OT The United States of America has gone mad
Michael Gilmore
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the
worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in
the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.
The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in
his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America
the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of
compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a
debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the
loftier columns of the East Coast press.
The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who
made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to
explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place;
Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard
for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated
international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support
Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.
But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are
riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US
defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A
splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all
breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting
is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives?
At what cost to the American taxpayer’s pocket? At what cost — because most of
those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people — in Iraqi lives?
How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America’s anger from bin Laden to
Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history.
But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe
Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the
American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a
state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry
Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.
Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy.
Which is odd, because I’m dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam’s
downfall — just not on Bush’s terms and not by his methods. And not under the
banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.
The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the
most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God.
And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save
the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of
America’s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is
a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.
God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in
His sight, if not in one another’s, the Bush family numbers one President, one
ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the
ex-Governor of Texas.
Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto
Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken
oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil
company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil
company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these
trifling associations affects the integrity of God’s work.
In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom
of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The
CIA believes that “somebody” was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr’s cry: “That man tried to
kill my Daddy.” But it’s still not personal, this war. It’s still necessary.
It’s still God’s work. It’s still about bringing freedom and democracy to
oppressed Iraqi people.
To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute
Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to
tell us which is which. What Bush won’t tell us is the truth about why we’re
going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil — but oil, money and
people’s lives. Saddam’s misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in
the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the
cake. And who doesn’t, won’t.
If Saddam didn’t have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart’s
content. Other leaders do it every day — think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan,
think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.
Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to
the US or Britain. Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, if he’s still got them,
will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him
at five minutes’ notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or
terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is
America’s need to demonstrate its military power to all of us — to Europe and
Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East;
to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.
The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair’s part in all this is that he
believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can’t. Instead, he
gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has
him penned into a corner, and he can’t get out.
It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against
the ropes, neither of Britain’s opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But
that’s Britain’s tragedy, as it is America’s: as our Governments spin, lie and
lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way.
Blair’s best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour,
world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun
back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world’s greatest cowboy
rides back into town without a tyrant’s head to wave at the boys?
Blair’s worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war
that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have
been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than
it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our
relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have
helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional
chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.
There is a middle way, but it’s a tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval
and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special relationship.
I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect’s sophistries to
this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by
all sane men. What he can’t explain is how he reconciles a global assault on
al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes
place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of
the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and
Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.
“But will we win, Daddy?”
“Of course, child. It will all be over while you’re still in bed.”
“Why?”
“Because otherwise Mr Bush’s voters will get terribly impatient and may decide
not to vote for him.”
“But will people be killed, Daddy?”
“Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people.”
“Can I watch it on television?”
“Only if Mr Bush says you can.”
“And afterwards, will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid
any more?”
“Hush child, and go to sleep.”
Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a
sticker on his car saying: “Peace is also Patriotic”. It was gone by the time
he’d finished shopping.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Mayer
How come it's ALWAYS, ALWAYS the leftist, liberal appeasers
that post this garbage ??
I mean, are you liberals ever going to be happy in this world ??
Do us all a favor, and expire quickly please.
(the more pain on your part the better :)
You posted this looking for touble, well ya got it...
Allan
http://members.aol.com/Thetabat/hello.html
"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
Michael Gilmore
>
>How come it's ALWAYS, ALWAYS the leftist, liberal appeasers
>that post this garbage ??
>I mean, are you liberals ever going to be happy in this world ??
>
Well I am happy!
>
>
>Do us all a favor, and expire quickly please.
>(the more pain on your part the better :)
>
No such luck :)
>
>
>You posted this looking for touble, well ya got it...
Glad to have it; can you answer my post?
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Michael Gilmore wrote:
The square head is a good fiction writer. A good listen to any interview with him
reveals his bias...
After all, this IS the guy that wrote "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold". He was
ALWAYS concerned about the fate of the little guy, no? In fact, the underlieing
theme, in all his novels, is the focus on the dehumanizing effects of the
intelligence game.
But then again, he IS a writer...
Try again, slappy...
DrOk
Allan Mayer
<whis...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Glad to have it; can you answer my post?
As far as I'm concerned most of what was posted
was utter rubbish, not worth the time it took you
to write it...
But you only want trouble, what a suprise...
You are so unhappy a person, that you post imflammitory
posts just to get attention... Kinda funny, as well as sad...
That this is the best you can post here, speaks much
about the angst you feel inside.
Tell ya what, why dont you and all the other "whimps" that
post this crap like you just come out and say you hate
the USA, rather than post the liberal lie's and teachings
you follow. That you hate us, I have no problem with, but
just because you are soo dumb to believe the crap you post,
dosnt mean that you should post it here...........
What, you actually think that we are going to believe this
garbage ? Really ?? Hell man, my dog's are smarter than you !
And btw.... please do a better job of formatting, little
difficult to read....
Michael Gilmore
>In article <eslb2v0se17gc8tos...@4ax.com>, Michael Gilmore
><whis...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>Glad to have it; can you answer my post?
>
>
>As far as I'm concerned most of what was posted
>was utter rubbish, not worth the time it took you
>to write it...
It didn't take me long.
>But you only want trouble, what a suprise...
>You are so unhappy a person, that you post imflammitory
>posts just to get attention... Kinda funny, as well as sad...
>That this is the best you can post here, speaks much
>about the angst you feel inside.
Hey, I am happy!
>Tell ya what, why dont you and all the other "whimps" that
>post this crap like you just come out and say you hate
>the USA, rather than post the liberal lie's and teachings
>you follow. That you hate us, I have no problem with, but
Tell you what I *love* the USA and the freedom it gives people!
>just because you are soo dumb to believe the crap you post,
>dosnt mean that you should post it here...........
>What, you actually think that we are going to believe this
>garbage ? Really ?? Hell man, my dog's are smarter than you !
Hello to your mutt. I love dogs!
>
>And btw.... please do a better job of formatting, little
>difficult to read....
Tell me what i did wrong in formating.
BB
everything, but I can't hold myself back any longer.
As a way of introduction: I live in Sweden and I'm 42 years old. I love
flight simulators. English is not my first language.
I don't hate the USA nor its citizens. I'm very grateful for many things
that your country has accomplished throughout history. Not least with
respect to WWII and throwing Saddam out of Kuwait.
But what is it with you guys that makes you go bananas as soon as someone
criticise something the politicians of your country are up to. Or have been
up to. All countries have their positive and negative sides, Sweden
included.
To me your reactions (and by you I mean several others besides Allan) look
like blind patriotism. Just like religious fanaticism it scares the willies
out of me. May it be Arab, Israeli, American, English, Swedish, Christian or
Muslim. It's all the same.
Keep an open mind and try to look at things from different angles. Always.
And don't be so angry and rude all the time. What's the point calling each
other names? Are we not grown up people?
Over and out!
Bo
P.S Please don't waste your time flaming me. I'm not intentionally trying to
start a flame war, and I will definitely not raise to the bait. And I still
believe that this and other threads belong to a different news group.
On 03-01-15 23.33, in article 20030115173311...@mb-mp.aol.com,
Gerry Aitken
>
> I really have tried to stay out of all the posts about America vs
> everything, but I can't hold myself back any longer.
>
> As a way of introduction: I live in Sweden and I'm 42 years old. I love
> flight simulators. English is not my first language.
>
> I don't hate the USA nor its citizens. I'm very grateful for many things
> that your country has accomplished throughout history. Not least with
> respect to WWII and throwing Saddam out of Kuwait.
>
> But what is it with you guys that makes you go bananas as soon as someone
> criticise something the politicians of your country are up to. Or have been
> up to. All countries have their positive and negative sides, Sweden
> included.
>
> To me your reactions (and by you I mean several others besides Allan) look
> like blind patriotism. Just like religious fanaticism it scares the willies
> out of me. May it be Arab, Israeli, American, English, Swedish, Christian or
> Muslim. It's all the same.
>
> Keep an open mind and try to look at things from different angles. Always.
> And don't be so angry and rude all the time. What's the point calling each
> other names? Are we not grown up people?
>
> Over and out!
>
> Bo
>
> P.S Please don't waste your time flaming me. I'm not intentionally trying to
> start a flame war, and I will definitely not raise to the bait. And I still
> believe that this and other threads belong to a different news group.
