wrote in message
news:tctb00l57ek19hjhm...@4ax.com...
The Viet Cong were destroyed during Tet? That is the stupidest thing I
have ever heard. Yes, they suffered large losses in the area of Saigon and
around other main bases but no mater how many you killed there were always
more to take their place and every year more and more of them came of age to
fill the ranks.The war was lost because the American people finally lost
trust in the political and military leaders that had missled them for so
many years. The troops on the ground gave it their best but they were, in
the end betrayed by their leaders. I really don't think the Americam
military will be as forgiving for as long this time in Iraq. PS I was in
Saigon during Tet on TDY from Japan and it was not a good place to be in
during that time.I also had two tours in Vietnam so I speak with some
experience of the times.
floridabeachbum
It wasn't a lack of willpower that has put us in these situations time and
again. It's greed, plain and simple.
Admittedly, we have the capability to win the vast majority of conflicts.
However, that is only if we intend to win.
As we are seeing with Iraq, there is far more money to bilk from the
American people in prolonging a war effort. Last I paid any attention, Bush
was demanding $60 Billion for it. All it takes is for a little bit of that
to stick to his fingers. Johnson did the same during 'Nam. He covertly
invested in arms manufacturing companies. Got called to the carpet for it
too. Nature of the beast, I suppose. Not a bad way to grab a bit more power,
either. Gotta put down those peace-nik types, etc.
If a politician is making a distraction and excuses, or talking about
"necessity", you can bet there's money being made or power grabbed.
BeachBum
Greylock
Seems to me the Geneva Convention covers uniformed combatants.
Civilian criminals in ambush situations would not appear to be
covered.
And all lefties are not stupid, some of them are quite clever lying
SOB's.
Oddly enough, the little cocksuckers are the first and the loudest to
scream for the various gunloons to save their asses when things go to
shit.. They seem curiously unwilling to accept the consequences of
their actions. Fancy that..........
David Hartung
In actuality, the VC were regularly trounced.
Mitchell Holman
@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
You mean all the "lefty" veterans who
came back from the "war" to protest it?
Or do you mean "lefty" Dick Nixon and
"lefty" Gen. Westmoreland and "lefty"
Henry Kissinger?
Mitchell Holman
@fe1.columbus.rr.com:
Yep. And how every many our "TechnoWar"
trounced there were scads more ready to
take their place. Hearts and minds, remember?
Gregory Procter
Greylock wrote:
> Seems to me the Geneva Convention covers uniformed combatants.
>
> Civilian criminals in ambush situations would not appear to be
> covered.
Considering that you have an illegal occupation situation, non-uniformed
"civilian" combatants would either be "freedom fighters" or "patriots".
Regards,
Greg.P.
Morton Davis
"Dickmcb" <mcbur...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f8adnbSmUNm...@comcast.com...
>
I really don't think the Americam
> military will be as forgiving for as long this time in Iraq.
They won't have to. We'll be out of there a lot earlier. For one thing -
there won't be a Tet-like event. The VC had the military supply
capavbilities of Red China behind them. The Iraqi "insurgent" have no one.
Gregory Procter
Bogart wrote:
> You can call them " turnip heads " , they still don't qualify as
> uniformed combatants, Socky. :)
I was pointing out to "Greylock" that the criminals are the yanks, not the
patriots fighting for their freedom - I realize that you don't understand the
concept of freedom because you are a yank.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Adam Albright
So how did we lose?
>
dstaples
"Frog" <FrogRe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:AVS8YB9Q380...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
> Right-Thinking from the Left Coast
> http://www.right-thinking.com
>
> This is why you don't want to screw with the armed forces of the
> United States.
> ====
> "Graphic video footage from the gun camera of a U.S. Apache
> helicopter provides a window into the rules of engagement that
> often determine life and death in Iraq.
>
> "The video, obtained by ABCNEWS, shows grainy images of three
> Iraqis on the ground handling a long cylindrical object that the
> helicopter pilots believe is a weapon.
>
> "The pilots, from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, ask their
> commanders for permission to engage, then take the three men out
> one by one, using the Apache's devastating 30 mm cannons." --
> http://snipurl.com/3t8a (video link below)
> ====
> -------------
> Talk about terrorist assholes getting blown out of their socks!!
> Man!!! Video here http://snipurl.com/3t91 (click on image to
> view - 4 MB movie)
>
> For the leftist crybabies, this link goes over the rules of
> engagement: http://snipurl.com/3t8a
>
> who think they can come into Iraq and play fuck-fuck with the US
> military. It should also be required viewing for ding dongs
> like Howard Dean and all the other Democrat turkeys who think
> that just any old troops from anywhere are capable of meshing
> with the US military. This is TECHNO-WAR, dummies!
>
cultivator attached, as seen to the right of the tractor where there are
obvious rows.
It would seem that they took out three farmers, no sign of weapons.
Morton Davis
"dstaples" <dsta...@livingston.net> wrote in message
news:100c7i1...@corp.supernews.com...
Get new glasses. It's a TRUCK. BOTH VEHICLES ARE TRUCKS.
>
> It would seem that they took out three farmers, no sign of weapons.
Yeah, and you see a fucking canvas-covered cargo truck as a fucking farm
tractor?
Tsarkon
can't even see weapons. Even if they are in fact guerillas the US should
still at least live up to the spirit of the Geneva convention, after all
you are saying that the old regime was evil for doing the very same
thing. Don't you find that a little hypocritical? Oh yeah that's right
US = Good no matter what, other guys = bad no matter what.
ClueStickMan
The "tractor" on the left is a towed 12.5mm or 20mm AA cannon. It was
probably engaging the US helipcopters, since its barrel is still hot.
The first target hit has an AKM under his coat. The AKM is clearly
visible on the ground, towards the left of the frame, best seen
between 0:27 and 0:29 as the camera pans back over to the trucks.
After neutralizing the 1st target, the AA gun is engaged. You can
clearly see the operator working with the ammunition feed belts just
prior to the cannon being taken out.
Finally, the two trucks are engaged, first the larger 5t cargo truck,
then the smaller 3/4t one. Both trucks were mission-killed by having
their engine compartments shot up. The Apache was obviously engaging
the trucks, not the person seen crawling around on the ground. That
person is not even visible when the first truck is engaged.
My interpretation of this is just as good as anyone else's.
David Hartung
"Adam Albright" <A...@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:ju6c00hok5psk2r0n...@4ax.com...
In all honesty, we did not lose. We left Viet Nam in accordance with a peace
treaty which was negotiated with the Communists. As I understand it, the
North Vietnamese pretty much behaved themselves for a couple of years.It
wasn't until after they realized that we would not rescue South Viet Nam
again that they invaded in force and overran the country.
Mitchell Holman
"Vietnamization". The South couldn't defend itself
in 1962, and there was no reason to believe it could
defend itself in 1972. The war was already lost, and
US cut a quick treaty to back out of the place and
let the inevitable happen. Even the Nixon administration
wasn't surprised by the takeover.
Morton Davis
"Tsarkon" <Tsa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5npNb.105132$ts4.58156@pd7tw3no...
> From the video we can't tell if they're wearing uniforms or not hell we
> can't even see weapons. Even if they are in fact guerillas the US should
> still at least live up to the spirit of the Geneva convention, after all
> you are saying that the old regime was evil for doing the very same
> thing. Don't you find that a little hypocritical? Oh yeah that's right
> US = Good no matter what, other guys = bad no matter what.
Fucktard trolls with throw away hotmail addresses don't fucking count.
-*MORT*-
"Hey webby, why don't you GO BUY A FUCKING NUCLEAR WEAPON. Use your
grandaddy's" money.Prove to us how easy it is to aquire a nuke, FUCKTARD."
Done it yet, DIPSHIT?
Webzpider
"Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote in message news:QDvNb.71983$I06.324786@attbi_s01...
You spelt 'DEPPSJITT' wrong you paranoid senile baboon brain.
Webzpider
The latest statement from *MORT*, clinically free from any trace of
intelligence:
Hey webby, why don't you GO BUY A FUCKING NUCLEAR WEAPON. Use your
"grandaddy's" money.