Well said, BB, but I fear it will fall on deaf ears, and dim brains.
Best
Gerry
Bimo
Admit it Snotty... you wept !!!
PAPADOC
screed posted is not worthy of respect. He gets so little right and so
much wrong that responding to it is like a scientist debating a flat
earther.
We get angry because we are people who dont spend much time fooling
ourselves. We know for example that there is a group of people who
want to kill all of us, or any of us that arent willing to convert to
their beliefs. We respectfully decline to agree to those terms. We
know that a bunch of Europeans like to act like no threat exists
because Europeans tend to want to wait till the Grim Reaper is at the
door step before they act. We respectfully decline to believe that
nonsense. We know that a smaller group of Europeans and an even
smaller group of Americans are so craven and morally bankrupt that
they blame it all on us, we most forcefully respectfully decline to
accept blame. All of that nonsense tends to piss one off....especially
when we are in the process of defending ourselves....and you in the
process.
PAPA DOC
>Keep an open mind and try to look at things from different angles. Always.
>And don't be so angry and rude all the time. What's the point calling each
>other names? Are we not grown up people?
>
>Over and out!
>
> Bo
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
www.papadoc.net
Loudspeaker of USS Harry Truman carrier
departing to the Persian Gulf 12/06/2002
"Peace on Earth to men of goodwill,"
"All others stand by."
Maj. Bryan Hilferty, of 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in
more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."
Allan Mayer
<g.ai...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>Well said, BB, but I fear it will fall on deaf ears, and dim brains.
Amazing come back Gerry !!
You start, and prolong anti American threads
and then come here and act like you innocent.
Just proves there's no limit to how low liberals
will sink to !!
It's obivious that your dim brain fell for his post
hook line and sinker !!!
Allan Mayer
> To me your reactions
> (and by you I mean several others besides Allan)
> look like blind patriotism.
Since you mentioned me, I will try to be brief.
Notice some of the subject headings on posts here,
and the content of said posts.
Particulary some of the blatently anti American one's.
Now look at the people who have posted them here, some
under quite a few different "handles"
Look at the title of this thread, and who was the origional
poster.
None of us "patriotic Americans" start threads like this.
Is that ok with you ?
Now notice that I have never started any such anti anyone
post, and or thread here, I have only responded to others.
And to tell the truth, it's been kinda interesting. A lot of
these people really believe what they post, ok fine.
Now why is it ok for them to be rabidly anti American,
and post it here, but it is considered bad form for me to
post what I believe in ?
The only things I hate in life are cowards, and people
who havnt the gut's to stand up, say what they believe in
and not try and hide while doing it.
One more question please; Just what was so rude, or
offensive about my post that you quoted ?
I didnt call anyone names, and have never used foul language,
like those to whom I have responded to.
This would have been a good post, except for the glaring
ommision of any mention on the deeds of the one's who
are responsible for the starting of threads such as this.....
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Bimo wrote:
Waaaaa!
Lol...
Hey Lars, you reprobate!!!
John Square is an interesting guy...
He writes real good fiction.
If you catch my drift!
;)
DrOk
Dr Oddness Killtroll
BB wrote:
> I really have tried to stay out of all the posts about America vs
> everything, but I can't hold myself back any longer.
You euros are all the same...
Your 'right', and we're 'intolerant'...
I'm begining to suspect an intelect defciency, involving a large portion of the
population who reside between the urals and Normady...
> As a way of introduction: I live in Sweden and I'm 42 years old. I love
> flight simulators. English is not my first language.
Your prose is excellant. Sincerely. You write english well...
> I don't hate the USA nor its citizens.
Thats a nice start...
> I'm very grateful for many things that your country has accomplished
> throughout history. Not least with
> respect to WWII and throwing Saddam out of Kuwait.
Thanks for the thanks...
> But what is it with you guys that makes you go bananas as soon as someone
> criticise something the politicians of your country are up to.
Thats not quite what is happening, tho, is it?
> Or have been up to.
Saddam has flaunted his strictures for 12 years. We now have the 'smoking gun',
in artty shells, which, unitl VERY recntly, contained VX or similar.
Shells he claims he never had.
Shells manufactured SINCE UN inspectors left in 98...
> All countries have their positive and negative sides, Sweden included.
Thats certainly true of Iraq. How many future Bosnias, or Kosovas, or
Iraqs-Kuwaits, or elseware, are you Eros going to DEMAND we address, while ALSO
demanding the means we use to address these problems, while you cant even keep
peace in your own region?
How often are despots going to snub you, and us, while you turn around and blame
US for the state of things in the mideast?
> To me your reactions (and by you I mean several others besides Allan) look
> like blind patriotism.
Which simply illustrates, that you, too, are human...
> Just like religious fanaticism it scares the willies out of me.
We are, in all ways, dissimilar. What you've stated is the equivalent of me
stating that the Greens agenda, in Deustche, for example, is equally as
frightening as the agenda of the Islamicists.
> May it be Arab, Israeli, American, English, Swedish, Christian or
> Muslim. It's all the same.
No, its not all the same. No two things are equal, and all these separate
concerns must be evaluated by thier own merits, and specific fatcs...
> Keep an open mind and try to look at things from different angles.
And, someone who does support US actions, by defenition, is closed minded, and
has NOT looked at all the angles?
Methinks you need a hardy does of your own elixer...
> Always.
See above...
> And don't be so angry and rude all the time.
LOL I suggest that you offer the same advice to the folks who agree with you...
> What's the point calling each other names?
If its of no interest, why post?
> Are we not grown up people?
Truth is, you posted becasue you were annoyed, uncontrollably so, with folks
whose vieews differed from yours, NOT becuase you were concerned about
politeness. So, lets not cast aspersions regarding emotional maturity.
> Over and out!
If you dont like our views, say so. But, be accepting of the fact that we may
not like yours, either...
>
> P.S Please don't waste your time flaming me.
A flame is in the eyes of the reader, no?
> I'm not intentionally trying to start a flame war, and I will definitely not
> raise to the bait.
Promise?
> And I still believe that this and other threads belong to a different news
> group.
Yes, well, I beleive I am not compelled to read anything I choose not too...
If I read it, and I dont like it, oh well...
DrOk
Skeptical01
>
> I don't hate the USA nor its citizens. I'm very grateful
> for many things
> that your country has accomplished throughout history. Not least with
> respect to WWII and throwing Saddam out of Kuwait.
>
> But what is it with you guys that makes you go bananas as
> soon as someone
> criticise something the politicians of your country are up
> to.
Hear hear. It worries me too when people identify so closely with a
group (politicians, a nation, a football team, a religion) that they
take any criticism of the group as a personal criticism.
>
> To me your reactions (and by you I mean several others
> besides Allan) look
> like blind patriotism. Just like religious fanaticism it
> scares the willies
> out of me.
So true.
And I still
> believe that this and other threads belong to a different news group.
>
You are sooo right. I'll post no more on this one, either, since it
should never have been posted here in the first place. Take it to a
political debate group, please.
--
Posted via http://web2news.com the faster web2news on the web
mb
this kind of thing....'completely unhinged'.
-MB
"Michael Gilmore" <whis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g6fb2vg1rovgfhomo...@4ax.com...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html
At what cost to the American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost - because most
of
those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people - in Iraqi lives?
How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin
Laden to
Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of
history.
But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now
believe
Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the
American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept
in a
state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should
carry
Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.
Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the
enemy.
Which is odd, because I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see
Saddam's
downfall - just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods. And not under
going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil - but oil, money and
people's lives. Saddam's misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield
in
the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of
the
cake. And who doesn't, won't.
If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart's
content. Other leaders do it every day - think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan,
think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.
Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none
to
the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he's still got
them,
will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at
him
at five minutes' notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or
terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake
is
America's need to demonstrate its military power to all of us - to Europe
Joe
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=6&debateId=33&articleId=
896
'Wake Up, Peaceniks!'
Christopher Hitchens
16 - 1 - 2003
The swelling protests against war on Iraq forget that the US was
impelled into war by an attack on its territory, against enemies that target
innocents and include the worst human rights violators on the planet. For
whom is this insufficient justification to choose sides?
Ever since the morning of 11 September 2001, the United States
has been at war with the forces of reaction. May I entreat you to re-read
the sentence? The government and people of the United States are now at war
with the forces of reaction. And this was not willed, on the American side.
Everybody knows how to dilute the statement. Isn't Saudi Arabia
reactionary? What about Pakistani nukes? Do we bomb Sharon for his negation
of Palestinian rights? Weren't we on Saddam's side when he was at his worst?
But however compromised and shameful the American starting-point was - and I
believe I could make this point stick with greater venom and better evidence
than most people can muster - the above point remains untouched. The United
States finds itself at war with the forces of reaction.
Do I have to demonstrate this? The Taliban's annihilation of
music and culture? The enslavement of women? The massacre of Shi'a Muslims
and Hazaras in Afghanistan? Or what about the latest boast of al-Qaida -
that the bomb in Bali, massacring so many Australian holidaymakers, was a
deliberate revenge for Australia's belated help in securing independence for
East Timor? (Never forget that the Muslim fundamentalists are not against
"empire". They fight proudly for the restoration of their own lost
Caliphate). To these people, the concept of a civilian casualty is
meaningless if the civilian is an unbeliever or a heretic.
Confronted with such a foe, which gladly murders Algerians and
Egyptians and Palestinians if they have any doubts about the true faith, or
if they happen to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, or if
they happen to be female, exactly what role does a "peace movement" have to
play? A year or so ago, the "peace" movement was saying that Afghanistan
could not even be approached without risking the undying enmity of the
Muslim world; that the Taliban could not be bombed during Ramadan; that a
humanitarian disaster would occur if the Islamic ultra-fanatics were
confronted in their own lairs. Now we have an imperfect but recovering
Afghanistan, with its population increased by more than a million returned
refugees. Have you ever seen or heard any of those smart-ass critics and
cynics make a self-criticism?
From Afghanistan to Iraq
To the contrary, the same critics and cynics are now lining up
to say "hands off Saddam Hussein", and to make almost the same doom-laden
predictions. The line that connects Afghanistan to Iraq is not a straight
one by any means. But the oblique connection is ignored by the peaceniks,
and one can be sure (judging by their past form) that it would be ignored
even if it was as direct as the connection between al-Qaida and the Taliban.
Saddam Hussein denounced the removal of the Sunni Muslim-murdering Slobodan
Milosevic, and also denounced the removal of the Shi'a-murdering Taliban.
Reactionaries have a tendency to stick together (and I don't mean "guilt by
association" here. I mean GUILT).
If the counsel of the peaceniks had been followed, Kuwait would
today be the nineteenth province of Iraq (and on his own recently produced
evidence, Saddam Hussein would have acquired nuclear weapons). Moreover,
Bosnia would be a trampled and cleansed province of Greater Serbia, Kosovo
would have been emptied of most of its inhabitants, and the Taliban would
still be in power in Afghanistan. Yet nothing seems to disturb the contented
air of moral superiority which surrounds those who intone the "peace"
mantra.
There are at least three well-established reasons to favor what
is euphemistically termed "regime change" in Iraq. The first is the flouting
by Saddam Hussein of every known law on genocide and human rights, which is
why the Senate - at the urging of Clinton - passed the Iraq Liberation Act
unanimously before George Bush had even been nominated. The second is the
persistent effort by Saddam's dictatorship to acquire the weapons of
genocide: an effort which can and should be thwarted and which was condemned
by the United Nations before George Bush was even Governor of Texas. The
third is the continuous involvement by the Iraqi secret police in the
international underworld of terror and destabilisation.
Any "peace movement" that even pretends to care for human rights
will be very shaken by what will be uncovered when the Saddam Hussein regime
falls. Prisons, mass graves, weapon-sites....just you wait. To say that he
might do more terrible things if attacked or threatened is to miss the
point. Last time he massacred the Iraqi and Kurdish population, he was
withdrawing his forces under an international guarantee. The Iraqi and
Kurdish peoples are now, by every measure we have or know, determined to be
rid of him. And the hope, which is perhaps a slim one but very much sturdier
than other hopes, is that the next Iraqi regime will be better and safer,
not just from our point of view but from theirs. The sanctions policy, which
was probably always hopeless, is now quite indefensible. If lifted, it would
allow Saddam's oligarchy to re-equip.
Neutrality is not an option
Recently I sat down with my old friend Dr Barham Salih, who is
the elected Prime Minister of one sector of Iraqi Kurdistan. Neither he nor
his electorate could be mentioned if it were not for the "no fly" zones
imposed as an unintended result of the last Gulf War. In his area of Iraq,
"regime change" has already occurred. There are dozens of newspapers,
numerous radio and TV channels, satellite dishes, internet cafes. Four
female judges have been appointed. Almost half the students at the
University of Suleimaniya are women. And a pro-al-Qaida group (Ansar
al-Islam), recently transferred from Afghanistan, is trying to assassinate
the Kurdish leadership and nearly killed my dear friend Barham just the
other day....Now, why would this gang want to make that particular murder
their first priority?
Before you face that question, consider this. Dr Salih has been
through some tough moments in his time. Most of the massacres and betrayals
of the Kurdish people of Iraq took place with American support or
connivance. But the Kurds have pressed ahead with regime-change in any case.
Surely a "peace movement" with any principles should be demanding that the
United States not abandon them again?
Instead, there is a self-satisfied isolationism to be found,
across the west. But the option of a quiet life disappeared on 11 September.
The United States is now at war with the forces of reaction. Nobody is
entitled to view this battle as a spectator. The Union under Lincoln wasn't
wholeheartedly against slavery. The USA under Roosevelt had its own selfish
agenda even in combating Hitler and Hirohito. The hot-and-cold war against
Stalinism wasn't free of blemish and stain. How much this latest crisis
turns into an even tougher war with reaction, at home or abroad, could
depend partly upon those who currently think that it is either possible or
desirable to remain neutral.
"Michael Gilmore" <whis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g6fb2vg1rovgfhomo...@4ax.com...
topper-hardy
your post and hope that this OT posting will stop and people here will come
to their senses and post messages relating to flight sims.
Regards from Germany,
Topper-Hardy
"BB" <nos...@fake.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:BA4CC19A.A740%nos...@fake.com...
FLY135
"BB" <nos...@fake.com> wrote in message
news:BA4CC19A.A740%nos...@fake.com...
>
> But what is it with you guys that makes you go bananas as soon as someone
> criticise something the politicians of your country are up to. Or have
been
> up to. All countries have their positive and negative sides, Sweden
> included.
Since you asked, it's inflammatory statements like these...
"A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe
Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre."
I have not heard of one person that believes this to be true. The writer is
suggesting that we must be some kind of idiots to believe this when it flys
in the face of all the know facts.
"But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten
and kept in a
state of ignorance and fear."
How would you like someone to declare that you and fellow countrymen are
totally duped and afraid?
"The carefully orchestrated neurosis .."
He says that we are suffering from an "orchestrated" mental or emotional
disorders?
Gerry Aitken
>
> In article <3E270F84...@ntlworld.com>, Gerry Aitken
> <g.ai...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> >Well said, BB, but I fear it will fall on deaf ears, and dim brains.
>
> Amazing come back Gerry !!
>
> You start, and prolong anti American threads
> and then come here and act like you innocent.
I haven't started ANY OT political threads! All I've ever really been
'guilty' of is not agreeing blindly with every bit of American foreign
policy! I've told you repeatedly that I support the American stand on
Iraq. I've also told you how much I admire the USA and the American
people. All you can ever say is that you think, in your tiny mind, that
I hate America. That's your 'bottom line' whenever anyone says something
you don't agree with. You're like a broken record.
> Just proves there's no limit to how low liberals
> will sink to !!
I voted Thatcher three times, so how can I be a liberal?
> It's obivious that your dim brain fell for his post
> hook line and sinker !!!
That would be both chips talking, would it?
Gerry
PS: Why has the US not banned NORAID?
Phil Young
<an...@annex.annex> wrote:
>
>I'm begining to suspect an intelect defciency, involving a large portion of the
>population who reside between the urals and Normady...
>
Hey, why leave us out (UK is West of Normandy on most maps) ??
And the Oirish (or the occupied territories as I like to think of
them) ??
Cheers,
Phil Young
--
'He had talents equal to business, but aspired no higher' - Tacitus
PAPADOC
people who do any sort of research believe that yes Saddam was either
directly or indirectly (training, funding, logistics) responsible.