Prove to us how easy it is to aquire a nuke, FUCKTARD.
-*MORT*-
Webzpider
"Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote in message news:DjpNb.69567$I06.319710@attbi_s01...
Those gun control laws are indeed beautiful.
Morton Davis
"Bogart" <Bog...@NoSpam.net> wrote in message
news:1504289cd468cf97...@news.teranews.com...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:33:41 GMT, "Webzpider" <ya...@re.shitheads.nu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Morton Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote in message
news:QDvNb.71983$I06.324786@attbi_s01...
>
> >> grandaddy's" money.Prove to us how easy it is to aquire a nuke,
FUCKTARD."
> >>
> >> Done it yet, DIPSHIT?
> >>
> >
> >You spelt 'DEPPSJITT' wrong you paranoid senile baboon brain.
>
>
>
> >Webzpider
> >
> >The latest statement from *MORT*, clinically free from any trace of
> >intelligence:
> >
> >Hey webby, why don't you GO BUY A FUCKING NUCLEAR WEAPON. Use your
> >"grandaddy's" money.
> >
> >Prove to us how easy it is to aquire a nuke, FUCKTARD.
> >
> > -*MORT*-
> >
>
-*MORT*-
Look, you fucking DIPSHIT FUICKTARD - GO BUY A FUCKING NUCLEAR WEAPON.
Do it right fucking now. BETTER YET, FUCKING BUILD ONE.
If you can, fucktard, you'll beat Sadam Hussein, Bin Laden, Momar Kadahfi,
Kim Jung Il, ALL who have been fucking trying to buy or build one for over
a decade, you fucking no-brainded ASSHOLE.
Tsarkon
Morton Davis
<ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpgn08p...@panix2.panix.com...
> >>>>> David Hartung writes:
>
> David> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>
> So was Washington's army. They too won the war.
>
>
Washington's army didn't have the backing of the Red Chinese.
-*MORT*-
Jim
> Posted by someone who obviously wasn't around for all the boasting
> about "TechnoWar" 40 years ago and how those Vietcong didn't
> have a chance against the US military.
Which they didn't. They were slaughtered even with the full force of
the military NOT being used.
Jim
Gregory Procter
Bogart wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:10:42 +1300, Gregory Procter
> I'm pointing out you can call them" turnip heads"
Thank you for giving me your permission, turnip head!
> and it doesn't make
> them uniformed combatants and covered under the GC's.
It also doesn't give you a brain.
> I realise you
> don't understand the basic concepts of history, geography, and facts
> because you're a sockpuppet from New Zealand. :)
Who but a yank could possibly understand US concepts of history, geography and
facts without becoming a raving lunatic like you?
>
>
> >Regards,
> >Greg.P.
Ken Gunnel
"Bogart" <Bog...@NoSpam.net> wrote in message
> >Who but a yank could possibly understand US concepts of history,
geography and
> >facts without becoming a raving lunatic like you?
>
> Jump in with the idiotic and ad hominem attacks, Socky. :)
Like Sable Slapper isn't a sock queen.
Suomy Nona
> "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9470B2B57...@216.148.227.77...
>
>>Frog <FrogRe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in news:AVS8YB9Q38000.753275463
>>@Gilgamesh-Frog.org:
>>
>>
>>>This movie should be required viewing for all the jihadi scum
>>>who think they can come into Iraq and play fuck-fuck with the US
>>>military. It should also be required viewing for ding dongs
>>>like Howard Dean and all the other Democrat turkeys who think
>>>that just any old troops from anywhere are capable of meshing
>>>with the US military. This is TECHNO-WAR, dummies!
>>
>>
>> Posted by someone who obviously wasn't
>>around for all the boasting about "TechnoWar"
>>40 years ago and how those Vietcong didn't
>>have a chance against the US military.
>
>
> The VC didn't have a chance, and they were killed in droves.
>
> The war was lost by the U.S. because the lefties here were supporting the
> enemy.
>
> Looked in the mirror recently?
>
>
> Regards, PLMerite
>
>
Actually, if we had a few of the right wing cowardly draft
dodging pieces of shit like Rush Limbaugh there to serve
a little guard duty, who knows what we could have done?
Noble Republicans seemed all magically exempt from military service,
like our AWOL piece of dung CIC..
PLMerite
"Suomy Nona" <_> wrote in message news:400722a1$1...@news.zianet.com...
Yeah, and which military service were you barred from enlisting in, doofus?
Regards, PLMerite
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Suomy Nona
Morty, we all know you are one ignorant right wing asshole, BUT.
Watch it again.
The tractor is on YOUR left, on THEIR right. Clearly, our soldiers
killed three Iraqi farmers. Look at the cultivated rows in the field.
If you care to look, you can see the tractor clearly. The larger truck
is open and empty. There is nothing in the smaller truck either.
None of the Iraqis made any kind of threatening moves nor
brandished any weapons. The one under the truck did try to crawl away..
The cannon virtually vaporized them, while all the macho men
Noble Republican gunnies on this newgroup might be proud, I'm ashamed
to see our troops murdering civilians. I can't imagine any real military
man gloating over such a kill, but the cowardly little right wing
turds here will no doubt do so.
You big manly macho men all want the Iraqis to see this, well, after
they see it, they'll hate our guts even more.
It doesn't take any courage to murder farmers with a cannon on
a helicopter, in spite of whatever excuses you try to make.
PLMerite
"Suomy Nona" <_> wrote in message news:4007...@news.zianet.com...
>
> Morty, we all know you are one ignorant right wing asshole, BUT.
>
> Watch it again.
>
> The tractor is on YOUR left, on THEIR right. Clearly, our soldiers
> killed three Iraqi farmers. Look at the cultivated rows in the field.
Farmers out plowing their fields at night in the winter. Yeah, right.
> If you care to look, you can see the tractor clearly. The larger truck
> is open and empty. There is nothing in the smaller truck either.
> None of the Iraqis made any kind of threatening moves nor
> brandished any weapons. The one under the truck did try to crawl away..
Too bad he didn't think to surrender. Or better yet, not be toting a weapon
in a war zone. He won't make that mistake again.
The trucks are "empty?" How much room does it take for a load of RPGs and
reloads?
> The cannon virtually vaporized them, while all the macho men
> Noble Republican gunnies on this newgroup might be proud, I'm ashamed
> to see our troops murdering civilians. I can't imagine any real military
> man gloating over such a kill, but the cowardly little right wing
> turds here will no doubt do so.
Sigh. Idiot.
> You big manly macho men all want the Iraqis to see this, well, after
> they see it, they'll hate our guts even more.
> It doesn't take any courage to murder farmers with a cannon on
> a helicopter, in spite of whatever excuses you try to make.
True. But sometimes it's just not practical to individually gut them like
fish and bury them with pig entrails.
From the ABCNews site:
The video opens with the helicopter tracking a man in a pickup truck north
of Baghdad on Dec. 1, one day after the 4th Infantry Division engaged in the
bloodiest battles with Iraqi insurgents since the end of major combat.
The pilots watch as the man pulls over and gets out to talk to another man
waiting by a larger truck.
"Uh, big truck over here," one of the pilots is heard saying. "He's having a
little powwow."
The pickup driver looks around, then reaches into his vehicle, takes out a
tube-shaped object that appears to be about 4 or 5 feet long, and runs away
from the road into a field. He drops the object in the field and heads back
to the trucks.
"I got a guy running throwing a weapon," one of the pilots says. Retired
Gen. Jack Keane, an ABCNEWS consultant who viewed the tape, said the object
looked like a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, "or something larger than a
rifle."
The pilots check in with their operational commander, who is monitoring the
situation. When they tell him they are sure the man was carrying a weapon,
he tells them: "Engage. Smoke him."
The pilots wait as a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot where the
pickup driver dropped the object. One of the Iraqis approaches the tractor
driver.
Then, within minutes, the Apache pilots open fire with the heavy 30 mm
cannon, killing first the Iraqi in the field, then the tractor driver. The
pilots then fire at the large truck and wait to see if they hit the last of
three men.
When he rolls out from under the truck, one of the pilots says, "He's
wounded."