>I have not heard of one person that believes this to be true. The writer is
>suggesting that we must be some kind of idiots to believe this when it flys
>in the face of all the know facts.
I dont believe that I am an idiot, I dont believe that Richard Perle
is an idiot, neither is former Clinton Advisor on Iraq Laurie Mylroie,
neither is James Woolsey. I believe that I am far more widely read on
the issue than almost anyone I know. Furthermore sheer commonsense
would direct ones attention to Saddam. Notice that the first three
references I give are from before 9/11. Seems like it was common
knowledge that Saddam and Binny Baby were collaborating. I
particularly love the references to the Boeing at Salmon Pak that was
used to train Arab terrorists on how to hijack planes.
>"But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten
>and kept in a
>state of ignorance and fear."
There is where his mistake is....he would be afraid thats why he tries
to say that about us. He cannot imagine NOT being afraid...he doesnt
understand that Im not afraid, I am terribly fucking pissed. I want
justice and putting Saddam and the henchmen that helped into the dirt
is a good start. To get justice we must be alert, ready to act,
observant, curious, fearless, otherwise the bad men with the Towels on
their Heads will make my girls where bags over their heads. Fuck that.
Like the Navy Captain on the New Marine Commercial before that happens
I will be dead.
>How would you like someone to declare that you and fellow countrymen are
>totally duped and afraid?
He is the only one duped...and he wants to dupe us all. He is the sort
that if the bad men were romping thru his house killinig his family
and raping his women would hide in the closet hoping that the bad men
didnt find him. Fuck him....fuck cowards who dont confront the truth
and do something about it.
>"The carefully orchestrated neurosis .."
hehe..Its sort of tough for him because unlike during the Soviet
crisis when cowards like him could say that "well the Soviets havent
attacked" the Bad Men Who Wear Towels have indeed attacked. I suppose
next he will say that its all a big hallucination....or like that
French Coward the CIA did it.
>He says that we are suffering from an "orchestrated" mental or emotional
>disorders?
Fuck him...dont fret about cowards. Make sure that YOU are clear about
whats going on...make sure that YOU understand what we are going up
against. No fooling, no second chances, no temporizing, no excuses,
this fight we finish...or it will finish us.
PAPA DOC
Saddam link to Bin Laden Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? US
says dealings step up danger of chemical weapons attacks
By Julian Borger in Washington Saturday February 6, 1999
The Guardian
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden,
bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources
and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the
Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation
was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of
Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have
offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html
Iraq Accused of Encouraging Terrorism by Sheltering Hijackers
7 November 2000Al-Nadwah (Saudi Arabia) charges Iraq with supporting
terrorism after Baghdad granted political asylum to two Saudi citizens
who hijacked a Saudi airliner and rejected an official Saudi request
for their extradition. The hijacking of the London-bound plane shortly
after it left Jeddah occurred on October 14. After first indicating
that they wanted to go to Damascus, the hijackers directed the pilot
to Baghdad. Once the plane landed, the hijacking was resolved within a
few hours. The passengers were released and the hijackers gave a press
conference, denouncing the Saudi government for its human rights
violations. An Iraqi opposition source told MEIB that there is "no
doubt" that the entire event was coordinated with Iraqi authorities
before hand. http://www.meib.org/articles/0012_irb.htm#lb2
Iraqi Involvement in Attack on Cole
10 November 2000 The Paris-based weekly Al-Watan al-Arabi, considered
friendly to Saudi Arabia, reports that Iraq was involved in the attack
on the October 12 attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Iraqi intelligence
reportedly received the explosive used in the attack from Russia, and
the Iraqis transported the material to Yemen, in collusion with senior
officials of the Yemeni regime. The report repeats some of the same
charges made two weeks before in the same magazine, which explained
that it was such a massive operation and was so carefully planned,
that it was virtually impossible for a terrorist group to have carried
out the attack without state support. Arab sources tell MEIB that the
Saudi leadership is thoroughly convinced that Iraq was behind the
attack and that they are exasperated by the U.S. insistence on blaming
it solely on Osama bin Ladin.
http://www.meib.org/articles/0012_irb.htm#lb5
Iraqi Spies Reportedly Arrested in Germany
16 March 2001
Al-Watan al-Arabi (Paris) reports that two Iraqis were arrested in
Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake
of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its
intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US
interests around the world through a network of alliances with
extremist fundamentalist parties.
The most serious report contained information that Iraq and Osama bin
Ladin were working together. German authorities were surprised by the
arrest of the two Iraqi agents and the discovery of Iraqi intelligence
activities in several German cities. German authorities, acting on CIA
recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of
Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin. They discovered the two Iraqi
agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be serious
indications of cooperation between Iraq and bin Ladin. The matter was
considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was
sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies.
http://www.meib.org/articles/0104_irb.htm#irb3
OSAMA BIN LADIN AND IRAQ
Iraq News, FEBRUARY 10, 1999
By Laurie Mylroie
The New York Post, Feb 1, reported, "Saddam Hussein-battered,
humiliated and increasingly isolated-plans to resort to terrorism in
revenge for US airstrikes against his country. . . US officials say
the CIA has received 'credible and reliable' intelligence reports that
Saddam is forging alliances with some of the Middle East's most
bloodthirsty terrorists-including Osama Bin Ladin and Abu Nidal-as
part
of an apparently new campaign to strike American targets and possibly
destablise Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . US officials are concerned
about the possibility that Saddam could not only help with funding and
logistics for Bin Ladin's far-flung network, . . .
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1999/02/990210-in-terror.htm
Saddam’s Ultimate Solution PBS interview with Richard Perle Chairman
Defense Policy Board
July 11, 2002: What are the chances that Saddam Hussein is feeding
chemical and biological weapons to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda?
And, if so, how prepared is the U.S. to respond? Would a regime change
in Iraq bring greater stability to the region or muddy the waters
further? James P. Rubin discusses the issues with Richard Perle,
chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory group, and a
former assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/transcript.html
Nabeel Musawi An Iraqi dissident, Nabeel Musawi is the political
liaison for the London-based Iraqi National Congress. Alleging an
intelligence connection between Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and
Iraq, he tells FRONTLINE that he believes Saddam Hussein's regime was
involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Musawi says U.S. support of "corrupt
regimes" in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a major factor
fueling anti-Americanism in the Middle East. This interview was
conducted late September 2001
You were saying that Sept. 11 was a coup attempt? What do you mean?
If you go by the history of the Middle East and the way coups were
carried out, you aim for the financial center, you aim for the
ministry of defense, and you aim for presidential palace. Of course,
you usually aim for the TV and radio, but in the case of the United
States, you don't need to do that, because it's free press. So what
happened on Sept. 11 in the United States was a coup attempt, because
they aimed for the White House, they aimed for the Pentagon, and they
aimed for the heart of the financial center of the United States.
But a coup implies that they're going to replace the existing
government or elite with another one.
If you're attacked in the White House and if you are attacked in Air
Force One, and you're attacked in the military establishment which
represents the most powerful thing within the United States, that is a
coup. You're destroying the leadership. You're killing the whole
leadership. It will take weeks, if not months, to bring back some sort
of order into the American system. That is a major success for a small
terrorist organization like Taliban and Osama bin Laden and their
associates in the region.To them, this will throw not only the United
States but the whole of the Western world into total anarchy, panic.
We know they had limited success from the atrocities committed on
Sept. 11. And still, it threw everybody into a panicky state for a few
days. It took us few days to get over the shock. Even the political
system itself took a few days to recover from the shock. So imagine if
you actually get Air Force One and the White House. That is a coup.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/terrorism/interviews/musawi.html
Letting Saddam Be A pre-and post-September 11 danger. By Laurie
Mylroie
More American civilians died on September 11 than on any other single
day in this nation's history. Such a huge disaster is, almost
necessarily, the result of major, multiple errors. The current spasm
of finger-pointing and memo-leaking is bringing some mistakes to
light, but they are all tactical, i.e. whether 9/11 could have been
averted by vigorously pursuing suspicions of the FBI field offices.