The other pilot says, "Hit him," and the Apache opens fire again, killing
the man.
The Apache fires nearly 100 30 mm cannon rounds in all.
Engagement Called Justified
A senior Army official who viewed the tape said the pilots had the legal
right to kill the men because they were carrying a weapon. He said there
were no ground troops in the area and if the Apache pilots had let the three
Iraqis go, the men might have gone on to kill American troops.
Keane agreed. "Those weapons were obviously not being pointed at them in
particular, but they [the three Iraqis] are using those weapons in their
minds for lethal means and they [the Apache pilots] have a right to
interfere with that," he said.
Anthony Cordesman, an ABCNEWS defense consultant who also viewed the tape,
said the Apache pilots would have had a much clearer picture of the scene
than what was recorded on the videotape. He also said they would have had
intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles. "They're not
getting a sort of blurred picture. They have a combination of intelligence
and much better imagery than we can see."
As to whether the Apache pilots could have called in ground troops to
apprehend the men, Cordesman said: "In this kind of war, wherever you find
organized resistance among the insurgents, you have to act immediately. If
you wait to send in ground troops almost invariably your enemy is going to
be gone."
Army officials acknowledged that the 30 mm cannons used by the Apache
gunners were far bigger than what was needed to kill the men, but said it is
the smallest weapon the Apaches have.
Ken Ehrett
<pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
You're the one who keeps citing the Geneva Convention rules on war.
Anyone caught fighting in a combat zone without a uniform is
classified as a spy and can be executed. And no we won't consider
the idea of an illegal occupation since it does not exist. Oh, and
all this talk of illegal occupation always seems to disappear whenever
you scum get the scent of building contracts. All the filth who chose
not to lift a finger to liberate Iraq are the loudest at squealing
about getting in on the contracts. You are disgusting.
PLMerite
"Ken Ehrett" <ya...@olg.com> wrote in message
news:1ab7d6c4750e5fa5...@news.teranews.com...
Point to Mr. Ehrett.
Ken Ehrett
The fanatical moslems you are referring to have never had freedom and
never will because they do not believe in it.
abdul rahim
>
> The Viet Cong were destroyed during Tet? That is the stupidest thing I
> have ever heard.
yep, they were. about 30,000 killed.
who do you think was charging into south vietnam in uniforms and
formations during the april 1972 Communist offensive? viet cong?
the war was lost when the post-watergate, two-thirds-demoshit congress
cut off all aid to south vietnam. it was one thing to pull out our
troops, but to cut off all materiel to an ally was something else. oh
well, those congressional democrats, like the canadian usenet troll
Zepp, will go to their graves "knowing " that the United States is
evil.
Joe Halbleib
"Gregory Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:400612C2...@ihug.co.nz...
True freedom was INVENTED here. YOU don't understand freedom. Get a clue
or shut up.
Joe
> Regards,
> Greg.P.
>
Joe Halbleib
Point, game, set and match...
Joe
Gregory Procter
Bogart wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:04:07 +1300, Gregory Procter
> Jump in with the idiotic and ad hominem attacks, Socky. :)
Not much point as you're already doing that.
Gregory Procter
Ken Ehrett wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:39:25 +1300, Gregory Procter
> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >Greylock wrote:
> >
> >> Seems to me the Geneva Convention covers uniformed combatants.
> >>
> >> Civilian criminals in ambush situations would not appear to be
> >> covered.
> >
> >Considering that you have an illegal occupation situation, non-uniformed
> >"civilian" combatants would either be "freedom fighters" or "patriots".
>
> You're the one who keeps citing the Geneva Convention rules on war.
> Anyone caught fighting in a combat zone without a uniform is
> classified as a spy and can be executed.
Sure, you execute anyone who tries for freedom of speech, or the right to
work or ...
> And no we won't consider
> the idea of an illegal occupation since it does not exist.
It exists; you lot are the perfect example, along with Adolf, Mussolini etc.
> Oh, and
> all this talk of illegal occupation always seems to disappear whenever
> you scum get the scent of building contracts.
You have a building contract - that explains a little.
> All the filth who chose
> not to lift a finger to liberate Iraq are the loudest at squealing
> about getting in on the contracts. You are disgusting.
So who has helped Iraq - certainly not the USa.
Gregory Procter
Ken Ehrett wrote:
They will certainly never have their freedom returned to them while you lot are
involved!
Gregory Procter
PLMerite wrote:
Why point at Kensock? We can all smell exactly where he is.
No one has liberated Iraq, they are ruled by a military occupation force.
Gregory Procter
Joe Halbleib wrote:
You're an idiot Joe - you've also forgotten what freedom is.
A country ruled with guns by an oppressive and aggressive military occupying
force in no way has "freedom".
PLMerite
>
>
>
> Why point at Kensock? We can all smell exactly where he is.
> No one has liberated Iraq, they are ruled by a military occupation force.
Oh well, I guess you won't be vacationing there. Or here, thank God.
Regards, PLMerite
Mitchell Holman
news:c7c4f07f.04011...@posting.google.com:
Please tell us what Nixon's "secret plan"
to end the Vietnam War was. A product of the
Democrats as well? Is that what Kissinger was
selling in Paris?
Eddy_Down
PLMerite wrote:
> "Ken Ehrett" <ya...@olg.com> wrote in message
> news:1ab7d6c4750e5fa5...@news.teranews.com...
>
>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:39:25 +1300, Gregory Procter
>><pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Greylock wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Seems to me the Geneva Convention covers uniformed combatants.
>>>>
>>>>Civilian criminals in ambush situations would not appear to be
>>>>covered.
>>>
>>>Considering that you have an illegal occupation situation, non-uniformed
>>>"civilian" combatants would either be "freedom fighters" or "patriots".
>>
>>You're the one who keeps citing the Geneva Convention rules on war.
>>Anyone caught fighting in a combat zone without a uniform is
>>classified as a spy and can be executed.
Yawn. The Genever Convention only applies among consenting nations.
And no we won't consider
>>the idea of an illegal occupation since it does not exist.
Only by your (and Blair's) own rules.
Oh, and
>>all this talk of illegal occupation always seems to disappear whenever
>>you scum get the scent of building contracts. All the filth who chose
>>not to lift a finger to liberate Iraq are the loudest at squealing
>>about getting in on the contracts. You are disgusting.
>
Yet again, Kensock is exposed as a clueless fuckwit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12639-2004Jan13.html
MONTERREY, Mexico, Jan. 13 -- President Bush on Tuesday rescinded his
widely criticized ban against Canadian companies bidding for
reconstruction contracts in Iraq, part of his effort to mend fences and
improve his image with leaders attending a hemispheric summit.
Bush announced the reversal after a breakfast meeting with the new
Canadian prime minister, Paul Martin, as one of several White House
concessions and gestures during the two-day Summit of the Americas. They
were designed to help defuse rising anti-Americanism and criticism of
his policies in the region.
The administration had said last month that Canada, France, Germany,
Mexico and Russia would be among the countries barred from seeking
contracts because they had refused to join the U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq. The first round of contracts, which excluded those countries, was
worth about $5 billion.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said three or four other nations
might be removed from the blacklist soon. Officials said they would base
their decisions in part on countries' pledges toward Iraq reconstruction.
>
>
> Point to Mr. Ehrett.
>
>
>
--
"Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina"
Mort does his impression of a toolbox in message id
<jJVIb.719735$Fm2.620715@attbi_s04>
Mark Allread
>
>
> Bogart wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:39:25 +1300, Gregory Procter
> > <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Greylock wrote:
> > >
> > >> Seems to me the Geneva Convention covers uniformed combatants.
> > >>
> > >> Civilian criminals in ambush situations would not appear to be
> > >> covered.
> > >
> > >Considering that you have an illegal occupation situation,
non-uniformed
> > >"civilian" combatants would either be "freedom fighters" or "patriots".
> >
> > uniformed combatants, Socky. :)
>
> I was pointing out to "Greylock" that the criminals are the yanks, not the
> patriots fighting for their freedom - I realize that you don't understand
the
> concept of freedom because you are a yank.
>
> Greg.P.
>
Freedom is what you have in the UK because US soldiers were willing to stop
Germany from turning England into a satellite island for the Third Reich.
You don't understand the concept because you are an anus.
Joe Halbleib
You will find that I am not an idiot.
I have not forgotten freedom. I was steeped in it while growing up. I grew
up in Philadelphia, in an area with numerous reminders of our Revolution and
achievement of freedom from Brittain. Gettysburg, one of the most
horrendous battles of our Civil War is close and serves as a reminder of our
struggle to free men and keep our union together. On both sides of my
family there are members who have served in our military.
While Iraq is not (yet) free, it will be soon. It will have to decide
whether to stay that way, a gift we give them, or to let it slip through
their fingers and return to the type of life they have just left or worse,
some theocratic dictatorship like Iran. We can't just dump them and say,
OK, now go be free and don't screw up any more. We have to put some
structure in place for them and give them a head start.
You have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you never will. Too
bad really. I'm sorry.
Joe
Gregory Procter
PLMerite wrote:
No and No thank God!
Gregory Procter
Mark Allread wrote:
The previous generation bought you freedom by daring to take on Nazi Germany
when all else were either falling or selling military capability to Hitler (that
was you!)
Eddy_Down
Yawn. Here we go.
> You don't understand the concept because you are an anus.
Greg doesn't live in the UK. HTH.
Gregory Procter
Joe Halbleib wrote:
So explain to me why you just pretended to be one.
>
>
> I have not forgotten freedom.
OK, but it has to be a dim dark secret that you don't normally admit to!
> I was steeped in it while growing up.
Just how OLD are you???
> I grew
> up in Philadelphia, in an area with numerous reminders of our Revolution and
> achievement of freedom from Brittain.
Hmmm, you've forgotten the nation that helped you gain that freedom - by your
standards they gained you that freedom.
> Gettysburg, one of the most
> horrendous battles of our Civil War is close and serves as a reminder of our
> struggle to free men and keep our union together. On both sides of my
> family there are members who have served in our military.
Those were the steps to gaining that freedom, not the freedom itself.
>
>
> While Iraq is not (yet) free, it will be soon.
Gee, what do you base that fairy story on? You've had six months or more to give
the people of Iraq their freedom, so far you've stolen the control of their
major asset and you've denied them any of the normal steps towards freedom.
You've denied them freedom of choice, freedom to act as they want, freedom to
make their own decisions ...
> It will have to decide
> whether to stay that way, a gift we give them, or to let it slip through
> their fingers and return to the type of life they have just left or worse,
> some theocratic dictatorship like Iran.
How are they going to make that choice? There is no mechanisim by which they can
make such a choice.
You anti-freedom yanks took Iran from a developing democracy to a feudal
monarchy - now you blame the people of Iran for following those who promised
them freedom but lied, just like you are now doing in Iraq.
> We can't just dump them and say,
> OK, now go be free and don't screw up any more. We have to put some
> structure in place for them and give them a head start.
But you're not, you're developing another pro-US dictatorship which can only
serve the corrupt politicians who have jumped on your bandwagon. You're dooming
the people of Iraq to disaster, just like you do where-ever you interfere.
>
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you never will. Too
> bad really. I'm sorry.
I have the US's record to judge you by - you're going to fuck up the nation you
have fucked up for the last 25 years by supporting Hussein.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Gregory Procter
Eddy_Down wrote:
"@ihug.co.nz" isn't in the UK????? =8^O
Didn't Churchill have something to do with stopping the Germans from turning
England into a satellite island for the Third Reich.?
David Hartung
> Please tell us what Nixon's "secret plan"
> to end the Vietnam War was. A product of the
> Democrats as well? Is that what Kissinger was
> selling in Paris?
Why do you take President Nixon to task for not ending our involvement in in
Viet Nam, and not take President Johnson to task for his escalation of the
war?
Morton Davis
"David Hartung" <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote in message
news:cKQNb.10934$f97....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
debacles they inherited from demorat presidents.
-*MORT*-
Adam Albright
Why do you always support liars and crooks?
Mitchell Holman
Just answer the question. If the democrats
are at fault for "retreating" from Vietnam, what
was Nixon's role? What was his "secret plan"?
Funny how a right wing presidents are always
blameless as long as there is a Demo congress around.
Are your presidents just that ineffectual?
PS: Check out some of the notestreams blaming
the few demos in Congress for the massive deficits
the GOP government is doing. It's a hoot.
William David Thweatt
: Right-Thinking from the Left Coast
: http://www.right-thinking.com
: This is why you don't want to screw with the armed forces of the
: United States.
: ====
: "Graphic video footage from the gun camera of a U.S. Apache
: helicopter provides a window into the rules of engagement that
: often determine life and death in Iraq.
: "The video, obtained by ABCNEWS, shows grainy images of three
: Iraqis on the ground handling a long cylindrical object that the
: helicopter pilots believe is a weapon.
: "The pilots, from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, ask their
: commanders for permission to engage, then take the three men out
: one by one, using the Apache's devastating 30 mm cannons." --
: http://snipurl.com/3t8a (video link below)
: ====
: -------------
: Talk about terrorist assholes getting blown out of their socks!!
: Man!!! Video here http://snipurl.com/3t91 (click on image to
: view - 4 MB movie)
: For the leftist crybabies, this link goes over the rules of
: engagement: http://snipurl.com/3t8a
: This movie should be required viewing for all the jihadi scum
: who think they can come into Iraq and play fuck-fuck with the US
: military. It should also be required viewing for ding dongs
: like Howard Dean and all the other Democrat turkeys who think
: that just any old troops from anywhere are capable of meshing
: with the US military. This is TECHNO-WAR, dummies!
Good footage. I'm keeping it.
BTW, we can do the same from a Bradley or with a SAW from the ground. The
problem with most terrorists is they cannot shoot straight, and the ones
that can use inaccurate weapons. The Kalashnikov rifle is good for
putting out a lot of lead in an infantry assault, but it cannot match the
accuracy of even an M-4 past 100 meters.
Kalashnikov designed his rifles VERY WELL for what was needed by the Red
Army in the 1940's, but a common hunting rifle available at Wal-Mart is a
far better weapon for insurgents who want to live long enough to see their
insurgency succeed.
--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
thw...@ruf.rice.edu
dave.t...@us.army.mil
William David Thweatt
: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:04:24 GMT, "David Hartung"
: <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote:
: >
: >"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
: >news:Xns9470B2B57...@216.148.227.77...
: >> Frog <FrogRe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in news:AVS8YB9Q38000.753275463
: >> @Gilgamesh-Frog.org:
: >>
: >> >
: >> > This movie should be required viewing for all the jihadi scum
: >> > who think they can come into Iraq and play fuck-fuck with the US
: >> > military. It should also be required viewing for ding dongs
: >> > like Howard Dean and all the other Democrat turkeys who think
: >> > that just any old troops from anywhere are capable of meshing
: >> > with the US military. This is TECHNO-WAR, dummies!
: >>
: >>
: >> Posted by someone who obviously wasn't
: >> around for all the boasting about "TechnoWar"
: >> 40 years ago and how those Vietcong didn't
: >> have a chance against the US military.
: >
: >In actuality, the VC were regularly trounced.
: So how did we lose?
We didn't lose. We packed up and left. The Vietnamese lost.
Mitchell Holman
@joe.rice.edu:
> Adam Albright (A...@ABC.net) wrote:
>: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:04:24 GMT, "David Hartung"
>: <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote:
>
>: >
>: >"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>: >news:Xns9470B2B57...@216.148.227.77...
>: >> Frog <FrogRe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in news:AVS8YB9Q38000.753275463
>: >> @Gilgamesh-Frog.org:
>: >>
>: >> >
>: >> > This movie should be required viewing for all the jihadi scum
>: >> > who think they can come into Iraq and play fuck-fuck with the US
>: >> > military. It should also be required viewing for ding dongs
>: >> > like Howard Dean and all the other Democrat turkeys who think
>: >> > that just any old troops from anywhere are capable of meshing
>: >> > with the US military. This is TECHNO-WAR, dummies!