Even in the best of circumstances, U.S. authorities cannot catch every
major terrorist attack in the making. When those attacks are on the
scale of 9/11 even one failure is unacceptable. Notably absent in the
present debate is consideration of the strategic blunder underlying
9/11.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mylroie052902.asp
World Trade Center - Who Did It? An Alternative View From Jane's
Foreign Report (Iraqis involvement)Janes.com
9-19-01 Israel's military intelligence service, Aman, suspects that
Iraq is the state that sponsored the suicide attacks on the New York
Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington. Directing the mission,
Aman officers believe, were two of the world's foremost terrorist
masterminds: the Lebanese Imad Mughniyeh, head of the special overseas
operations for Hizbullah, and the Egyptian Dr Ayman Al Zawahiri,
senior member of Al-Qaeda and possible successor of the ailing Osama
Bin Laden. The Iraqis, who for several years paid smaller groups to do
their dirty work, were quick to discover the advantages of Al-Qaeda.
The Israeli sources claim that for the past two years Iraqi
intelligence officers were shuttling between Baghdad and Afghanistan,
meeting with Ayman Al Zawahiri. According to the sources, one of the
Iraqi intelligence officers, Salah Suleiman, was captured last October
by the Pakistanis near the border with Afghanistan. The Iraqis are
also reported to have established strong ties with Imad Mughniyeh.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr010919_1_n.shtml
Iraq’s State Sponsorship of Osama bin-Laden and the al-Qaeda Terror
Network
Essay by Chris Farrell in the Washington Dispatch
Jun 30, 2002
[Editor's Note: This article was originally published on November 30,
2001]
Osama bin-Laden represents and articulates a thoroughly developed
Islamist theology and philosophy with a broader appeal that goes
beyond a simple hatred of Israel. He expounds and defends a religious
obligation of Muslims to attack U.S. military and civilian targets;
demands the immediate expulsion of U.S. Forces from Saudi Arabia;
calls for the creation of a “Muslim” nuclear weapon; criticizes
harshly “moderate” Muslim states such as Egypt and Jordan for not
instituting “truly” Islamic law; and he also calls for the end of all
sanctions against Iraq. Osama bin-Laden sees an opportunity for holy
war, literally, across half of the globe.1
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/1/32
From the IBB article linked to below: 11/24/2001
TERRORISM - THE IRAQI CONNECTION
Host: Hello and welcome to On the Line.
The role of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network in the attacks on the
World Trade Center and Pentagon is well-documented. Indeed, bin Laden
virtually claimed credit for the terrorist attacks in a videotape
circulated to his al-Qaida followers. But did bin Laden’s terrorists
have help from a state -- besides Taleban-ruled Afghanistan? There is
evidence that Iraq may have been involved, evidence that U.S.
officials are paying increasing attention to. Did the September 11th
terrorists have help from Saddam Hussein? I’ll ask my guests, James
Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and
Laurie Mylroie, author of "Study of Revenge: The First World Trade
Center Attack and Saddam Hussein’s War against America." Welcome.
James Woolsey, let me ask you first. Is there any direct evidence of a
connection between the September Eleventh hijackers and Iraq?
Woolsey: It depends on what you mean by direct. Much of intelligence
is hearsay, and would not be admissible for example in a court.
There’s some very suggestive evidence. For example, there are at least
five individual witnesses -- two American inspectors and three Iraqi
defectors -- who tell us about Iraqi government training of non-Iraqi
Arabs at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, on an old Boeing
707 [aircraft], in hijacking techniques, including hijacking with
knives. Now is that direct evidence? It strikes me that it’s pretty
darn suggestive evidence. Would it alone convict Saddam in a court
before a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not. But there’s
more.
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/834.html
ARTICLE 01 - Mounting Evidence of Iraqi Link to Terror Attacks
By Ziad K. Abdelnour
Two weeks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and
Washington, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein reportedly put his military
on its highest state of alert since the 1991 Gulf War. According to
the London-based Sunday Telegraph, the Iraqi leader even took the
unusual step of moving his two wives, Sajida and Samira, from Baghdad
to an undisclosed location in the family's hometown of Tikrit, 100
miles to the north (see “Army alert by Saddam points to Iraqi role,”
The Sunday Telegraph, London, Sept. 23, 2001.) Saddam's precautions
were hardly unwarranted. A growing body of circumstantial evidence
indicates that Iraq may have participated in plotting the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks in the United States. The most striking evidence
linking Baghdad to the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks is that
the presumed ringleader of the suspected hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met
twice with Iraqi intelligence operatives in the Czech Republic.
According to senior Czech officials quoted in the Czech daily
Hospodarske Noviny and The Wall Street Journal, Atta traveled from
Hamburg, Germany, to Prague in June 2000 and met with Iraqi
intelligence agents at Baghdad's embassy there, which has long been
under constant surveillance by the Czech authorities.
http://www.sftt.org/dw11142001.html#3
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Phil Young wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:02:00 -0500, Dr Oddness Killtroll
> <an...@annex.annex> wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm begining to suspect an intelect defciency, involving a large portion of the
> >population who reside between the urals and Normady...
> >
>
> Hey, why leave us out (UK is West of Normandy on most maps) ??
Yes. I have a map which displays this geography. You are correct
> And the Oirish (or the occupied territories as I like to think of
> them) ??
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil Young
>
Hey Phil!
I'm biased!
;)
After all, everyone knows Brits are quite intelligent, elsewise, why would they
affect such an intellectual accent ???!!!
And the Irish are just plain brilliant. As an example, if you know where to put the
spaces, Joyces' most famous work is revealed as the Unified Field Theory, sought
after by Einstien...
Ask Weaver. He knows all about this stuff!!!
Its Friday.
Cheers AND Beers, Mate!
DrOk
<looksleftandrighttobecertaintherearenowitnessestomylameattemptathumor>
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Thanks for the post. I dont often agree withg this guy, and his style is
immearsuable annoying. But he's correct (mostly) here.
DrOk
Joe wrote:
> [Image]
>
> [Image]
>
> [Image]
Peter G.Zademack
let them rant and don't fall for their trolling.
pz
FLY135
"PAPADOC" <PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> wrote in message
news:aiog2vst21d0pcpra...@4ax.com...
> I believe it is true and maybe not 50% believe but a growing number of
> people who do any sort of research believe that yes Saddam was either
> directly or indirectly (training, funding, logistics) responsible.
Perhaps I should have said "commonly" known facts. I don't doubt that most
people think that Saddam could have been indirectly involved. But I can
pretty much guarantee you that 50% of the people in the US are not going
around saying that we need to attack Iraq because Saddam was the one
responsible for 9/11.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
responsibility to be informed. Unless everyone thinks its everyone
else's job.
PAPA DOC
Phil Young
<an...@annex.annex> wrote:
>
>
>Phil Young wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:02:00 -0500, Dr Oddness Killtroll
>> <an...@annex.annex> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I'm begining to suspect an intelect defciency, involving a large portion of the
>> >population who reside between the urals and Normady...
>> >
>>
>> Hey, why leave us out (UK is West of Normandy on most maps) ??
>
>Yes. I have a map which displays this geography. You are correct
>
<Gasp> he's being civil - it's a trap.......
>> And the Oirish (or the occupied territories as I like to think of
>> them) ??
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Phil Young
>>
>
>Hey Phil!
>
>I'm biased!
>;)
>
Now there's a shock ! As it happens, I spent quite a few weeks in NI
over the past few years, real bandit country (Omagh, Irvinestown), no
problems at all. Mind you, the last time round, the hotel I stopped
at had just been bombed (mostly unsucessfully, just the detonation
charge went off taking out the kitchens), but I like my hotels to have
been pre-bombed. It had an 8ft model of a Catalina in the bar for
some reason.
>After all, everyone knows Brits are quite intelligent, elsewise, why would they
>affect such an intellectual accent ???!!!
'appen as like as not.
Gor blimey guv'nor. I had that Dick van Dyke in the back of my cab
once. etc.....etc.....
>And the Irish are just plain brilliant. As an example, if you know where to put the
>spaces, Joyces' most famous work is revealed as the Unified Field Theory, sought
>after by Einstien...
>
I tried to read Ulysses once under the impression it was about the
Homeric hero of the same name. Big mistake, I was eight, which is
about the page I got to.
>Ask Weaver. He knows all about this stuff!!!
>
>Its Friday.
>Cheers AND Beers, Mate!