>: >>
>: >>
>: >> Posted by someone who obviously wasn't
>: >> around for all the boasting about "TechnoWar"
>: >> 40 years ago and how those Vietcong didn't
>: >> have a chance against the US military.
>: >
>: >In actuality, the VC were regularly trounced.
>
>: So how did we lose?
>
>
> We didn't lose. We packed up and left. The Vietnamese lost.
Maybe we should have bugged out of Vietnamese
affairs and let them choose their own leaders a
long time ago.
"President Eisenhower's Memoires, Mandate for Change, page
372, shows that he believed Ho Chi Minh would have won any
free election in Vietnam in 1956. This is certainly why the
U.S. did not permit such an election, though the Geneva
Convention of 1954 required it."
Morton Davis
We did. It's been 30 years.
-*MORT*-
"There are 131,000 persons in Canada who have been prohibited from owning
firearms by the courts, another 36,000 with active restraining orders and
more than 9,000 persons who have had their firearms licenses refused or
revoked. The trouble is the government doesn't make any attempt to track
them so police will know where the bad guys actually are." According to
Opposition MP, Gary Breitkreuz. "Two million law-abiding licensed firearms
owners are required by the Firearms Act to report their change of address
within 30 days or face up to 2 years in jail. But thousands of
proven-to-be-dangerous persons are free to roam Canada without telling the
police where they live. This is absurd".
Mitchell Holman
$na.42724@attbi_s04:
Actually, it has been closer to 50
Steve Hix
Adam Albright <A...@ABC.net> wrote:
He wasn't supporting LBJ.
r_c_brown
>
> >
> > "Adam Albright" <A...@ABC.net> wrote in message
> > news:ju6c00hok5psk2r0n...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:04:24 GMT, "David Hartung"
> >> <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> >> >> Frog <FrogRe...@bigfoot.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:AVS8YB9Q38000.753275463 @Gilgamesh-Frog.org:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This movie should be required viewing for all the jihadi scum
> >> >> > who think they can come into Iraq and play fuck-fuck with the US
> >> >> > military. It should also be required viewing for ding dongs
> >> >> > like Howard Dean and all the other Democrat turkeys who think
> >> >> > that just any old troops from anywhere are capable of meshing
> >> >> > with the US military. This is TECHNO-WAR, dummies!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Posted by someone who obviously wasn't
> >> >> around for all the boasting about "TechnoWar"
> >> >> 40 years ago and how those Vietcong didn't
> >> >> have a chance against the US military.
> >> >
> >> >In actuality, the VC were regularly trounced.
> >>
> >> So how did we lose?
> >
> > peace treaty which was negotiated with the Communists. As I understand
> > it, the North Vietnamese pretty much behaved themselves for a couple of
> > years.It wasn't until after they realized that we would not rescue South
> > Viet Nam again that they invaded in force and overran the country.
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Vietnamization". The South couldn't defend itself
> in 1962, and there was no reason to believe it could
> defend itself in 1972. The war was already lost, and
> US cut a quick treaty to back out of the place and
> let the inevitable happen. Even the Nixon administration
> wasn't surprised by the takeover.
It wasn't even the Nixon administration at that point. The US cease
fire and troop withdrawal occurred in 1973. Nixon resigned in 1974.
North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam in 1975.
It was during the brief Ford administration.
Ken Ehrett
<pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>PLMerite wrote:
>
>> "Ken Ehrett" <ya...@olg.com> wrote in message
>> news:1ab7d6c4750e5fa5...@news.teranews.com...
>> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:39:25 +1300, Gregory Procter
>> > <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Greylock wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Seems to me the Geneva Convention covers uniformed combatants.
>> > >>
>> > >> Civilian criminals in ambush situations would not appear to be
>> > >> covered.
>> > >
>> > >Considering that you have an illegal occupation situation, non-uniformed
>> > >"civilian" combatants would either be "freedom fighters" or "patriots".
>> >
>> > You're the one who keeps citing the Geneva Convention rules on war.
>> > Anyone caught fighting in a combat zone without a uniform is
>> > classified as a spy and can be executed. And no we won't consider
>> > the idea of an illegal occupation since it does not exist. Oh, and
>> > all this talk of illegal occupation always seems to disappear whenever
>> > you scum get the scent of building contracts. All the filth who chose
>> > not to lift a finger to liberate Iraq are the loudest at squealing
>> > about getting in on the contracts. You are disgusting.
>>
>> Point to Mr. Ehrett.
>
>Why point at Kensock? We can all smell exactly where he is.
>No one has liberated Iraq, they are ruled by a military occupation force.
Well the people who are best qualified to make that call are the
majority of the Iraqi people and not some scraggly bearded socialist
vagrant from New Squealand who's badly in need of a flea dip. They
seem to think they are better off and have sent at least one rep to
the UN to tell the rest of you how fucked up you were in refusing to
help the US forces there. Ten years from now Iraq is going to be the
crown jewel of the Middle East with the highest standard of living and
the best economy in the region much the same way that Japan and
Germany turned out after WW II. And of course shit countries like New
Squealand will have had nothing to do with it as usual. Complain all
you want shit heel but you and your ilk will never contribute anything
to world history other than your ineffective whining. You are the
ticks on the ass of progress and freedom. Now run along and make sure
your Prime Minister has her makeup on properly cause she has a lot of
Chinese cocks to suck.
Ken Ehrett
<sinist...@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>PLMerite wrote:
>> "Ken Ehrett" <ya...@olg.com> wrote in message
>> news:1ab7d6c4750e5fa5...@news.teranews.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:39:25 +1300, Gregory Procter
>>><pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Greylock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Seems to me the Geneva Convention covers uniformed combatants.
>>>>>
>>>>>Civilian criminals in ambush situations would not appear to be
>>>>>covered.
>>>>
>>>>Considering that you have an illegal occupation situation, non-uniformed
>>>>"civilian" combatants would either be "freedom fighters" or "patriots".
>>>
>>>You're the one who keeps citing the Geneva Convention rules on war.
>>>Anyone caught fighting in a combat zone without a uniform is
>>>classified as a spy and can be executed.
>
>Yawn. The Genever Convention only applies among consenting nations.
Thank you for bringing up what I have already pointed out in the past.
Now that this is cleared up we can go ahead with the logical decision
to drop daisy cutters on Tikrit.
>
>
> And no we won't consider
>>>the idea of an illegal occupation since it does not exist.
>
>Only by your (and Blair's) own rules.
>
> Oh, and
>>>all this talk of illegal occupation always seems to disappear whenever
>>>you scum get the scent of building contracts. All the filth who chose
>>>not to lift a finger to liberate Iraq are the loudest at squealing
>>>about getting in on the contracts. You are disgusting.
>>
>
>Yet again, Kensock is exposed as a clueless fuckwit.
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12639-2004Jan13.html
How is my point any less valid you silly little homo? If anything
this URL has reenforced it you fucking retard.
Mitchell Holman
news:2h5g00lai4svmjr3o...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:20:40 GMT, Mitchell Holman
> <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> snipped
>>
>> Maybe we should have bugged out of Vietnamese
>>affairs and let them choose their own leaders a
>>long time ago.
>
> So, I take it you supported the North Vietnamese executions and
> re-eduation camps for 100's of thousands of South Vietnamese?
>
What are the odds those camps would have
existed if we had simply let the Vietnamese
vote in free elections in 1956?
Ken Ehrett
<pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>Ken Ehrett wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:39:25 +1300, Gregory Procter
>> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >Greylock wrote:
>> >
>> >> Seems to me the Geneva Convention covers uniformed combatants.
>> >>
>> >> Civilian criminals in ambush situations would not appear to be
>> >> covered.
>> >
>> >Considering that you have an illegal occupation situation, non-uniformed
>> >"civilian" combatants would either be "freedom fighters" or "patriots".
>>
>> You're the one who keeps citing the Geneva Convention rules on war.
>> Anyone caught fighting in a combat zone without a uniform is
>> classified as a spy and can be executed.
>
>Sure, you execute anyone who tries for freedom of speech, or the right to
>work or ...
You have examples of this I assume... how silly of me, I forgot I am
dealing with a pathological liar who pulls this stuff out of his ass.
I know..... you should have one of those international charities that
you claimed to have founded to get in Iraq and help those poor people
out.
>
>> And no we won't consider
>> the idea of an illegal occupation since it does not exist.
>
>It exists; you lot are the perfect example, along with Adolf, Mussolini etc.
Yeah Groggy, if that were really true you'd already be a lamp skin
sitting on my desk.
>> Oh, and
>> all this talk of illegal occupation always seems to disappear whenever
>> you scum get the scent of building contracts.
>
>You have a building contract - that explains a little.
It sure does. All the cowards in the UN community are now crawling
out of their toilets and shaking off their fur looking to get in on
good deals in Iraq.
>> All the filth who chose
>> not to lift a finger to liberate Iraq are the loudest at squealing
>> about getting in on the contracts. You are disgusting.
>
>So who has helped Iraq - certainly not the USa.
You scum do nothing at all for anyone and then expect to be rewarded
for your sloth. Disgusting.
Ken Ehrett
<pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>Ken Ehrett wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:10:42 +1300, Gregory Procter
>> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >> You can call them " turnip heads " , they still don't qualify as
>> >> uniformed combatants, Socky. :)
>> >
>> >I was pointing out to "Greylock" that the criminals are the yanks, not the
>> >patriots fighting for their freedom - I realize that you don't understand the
>> >concept of freedom because you are a yank.
>>
>> The fanatical moslems you are referring to have never had freedom and
>> never will because they do not believe in it.
>
>They will certainly never have their freedom returned to them while you lot >are involved!
I'll try it one more time since you're mentally handicapped. These
people have never had freedom. They have existed in this land for
over ten thousand years and have never had freedom or liberty. The
ones who are fighting us right now want Shaira law. Do you understand
what that means you fool?
Ken Ehrett
<pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>Joe Halbleib wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:400612C2...@ihug.co.nz...
>> >
>> >
>> > Bogart wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:39:25 +1300, Gregory Procter
>> > > <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >Greylock wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Seems to me the Geneva Convention covers uniformed combatants.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Civilian criminals in ambush situations would not appear to be
>> > > >> covered.
>> > > >
>> > > >Considering that you have an illegal occupation situation,
>> non-uniformed
>> > > >"civilian" combatants would either be "freedom fighters" or "patriots".
>> > >
>> > > You can call them " turnip heads " , they still don't qualify as
>> > > uniformed combatants, Socky. :)
>> >
>> > I was pointing out to "Greylock" that the criminals are the yanks, not the
>> > patriots fighting for their freedom - I realize that you don't understand
>> the
>> > concept of freedom because you are a yank.
>>
>> True freedom was INVENTED here. YOU don't understand freedom. Get a clue
>> or shut up.
>
>You're an idiot Joe - you've also forgotten what freedom is.
>A country ruled with guns by an oppressive and aggressive military occupying
>force in no way has "freedom".
You just described Iraq under the former rule of Saddam Hussein you
fucking moron.
Don Stickevers
That captured your anger.
Didn't England and France
originally screw up the mideast?
And somehow it became our problem?
But then again I guess their problems
have always become a problem for us.
Be it 230 years ago WW1&2 or now.
"Ken Ehrett" <ya...@olg.com> wrote in message
news:3d4905258568bafb...@news.teranews.com...
Jim Nicholson
>Well the people who are best qualified to make that call are the
>majority of the Iraqi people and not some scraggly bearded socialist
>vagrant from New Squealand who's badly in need of a flea dip.
That's closer than you think. In the early 90's I flew into Auckland and before
they would let us off the plane, they aerosol sprayed the passengers and crew
with something that smelled like sheep dip. I understand they no longer do this,
but won't be going back to see.
Joe Halbleib
"Bogart" <Bog...@NoSpam.net> wrote in message
news:418108f75b4e9ddd...@news.teranews.com...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:13:11 +1300, Gregory Procter
> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> Greg doesn't live in the UK. HTH.
> >
> >"@ihug.co.nz" isn't in the UK????? =8^O
>
>
> >Didn't Churchill have something to do with stopping the Germans from
turning
> >England into a satellite island for the Third Reich.?
>
And Roosevelt's soldiers too. I have to say, the Brits fight like hell
though.
Joe
> ---
>
> " But you hear so many gunshots around here that I didn't think much
> of it. " - Shaun Kehoe, Proud Supporter of Gun Control in the UK.
>
> http://www.makeashorterlink.com/?T2E452607
Joe Halbleib
Well... And sheep! Have to say, I had some very nice NZ lamb the other
night. My compliments.
Joe
Gregory Procter
Bogart wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:13:11 +1300, Gregory Procter
> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> Greg doesn't live in the UK. HTH.
> >
> >"@ihug.co.nz" isn't in the UK????? =8^O
>
> The Brits had the sense to throw you socialist out? :)
>
> >Didn't Churchill have something to do with stopping the Germans from turning
> >England into a satellite island for the Third Reich.?
>
> Churchill's ( half yank) words and Roosevelt's supplies and material.
The supplies and materials would have been more effective if you hadn't also been
supplying the other side!
David Hartung
> "David Hartung" <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote in
> news:cKQNb.10934$f97....@fe3.columbus.rr.com:
>
> >
> > "Mitchell Holman" <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9471EA4A9...@204.127.204.17...
> >
> >> Please tell us what Nixon's "secret plan"
> >> to end the Vietnam War was. A product of the
> >> Democrats as well? Is that what Kissinger was
> >> selling in Paris?
> >
> > Why do you take President Nixon to task for not ending our involvement
> > in in Viet Nam, and not take President Johnson to task for his
> > escalation of the war?
>
>
> Just answer the question. If the democrats
> are at fault for "retreating" from Vietnam, what
> was Nixon's role? What was his "secret plan"?
It seems to me that President Nixon deliverd on his promise to end our
involvement in Viet Nam, and he did so in a manner which gave the South Viet
Namese their best chance to fend off North Viet Nam. Now, answer my
question, why do you take President Nixon to task for not ending the war as
soon as he was sworn in, and not take President Johnson to task for his
escalation of ther war?
David Hartung
> John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:2h5g00lai4svmjr3o...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:20:40 GMT, Mitchell Holman
> > <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >
> > snipped
> >>
> >> Maybe we should have bugged out of Vietnamese
> >>affairs and let them choose their own leaders a
> >>long time ago.
> >
> > So, I take it you supported the North Vietnamese executions and
> > re-eduation camps for 100's of thousands of South Vietnamese?
> >
>
>
>
> What are the odds those camps would have
> existed if we had simply let the Vietnamese
> vote in free elections in 1956?
100%.
Joe Halbleib
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe Halbleib wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Gregory Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > news:400612C2...@ihug.co.nz...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bogart wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Greylock wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Seems to me the Geneva Convention covers uniformed
combatants.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Civilian criminals in ambush situations would not appear to
be
> > > > > > >> covered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Considering that you have an illegal occupation situation,
> > > > non-uniformed
> > > > > > >"civilian" combatants would either be "freedom fighters" or
> > "patriots".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > uniformed combatants, Socky. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I was pointing out to "Greylock" that the criminals are the yanks,
not
> > the
> > > > > patriots fighting for their freedom - I realize that you don't
> > understand
> > > > the
> > > > > concept of freedom because you are a yank.
> > > >
> > > > True freedom was INVENTED here. YOU don't understand freedom. Get
a
> > clue
> > > > or shut up.
> > >
> > > You're an idiot Joe - you've also forgotten what freedom is.
> > > A country ruled with guns by an oppressive and aggressive military
> > occupying
> > > force in no way has "freedom".
> >
>
> So explain to me why you just pretended to be one.
>
> >
> >
> > I have not forgotten freedom.
>
> OK, but it has to be a dim dark secret that you don't normally admit to!
>
> > I was steeped in it while growing up.
>
> Just how OLD are you???
>
> > I grew
> > up in Philadelphia, in an area with numerous reminders of our Revolution
and
> > achievement of freedom from Brittain.