>
>DrOk
><looksleftandrighttobecertaintherearenowitnessestomylameattemptathumor>
Well, it's the thought that counts. Thankfully.
Ah well,
Phil Young
Dusty Rhodes
that is the misperception of an entire section of our society. They are
trying to pin the war preparations on one thing. IT IS NOT ONE THING!
It has to do with Saddam's violation of over a dozen UN mandates that HE
agreed to, to end Gulf War I. It has to do with his programs to obtain
weapons of mass destruction so that the next time he invades a neighbor, he
will have those WMD's to tell anyone who challenges him, "Back off or I let
a nuke/Chem Agent fly". Then it is too late to stop him from doing
anything. He knows how to use the agents because he used it on his OWN
PEOPLE, and he knows how to blackmail people with force. It has to do with
his numerous tie's to international terrorism. I believe it was Abu Nidal
who was assasinated this last year. One of the most terrifying and horrible
terrorist ever to be seen. Where was he assasinated? In his apartment in
DOWNTOWN BAHGDAD! You can bet he wasn't there turning his life around and
working 9 to 5. Who met with an Iraqi diplomat a few years ago in a secret
meeting in Europe? One of the 20 hijackers terrorists from 9-11.
Taken singularily, any of these circumstances would have me yelling to high
heaven that we don't need another war. But put them all together and it
points directly at what the President of the US, the PM of Britain and a few
other leaders from around the world are trying to do. GET RID OF THIS
DICKWAD, before he reigns down WMD's or passes them along to his buddies at
Al Qaeda. No, they don't like each other, but they have the same goals and
amibitions and it is a marraige of convenience that has worked horribly well
so far. Time to break that marriage.
Dusty Rhodes
"FLY135" <fly...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ob_V9.16518$Qr4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
someone attacking other people right now. First we kill those
attacking us...then we worry about everyone else. Saddam is on the
list because he attacked us, not because he violates UN Sanctions.
>It has to do with Saddam's violation of over a dozen UN mandates that HE
>agreed to, to end Gulf War I.
Personally if he wasnt attacking us, and someone would come to me and
say lets waste american lives to attack a country because he isnt
following UN Mandates I would laugh them out of the room. Plenty of
countries dont follow UN Mandates, we probably are in violation of a
few knowing how crazy the UN is....
>It has to do with his programs to obtain
>weapons of mass destruction so that the next time he invades a neighbor, he
>will have those WMD's to tell anyone who challenges him, "Back off or I let
>a nuke/Chem Agent fly".
I dont worry about him attack his neighbors, thats not what he has
been doing steadily for the last 11 years, for the last 11 years he
has been after us with a passion.
>Taken singularily, any of these circumstances would have me yelling to high
>heaven that we don't need another war. But put them all together and it
>points directly at what the President of the US, the PM of Britain and a few
>other leaders from around the world are trying to do. GET RID OF THIS
>DICKWAD, before he reigns down WMD's or passes them along to his buddies at
>Al Qaeda. No, they don't like each other, but they have the same goals and
>amibitions and it is a marraige of convenience that has worked horribly well
>so far. Time to break that marriage.
>
>Dusty Rhodes
>
Saddam has been attacking us for 11 years...thats ALL the
justification we need. We are deserving of our fate if we crave
acceptance so much that we are willing to jump through hoops set up by
people NOT being attacked.
Bush has been playing the UN like a Harp so that when all the troops
are set Saddam is gone. Bush isnt doing this because Saddam has been
mean to his own people...lord knows if we start rounding up all the
assholes who have been mean to their own people the list will be
mightly long. Bush plays the international community like a
fiddle....tells them sweet nothings...while bringing the mailed fist
down on the bad guys. Now he just needs to clean up some Generals who
are more scared of losing then they are wanting to win and we will be
alright.
PAPA DOC
Dusty Rhodes
and those are the TOTAL reasons why WE need to make him go away, with
prejudice. Remember PD, we are for it for the single reason that he has had
a hand in attacking us for a decade. But we can't go pissing off the world
completely, because once he is gone, we still have to have relations with
countries, liberal or conservative in nature. We need to put the TOTAL
argument together to show the right reasons why this fuck needs to be
exterminated. Not just the reasons that we on the conservative side see. I
don't expect everyone to agree, but if given all the facts and reasons, and
they still are thick headed, then fuck 'em. Lets face it, just for
political reasons, and no other reason, do you think the left would agree
with the right, even if, as in this case, the cause is righteous? No, they
will do everything to enflame the liberals and win back Congress and the
White House, damn what is right or not.
Dusty Rhodes
"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <pleg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1fgh2v4fl99ur53v4...@4ax.com...
PAPADOC
He is a person on the left that has brains and that has grasped the
essential point of this conflict.
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Dr Oddness Killtroll
bp wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:02:00 -0500, Dr Oddness Killtroll
> <an...@annex.annex> wrote:
>
> >Saddam has flaunted his strictures for 12 years. We now have the 'smoking gun',
>
> ?? Not exactly
>
No.
Exactly.
<boomboomsoon>
> >in artty shells, which, unitl VERY recntly, contained VX or similar.
>
> Where did you get that info? I suspect you made it up.
Amazing.
A blind, deaf, man(?) who types...
Buy a radio...
DrOk
Allan Mayer
writes:
>>in artty shells, which, unitl VERY recntly, contained VX or similar.
>
>Where did you get that info? I suspect you made it up.
I didnt hear mention if they were ever filled, but they WERE
arty rocket warhead's that has glass linings, and ceramic
linings, with a filling arrangment. (spigot ?) un inspectors aggeed
that these shells were specific for containing chemical agents,
and nothing else. Then go on to say that this is not that bad
at all. (WoW !!!!!! They found a material breach, and think
nothing of it !!!) The warheads at first admitted by the Iraqi's
as being bought in the mid 80's were stored there and (get this)
forgotten (!!!) by the Iraqi's They knew when they were storing
them that it was a resoloution breach then, yet they say it's no
big deal, and the un says the same story. (imagine that...)
Now my question; What were they thinking storing something
they knew they had to destroy ?? Obiviously they intended to
use them at some point in the future.....
But then herr blick has already stated on camera, that his sole
goal is to have this inspection result in a peacfull ending.
Even more incredible !!!!!!!!!!!! here is a man/team who is to
go there for the specific purpose to find out what Iraq really
has. Yet he is going in with an outcome already in mind, and
does not want anything to prevent it. How nice for him...
What about going in with the mindset, that Iraq has
ALREADY VIOLATED 11 years of sanctions, has attacked
allied aircraft for the past 11 years, and has a proven record
striking out at civillian targets (Scuds)
But no, herr blick wants only a peacfull ending with Iraq,
What about the rest of the world ???
The inspection process should be more like a medical process,
where the *cancer* (WMD) is removed. Some surgies are easy
on the patient, some are harder on him, but Iraq needs an operation.
All herr blick is doing is a triage, hoping that something will
come out of the blue, and make it all go away, with no one getting
hurt... Something IS going to come out of the blue, and western
civillians are the one's that have, and will again take the hit !!
But the liberal appeasers live in fear, and as soon as an attack
is over, they sigh a breath of relief for an instant, than the fear of
angering the evil one's takes right back over... So very sad the
cost of life in failed appeasment attempts with such evil people.
The one's who are too afraid to fight, are the one's who want
to prevent those that do, from doing so. Why ?? To make us
become as vulnerable as you ???????????????
Ah ... but the un is always trying to play one up on itself,
so now they have an even better idea, They elected Libya
as head of the human rights commission ! A country that
has a human rights record, and terrorism record in the recent
past that make the US look like heaven. But remember the
un voted the US off that same commision.
(dont know what to say about this one, flabberghasted ???)
J. Clarke
says...
Do you know of any provision of the Constitution which would cede to the
Federal government the power to do that?
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
PAPADOC
was with the IAEA and he failed there as well. Dismally....he was
picked because the French and Russians know he will fail....they do
not want war because they are profiting enormously from the Current
Iraqis government.
Bush thank god seems to know that the entire inspection process is a
charade and has only used the inspections as a smoke screen to freeze
Saddam while Bush gathers our forces to oust that thug.
Bush understands that defending our country trumps all the rest of
this nonsense.
PAPA DOC
>But then herr blick has already stated on camera, that his sole
>goal is to have this inspection result in a peacfull ending.