>
> Hmmm, you've forgotten the nation that helped you gain that freedom - by
your
> standards they gained you that freedom.
>
> > Gettysburg, one of the most
> > horrendous battles of our Civil War is close and serves as a reminder of
our
> > struggle to free men and keep our union together. On both sides of my
> > family there are members who have served in our military.
>
> Those were the steps to gaining that freedom, not the freedom itself.
>
> >
> >
> > While Iraq is not (yet) free, it will be soon.
>
> Gee, what do you base that fairy story on? You've had six months or more
to give
> the people of Iraq their freedom, so far you've stolen the control of
their
> major asset and you've denied them any of the normal steps towards
freedom.
> You've denied them freedom of choice, freedom to act as they want, freedom
to
> make their own decisions ...
>
> > It will have to decide
> > whether to stay that way, a gift we give them, or to let it slip through
> > their fingers and return to the type of life they have just left or
worse,
> > some theocratic dictatorship like Iran.
>
> How are they going to make that choice? There is no mechanisim by which
they can
> make such a choice.
> You anti-freedom yanks took Iran from a developing democracy to a feudal
> monarchy - now you blame the people of Iran for following those who
promised
> them freedom but lied, just like you are now doing in Iraq.
>
> > We can't just dump them and say,
> > OK, now go be free and don't screw up any more. We have to put some
> > structure in place for them and give them a head start.
>
> But you're not, you're developing another pro-US dictatorship which can
only
> serve the corrupt politicians who have jumped on your bandwagon. You're
dooming
> the people of Iraq to disaster, just like you do where-ever you interfere.
>
> >
> >
> > You have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you never will.
Too
> > bad really. I'm sorry.
>
> I have the US's record to judge you by - you're going to fuck up the
nation you
> have fucked up for the last 25 years by supporting Hussein.
Greg:
I am not an idiot. I didn't pretend to be an idiot. I am not mistakable
for one.
I have not forgotten freedom because I have it. I live it. Every day. All
day long. Not only that... I live in a country that aspires to provide it
for all others on this earth.
How OLD am I?? What does that have to do with it? Are you seriously
suggesting that I date all the way back to our Revolution in 1776 and
earlier? If you must know, I'm 47. I'm sure you will make something silly
out of that.
I've forgotten WHAT country that gained me my freedom? Can you be more
precise? I haven't forgotten the United States of America, if that's what
you mean. My allegiance is to them and only them.
Steps toward freedom (our fight) is what freedom is composed of. Freedom is
a treasure to be struggled for, to be won and protected thereafter. It
should also be shared with others - From a position of strength... Not as a
result of threats to our well-being.
How long was it before the US let Japan or Germany take the reins of their
own countries? Iraq has much more ground to cover and, by all accounts, it
will gain control much sooner than either of those. It will be their job to
struggle, win and protect their freedom from that point. All we want is to
impart the momentum to get them there successfully.
The mechanisms are being decided and put in place as we write. Iraq has
representatives who are designing the new Iraq, with US help and oversight.
Yeah, another pro-US dictatorship. Just like Japan, Korea, Germany, France,
Italy, UK...... Need more?
Supporting Hussein was an expedient thing to do. In retrospect, I think we
should not have, or at least, not so long. I confess that I was not
politically active enough in 1979 (Iran Hostage Crisis) or before. I
graduated from high school in 1974 and was attending my studies in college
at the time. This was done during the Carter administration and this
president has been pretty well discredited since then.
One thing is for sure. Iran is still a problem. Nothing like an Islamist,
fundamentalist, radical theocracy with nuclear weapons to ruin your whole
day. The world is a dangerous place. We won't shrink from protecting
ourselves or our interests.
You have a lot of hate and/or mistrust to work through. Good luck with it.
Joe
>
> Regards,
> Greg.P.
>
Gregory Procter
Ken Ehrett wrote:
That's fine by me.
> They
> seem to think they are better off and have sent at least one rep to
> the UN to tell the rest of you how fucked up you were in refusing to
> help the US forces there.
"They" haven't been asked.
The "UN rep" is a US occupation force stoolie.
> Ten years from now Iraq is going to be the
> crown jewel of the Middle East with the highest standard of living and
> the best economy in the region much the same way that Japan and
> Germany turned out after WW II.
Dream on - in ten years the US occupation forces will be occupying the desert
either side of the oil pipeline, desperately trying to keep the flow of stolen oil
going. The Iraqi people will still be waiting for a proper sewerage system, water,
electricity, rubbish collection, jobs, hospitals, schools and law and order.
> And of course shit countries like New
> Squealand will have had nothing to do with it as usual.
How do you manage to be so pig-ignorant?
Gregory Procter
Ken Ehrett wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:25:02 +1300, Gregory Procter
> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ken Ehrett wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:39:25 +1300, Gregory Procter
> >> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Greylock wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Seems to me the Geneva Convention covers uniformed combatants.
> >> >>
> >> >> Civilian criminals in ambush situations would not appear to be
> >> >> covered.
> >> >
> >> >Considering that you have an illegal occupation situation, non-uniformed
> >> >"civilian" combatants would either be "freedom fighters" or "patriots".
> >>
> >> You're the one who keeps citing the Geneva Convention rules on war.
> >> Anyone caught fighting in a combat zone without a uniform is
> >> classified as a spy and can be executed.
> >
> >Sure, you execute anyone who tries for freedom of speech, or the right to
> >work or ...
>
> You have examples of this I assume... how silly of me, I forgot I am
> dealing with a pathological liar who pulls this stuff out of his ass.
The news media regularly supplies us with examples - even CNN turns up a few.
8 Iraqi's killed a few days ago and 15 seriously injured, because they dared to
complain about the 50% unemployment rate.
>
> I know..... you should have one of those international charities that
> you claimed to have founded to get in Iraq and help those poor people
> out.
You really are mad!
>
> >
> >> And no we won't consider
> >> the idea of an illegal occupation since it does not exist.
> >
> >It exists; you lot are the perfect example, along with Adolf, Mussolini etc.
>
> Yeah Groggy, if that were really true you'd already be a lamp skin
> sitting on my desk.
So whose lamp skin do you have sitting on your desk?
>
>
> >> Oh, and
> >> all this talk of illegal occupation always seems to disappear whenever
> >> you scum get the scent of building contracts.
> >
> >You have a building contract - that explains a little.
>
> It sure does. All the cowards in the UN community are now crawling
> out of their toilets and shaking off their fur looking to get in on
> good deals in Iraq.
So that's why you're all alone!
>
>
> >> All the filth who chose
> >> not to lift a finger to liberate Iraq are the loudest at squealing
> >> about getting in on the contracts. You are disgusting.
> >
> >So who has helped Iraq - certainly not the USa.
>
> You scum do nothing at all for anyone and then expect to be rewarded
> for your sloth. Disgusting.
You really are pig-ignorant!
Gregory Procter
Ken Ehrett wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:26:00 +1300, Gregory Procter
> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ken Ehrett wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:10:42 +1300, Gregory Procter
> >> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> You can call them " turnip heads " , they still don't qualify as
> >> >> uniformed combatants, Socky. :)
> >> >
> >> >I was pointing out to "Greylock" that the criminals are the yanks, not the
> >> >patriots fighting for their freedom - I realize that you don't understand the
> >> >concept of freedom because you are a yank.
> >>
> >> The fanatical moslems you are referring to have never had freedom and
> >> never will because they do not believe in it.
> >
> >They will certainly never have their freedom returned to them while you lot >are involved!
>
> I'll try it one more time since you're mentally handicapped. These
> people have never had freedom.
You know that how?
> They have existed in this land for
> over ten thousand years and have never had freedom or liberty.
So that makes it OK for you to continue to stop them having freedom and to stop them moving
towards freedom as you yanks have done for the last 25 years?
> The
> ones who are fighting us right now want Shaira law. Do you understand
> what that means you fool?
Sure - you think you have the right to deny the majority their freedom because a tiny number of
citizens don't particularly like you.
Gregory Procter
Ken Ehrett wrote:
Well, fucking moron, you (the USa) supported Hussein and his dictatorship for the
last 25 years and now you've replaced him with an equally oppressive dictatorship -
why are you whining?
Gregory Procter
Jim Nicholson wrote:
Good, it worked!
We really didn't want New Zealand infected with your body lice and other pests that
you yanks were bringing.
Gregory Procter
Joe Halbleib wrote:
It's even better when it hasn't been frozen.
IBM
[snips]
> Well, fucking moron, you (the USa) supported Hussein and his
> dictatorship for the last 25 years and now you've replaced him with an
> equally oppressive dictatorship - why are you whining?
The lesser of two evils is still evil. Sometimes you have to
make compromises you'd rather not. Me for instance I'd have
cratered both sides and skipped off laughing.
IBM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Mitchell Holman
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:38:23 GMT, Mitchell Holman
> <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>>John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>news:2h5g00lai4svmjr3o...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:20:40 GMT, Mitchell Holman
>>> <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> snipped
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we should have bugged out of Vietnamese
>>>>affairs and let them choose their own leaders a
>>>>long time ago.
>>>
>>> So, I take it you supported the North Vietnamese executions and
>>> re-eduation camps for 100's of thousands of South Vietnamese?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What are the odds those camps would have
>>existed if we had simply let the Vietnamese
>>vote in free elections in 1956?
>
> What are the odds those camps would have existed if we had bombed the
> invasion from the north?
>
Ahem. We DID bomb the invasion from
the north. Repeatedly. For all the good
it did. Any other failed tactics you wish
to champion?
Mitchell Holman
Please point out where I defended the
escalation, or even participation, of ANY
president regarding Vietnam. The US was
wrong to be there in the first place.
Joe Halbleib
"Gregory Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4008A750...@ihug.co.nz...
I'm sure your right about that. Most of our lamb here is imported. We
raise a lot of lamb but eat much more than we raise. We're more set up for
beef.
I've been experimenting with some Basque recipes. Man those guys make some
good lamb!
By the way, Greg... I'm glad we have found something to agree about. I
mean that.
Joe
Joe Halbleib
Yeah Greg but they were also throwing stones at armed British soldiers.
Could just as well have been grenades. These guys play for keeps. It's
really stupid to antagonize someone with an automatic weapon and/or give him
the impression that you may be hurling explosives at him.
I am sorry for losses but they need to be patient.
Joe
Gregory Procter
Joe Halbleib wrote:
Well, I can see that you don't think you are!
>
>
> I have not forgotten freedom because I have it. I live it. Every day. All
> day long. Not only that... I live in a country that aspires to provide it
> for all others on this earth.
So you really are an idiot!
82 US "interventions" in other nations business since WWII - some were good,
some were bad, some were very very bad!
>
>
> How OLD am I?? What does that have to do with it? Are you seriously
> suggesting that I date all the way back to our Revolution in 1776 and
> earlier? If you must know, I'm 47. I'm sure you will make something silly
> out of that.
No, it's out of youthful immaturity, and not yet into the elderlies need to make
a name for oneself at whatever cost.
>
>
> I've forgotten WHAT country that gained me my freedom? Can you be more
> precise? I haven't forgotten the United States of America, if that's what
> you mean. My allegiance is to them and only them.
Certainly, France gained you your freedom from the tyranny of England, just like
the USa won WWI and WWII. :-P
>
>
> Steps toward freedom (our fight) is what freedom is composed of.
Now that's just silly, even you can figure that one out with a little thought.
> Freedom is
> a treasure to be struggled for, to be won and protected thereafter. It
> should also be shared with others - From a position of strength... Not as a
> result of threats to our well-being.
I bet you stand to attention and salute your flag every morning and evening!
(ie what you're saying has little connection with reality)
>
>
> How long was it before the US let Japan or Germany take the reins of their
> own countries?
Duhh - Those countries were controlled by the Allies, not by the USa.
> Iraq has much more ground to cover and, by all accounts, it
> will gain control much sooner than either of those.
That's a good story!
Iraq never attacked the USa. Iraq, with the US's backing attacked Iran, a nation
that the USa stripped of it's freedom by action and subterfuge.
> It will be their job to
> struggle, win and protect their freedom from that point. All we want is to
> impart the momentum to get them there successfully.
So why don't you idiots figure that, as the country stands, it can never happen?
>
>
> The mechanisms are being decided and put in place as we write.
You're putting a pro-US dictatorship in place, one that can only operate through
corruption and suppression of freedoms.
> Iraq has
> representatives who are designing the new Iraq, with US help and oversight.
So, as I've already said, it's doomed to failure!
>
>
> Yeah, another pro-US dictatorship. Just like Japan, Korea, Germany, France,
> Italy, UK...... Need more?
Those are all individual nations - "Iraq" is not and cannot be without
corruption and suppression of freedoms.
>
>
> Supporting Hussein was an expedient thing to do. In retrospect, I think we
> should not have, or at least, not so long.
Once you recognise that you've utterly stuffed up due to ignorance, that's the
time to bow out, not the time to compound past mistakes!
> I confess that I was not
> politically active enough in 1979 (Iran Hostage Crisis) or before. I
> graduated from high school in 1974 and was attending my studies in college
> at the time. This was done during the Carter administration and this
> president has been pretty well discredited since then.
>
> One thing is for sure. Iran is still a problem. Nothing like an Islamist,
> fundamentalist, radical theocracy with nuclear weapons to ruin your whole
> day.
You made them a fundamentalist, radical theocracy - what nuclear weapons? and
why do you think the rest of us trust you with them any more that we should
trust Iran? You've caused the problem and you kept us in the cold war for over
forty years.
> The world is a dangerous place. We won't shrink from protecting
> ourselves or our interests.
Yeah, and you pay no heed to anyone elses freedoms, interests or rights in doing
that!
>
>
> You have a lot of hate and/or mistrust to work through. Good luck with it.
You're building it!
Regards,
Greg.P.
David Hartung
Perhaps I am reading to much into your posts, but in this forum it seems
that Nixon is castigated on a fairly regular basis because he did not just
walk away form the war. What I seldom see is any of the "left" criticizing
Johnson for his role in the Viet Nam War. If I have wrongly assumed you were
doing this, I apologize.
Morton Davis
"IBM" <i...@svpal.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9472D42CB6...@129.250.168.14...
> Gregory Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
> news:4008A62A...@ihug.co.nz:
>
> [snips]
>
> > Well, fucking moron, you (the USa) supported Hussein and his
> > dictatorship for the last 25 years and now you've replaced him with an
> > equally oppressive dictatorship - why are you whining?
>
> The lesser of two evils is still evil. Sometimes you have to
> make compromises you'd rather not. Me for instance I'd have
> cratered both sides and skipped off laughing.
>
monster named Hitler in WWII. And we supported our old enemy, England in WWI
and WWII.
-*MORT*-
Zippy the Pinhead
>The lesser of two evils is still evil. Sometimes you have to
>make compromises you'd rather not. Me for instance I'd have
>cratered both sides and skipped off laughing.
Which is exactly what the other side would like to do to us while we
argue the merits of the War on Terrorism.
IBM
news:shei00t1f4l7ktk3t...@4ax.com:
[snip]
> Which is exactly what the other side would like to do to us while we
> argue the merits of the War on Terrorism.
Well, if they are resident in the layer of fused silica coating
the inside of a very big crater thats not going to matter now
is it?
And what, exactly is there to argue about. Abunch of medieval
thugs declared war on western society, we replied in no uncertain
fashion. We haven't got them all but they are running out of places
to hide.
Mitchell Holman
I think my opposition to the Vietnam War -
regardless of which president was conducting it -
is well known.
Gregory Procter
IBM wrote:
> Gregory Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
> news:4008A62A...@ihug.co.nz:
>
> [snips]
>
> > Well, fucking moron, you (the USa) supported Hussein and his
> > dictatorship for the last 25 years and now you've replaced him with an
> > equally oppressive dictatorship - why are you whining?
>
> The lesser of two evils is still evil.
That was my point - the US supported and nurtured evil.
> Sometimes you have to
> make compromises you'd rather not.
You had to support a punative war???