>
>Even more incredible !!!!!!!!!!!! here is a man/team who is to
>go there for the specific purpose to find out what Iraq really
>has. Yet he is going in with an outcome already in mind, and
>does not want anything to prevent it. How nice for him...
>Allan
>http://members.aol.com/Thetabat/hello.html
>
>"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Allan Mayer
<PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> writes:
> the French and Russians know he will fail....they do
>not want war because they are profiting enormously from the Current
>Iraqis government.
And of course these are the same people/countries that say
we want to attack Iraq because of oil !!! Yeah right.....
But they get support from liberal appeasers around the
world, and you see people only complain that they *think*
we are attacking only for oil. Such a convienant cover for
shameless proffitering from the Iraqi's at this very moment,
by the europeans and Russians.......
The funny thing will be when we finally do the "dew"
with Iraq, and when they see that we are not after the oil,
they then will quickly find something else to hammer the
USA on, to deflect the fact that they were spreading lies, and
falshoods all along !!
For europeans............ (concerning Iraq)
This isnt about right and wrong, it's about europeans trying
to hamstring the USA anyway they can !! Why else would
Germany's Schroder tell the French,that even if there is a
unanamious decision to go into Iraq, that he will not support
it, or help, and that the French had better not either if there
is to be continued progress, and cooperation within the EU,
and particulary between Germany and France.
(while they are both doing business with Iraq right now)
This has been in all the papers recently, why would Germany
do such a thing ???
Now you have to ask yourself, What is the un really trying to
do here, and even more importantly, what is their effectiveness
in the world now ??
We know that most of the underdeveloped world does not
take them seriously at all !! Only in europe does anyone have
respect for the un, and it's present policies......
Come on, Libya as head of human rights commision ??
(they bought their way there !)
But the un wants the US to respect them ?? After this latest
*nomination* it becomes all the more obivious that they have
lost control over even themselves.
And you are 100 %. Bush knows this, and since the un wants
such a large ammount of $$$ from the USA, Bush knows he
can play them like a worn out musical instrument. Even with
broken strings, Mr. Bush still gets some music out of them !!
Once upon a time, the un served a usefull prupose in the world.
But sadly that time has come and gone, yet the un leadership
in their" ivory tower" fail to see this, and only think of perpetuating
their own job's, and trying to expand their shrinking abilities....
What good are they when they send peacekeepers to places
where they cant keep the peace ?? (because they are underarmed)
What good are they when they try and send food places, but
cant get it to the people, and loose the food, and all the $$ that
they sent over with it ? (because they dont send competent people)
If this happened once or twice, I could understand, but the un
has a pattern of incredible sloppiness, and accountability,
and as a result, they lose the lives of their own people, and the
people they were supposedly going in to protect, and feed......
And they do it over and over....
You liberal appeasers who hate Mr. Bush right now, better feel
damn lucky (!!!) that we dont have Teddy Roosevelt, or Mr. Regan
as president right now, Damn lucky...........................
PAPADOC
sure that I consider Reagan to be one of the greatest Presidents this
country ever had...but.
He did not help the perception of the US as cowardly when he
shamefully withdrew the Marines after the Towel Headed Ones attacked
us in Beruit. This was a very very bad precedent that has added to the
problems we have in the ME by making us seem fickle and cowardly. We
had respect and fear in the ME when we were looked upon as the
Ruthless Fearless Cowboys who did so much in vanquishing 2 Attempted
World Superpower thugs. They were puzzled when the country that had
waged such an unrelentless war against two countries suddenly ran like
little girly men when we were attacked by basically thugs in towels.
Im not entirely convinced that Reagan would have reacted correctly to
9/11. Bush is the right person at the right time....we seem to be
lucky like that.
PAPA DOC
>You liberal appeasers who hate Mr. Bush right now, better feel
>damn lucky (!!!) that we dont have Teddy Roosevelt, or Mr. Regan
>as president right now, Damn lucky...........................
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Allan
>http://members.aol.com/Thetabat/hello.html
>
>"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Don Burnette
> How come it's ALWAYS, ALWAYS the leftist, liberal appeasers
> that post this garbage ??
> I mean, are you liberals ever going to be happy in this world ??
>
>
>
>
> Do us all a favor, and expire quickly please.
> (the more pain on your part the better :)
>
>
>
>
> You posted this looking for touble, well ya got it...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allan
> http://members.aol.com/Thetabat/hello.html
>
> "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
They need to take their sorry butts and move to another country...
Nothing but a bunch of damn cowards imho.
--
Don Burnette
Michael Gilmore
>Anne Coulter author of the outstanding book 'Slander' has a nice term for
>this kind of thing....'completely unhinged'.
>
>-MB
>
Number one, idiot, learn to snip. A 200 plus line post with your 4 line answer
is bloody well not required!
Second, is this the *Ann* (can't even spell her name correctly) Coulter who said
vis-a-vis the Islamic countries, "We should invade their countries, kill their
leaders and convert them to Christianity"?
Now that is 'completely unhinged'!
Michael Gilmore
[snip]
>>;)
>>
>Now there's a shock ! As it happens, I spent quite a few weeks in NI
>over the past few years, real bandit country (Omagh, Irvinestown), no
>problems at all. Mind you, the last time round, the hotel I stopped
>at had just been bombed (mostly unsucessfully, just the detonation
>charge went off taking out the kitchens), but I like my hotels to have
>been pre-bombed. It had an 8ft model of a Catalina in the bar for
>some reason.
The Catalina that spotted the Bismarck flew out of Lough Erne, the same county
as your hotel.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Michael thats exactly whats gonna happen. Ok maybe we wont convert
them to Christianity, though it is the fastest growing religion these
days. Maybe a kinder gentler Islam if such a beast exists.
PAPA DOC
Confidential
Radio about everything.
Those 11 shells were completely empty and if they had been filled with
chemicals the UN inspectors would have used lab tests or field instruments
that would have detected traces of nerve gas. They can find small traces in
the parts per billion range with field instruments of most of the chemicals
and they can culture swabs that would show if any biological life was on
those shells. Those shells were clean and had never been used. They may
have been laying there since the last Gulf War. Now if they find nerve gas
or other Chemicals close buy that could be used to fill those war heads then
that would be something significant. But empty rocket shells that may have
been there since 1990 are not a smoking gun.
I am sure that Sadam may have stuff that will show him in breach of the UN
resolutions and given enough time we will locate them in some underground
facility someday. But Bush will not wait as he has stationed too many troops
in the Persian Gulf to not go to war.
They already have plans for our military to protect the oil fields and the
oil reserves in Iraq once we invade and kick Sadam out.
"bp" <6b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cnlh2v0sonuk9m8ml...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:02:00 -0500, Dr Oddness Killtroll
> <an...@annex.annex> wrote:
>
> >Saddam has flaunted his strictures for 12 years. We now have the 'smoking
gun',
>
> ?? Not exactly
>
Confidential
the F up?
"Don Burnette" <d.bur...@clothescomcast.net> wrote in message
news:IN-dndnAz4p...@giganews.com...
Confidential
plastic liner of some type. Glass is too fragile and would break and leak.
Would you want VX nerve gas stored in a glass container sitting next to you.
Before the Gulf War many of those shells were taken out of bunkers and
buried in the desert sand around the bunkers. Many allied bombs fell on
those bunkers and destroyed them. Some cluster bombs also were used in and
around those bunkers and they found some of the buried shells and blew them
up when the cluster bombs exploded. Iraq did not have that good of an
accounting of their weapons. Hell K-mart doesn't even know what they have
and don't have in stock on some items. ( that is why they are going
bankrupt) Anyway after ten years and a war with thousands of bombs dropped
on those sites by the allies back during the Gulf War it's hard to account
for al those shells today.
I am for going to war against Iraq only if the UN sanctions a war and we
find more than a few empty rocket shells that don't even have any explosive
in them let along an BCN components. We can't even find traces of any BCN
elements.
We have Bush Sending 250,000 guys that are going to be away from family for
a long time until the UN finds something. And if Bush goes it alone it will
be one of the biggest mistakes that anyone did since Hitler Invaded Poland.
Mark my words this will not be an easy war as it was in the Gulf War when we
have right on our side and the UN sanctioned the attacks to drive Sadam's
troops out of Kuwait. That was something that the world backed the US in.
This going it alone without any proof will be the end of GW Bush and his
administration.
"Allan Mayer" <azzz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030118015224...@mb-fu.aol.com...
Rico
"Confidential" <NotAva...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e29e257_1@newsfeed...
>
> They already have plans for our military to protect the oil fields and the
> oil reserves in Iraq once we invade and kick Sadam out.
>
>
Let me guess, the JCS faxed you their battle plans this morning.
Gunther
PAPADOC wrote:
>
> He did not help the perception of the US as cowardly when he
> shamefully withdrew the Marines after the Towel Headed Ones attacked
> us in Beruit. This was a very very bad precedent that has added to the
> problems we have in the ME by making us seem fickle and cowardly. We
> had respect and fear in the ME when we were looked upon as the
> Ruthless Fearless Cowboys who did so much in vanquishing 2 Attempted
> World Superpower thugs. They were puzzled when the country that had
> waged such an unrelentless war against two countries suddenly ran like
> little girly men when we were attacked by basically thugs in towels.
They didn't even allow the Marines ammo to load their weapons, which if
they did the suicide bomber would never had reached his target. The
whole situation smelled bad and certainly taught us some lessons in
dealing with terrorist.
>
> Im not entirely convinced that Reagan would have reacted correctly to
> 9/11. Bush is the right person at the right time....we seem to be
> lucky like that.
>
> PAPA DOC
I believe Reagan would have handled 9/11 properly. Remember most of W's
staff served under Reagan.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
new bunkers? And yup they were empty, you dont load up shells until
you are ready to use them...or even more probably they were put there
deliberately.
And yes protecting the oil fields is a legitimate concern of any army.
Since when did ANY Army ever NOT protect the assets of a country it
invades. Exactly what are we supposed to turn over to the Iraqis
people if we allow Saddam to destroy the oil fields.
PAPA DOC
rob
I'm sure you know this, but for the benefit of others. Islam, is (in
theory) a religion of peace and tolerance. The problem is that, much like
Christianity in the Mid Ages it has been hijacked and perverted by a bunch
of evil-doers who are simply using it as a tool for their own ends, namely
power
There is a kinder, gentler Islam out there, it does exist. I remember on my
travels I spent a week staying with a muslim family and I can safely say
they were the best people I ever met. I've even had them stay with me here
a couple of times since.
Of course, they are also New Yorkers
Rob
"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <pleg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jfnj2vor73nt7fbt3...@4ax.com...
rob
> Radio about everything.
>
> Those 11 shells were completely empty and if they had been filled with
> chemicals the UN inspectors would have used lab tests or field instruments
> that would have detected traces of nerve gas.
11 shells were empty, but another one was taken for further evaluation, I
dont know what they mean by that
> But empty rocket shells that may have
> been there since 1990 are not a smoking gun.
The bunkers have been previously inspected, the shells have been moved
there, which sort of ruins Saddams 'Oh, We forgot' excuse
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Beat me to it, ya commie bastard...
DrOk
Allan Mayer
writes:
>Will you stupid Conservative Right Wing Radical Religious Zealots ever shut
>the F up?
As long as I get to hear your whining spineless liberal
appeasing self complain, than NO
Not a chance
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
becoming more and more strident the world over. They have no method of
having any type of reformation sort of event. They get worse and worse
but there is no central authority to say lets do this instead. So the
strident and lethal ones gain more and more power.
PAPA DOC
rob
moment.
I would really like to see the Islamic leaders, whether political or
religious stop fearing the extremists and take them on instead
Rob
"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <pleg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kd4k2vkiehim04560...@4ax.com...
PAPADOC
the top guy makes the choices. So far Bush has made some very gutsy
choices that Reagan passed up when he had the chance. No doubt Reagan
didnt have 9/11 to concentrate the mind...but still losing over 240
Marines is supposed to have more affect than forcing you to run.
Marines are NOT expendable....
PAPA DOC
>I believe Reagan would have handled 9/11 properly. Remember most of W's
>staff served under Reagan.
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Jorg
>I really have tried to stay out of all the posts about America vs
>everything, but I can't hold myself back any longer.
(snip)
>Keep an open mind and try to look at things from different angles. Always.
>And don't be so angry and rude all the time. What's the point calling each
>other names? Are we not grown up people?
>
>Over and out!
Well said, and I fully agree.
The thing is to keep thinking yourself, and not get blinded or act
like a lemming.
Which is something that does not seem be high valued in the US all the
time (and will undoubtly be proved in the reactions on this post).
Jorg
(Dutch).
Gerry Aitken
> > PS: Why has the US not banned NORAID?
>
> Do you know of any provision of the Constitution which would cede to the
> Federal government the power to do that?
Just put them on the list of banned organizations that sponsor or engage
in terrorism.
Do you think they should be banned?
Gerry
Don Burnette
It's called good old American Patriotism, love of God and Country, and God
help anyone that screws with us.
I say send em all straight to Hell.
Don Burnette
J. Clarke
says...
Where does one find this list of "banned organizations"?
> Gerry
PAPADOC
way out you think its reasonable to listen to the knuckleheads that
tell you the fire is all in your head and that life and death are the
same, just sit down and everything will be alright? Or do both of you
rightly consider that person at best crazy at worst murderous?
PAPA DOC
>>Keep an open mind and try to look at things from different angles. Always.
>>And don't be so angry and rude all the time. What's the point calling each
>>other names? Are we not grown up people?
>>
>>Over and out!
>
>Well said, and I fully agree.
>
>The thing is to keep thinking yourself, and not get blinded or act
>like a lemming.
>
>Which is something that does not seem be high valued in the US all the
>time (and will undoubtly be proved in the reactions on this post).
>
>Jorg
>(Dutch).
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Allan Mayer
<PAP...@jimbobs.drive.by> writes:
>No doubt Reagan
>didnt have 9/11 to concentrate the mind...
Remember what he WAS concentrating on ??
("microphone on ?? no ? The bombing starts in five minutes")
You remember as well as I that the country as a whole just spent
almost the past thirty years looking the Bear eye to eye. In no small
thanks to Regan, the Bear blinked, and the net result was a freedom
for many many people east of western europe...
Gerry Aitken
> > > > PS: Why has the US not banned NORAID?
> > >
> > > Do you know of any provision of the Constitution which would cede to the
> > > Federal government the power to do that?
> >
> > Just put them on the list of banned organizations that sponsor or engage
> > in terrorism.
> >
> > Do you think they should be banned?
>
> Where does one find this list of "banned organizations"?
State department. I don't know if parts of the list is classified, but I
do know the Real I.R.A is on the list, so why not its US fund raising
division?
Gerry
Kids, every time you eat a cod fish finger, a baby dolphin dies!
PAPADOC
most talking about 95% of his policies but backing out of Lebanon
after losing 241 Marines was a bad idea. The only problem for him was
that the US has primarily been a backer of Arabic causes....and
dealing with those losers would have upset alot of the Arabs.
PAPA DOC
>You remember as well as I that the country as a whole just spent
>almost the past thirty years looking the Bear eye to eye. In no small
>thanks to Regan, the Bear blinked, and the net result was a freedom
>for many many people east of western europe...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Allan
>http://members.aol.com/Thetabat/hello.html
>
>"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
>
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Phil Young
Thanks.
I suppose I could have just asked them, but where's the challenge ??
Chuck C.
> Thats odd those bunkers are new....exactly how did old shells get into
> new bunkers? And yup they were empty, you dont load up shells until
> you are ready to use them...or even more probably they were put there
> deliberately.
>
> And yes protecting the oil fields is a legitimate concern of any army.
> Since when did ANY Army ever NOT protect the assets of a country it
> invades. Exactly what are we supposed to turn over to the Iraqis
> people if we allow Saddam to destroy the oil fields.
>
> PAPA DOC
>
hell PD, if we didn't and he lights up HIS fields this time (love how
people forget the Kuati oil fields in the "its all just for oil"
arguement), they'd all be yellimg "why didn't you have a plan to protect
the oil fields."
Chuck
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Benjamin Franklin
Dusty Rhodes
the Gulf, causing one of the biggest ecological disaster ever.
Dusty Rhodes
"Chuck C." <nony...@all.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9308B20D4361...@216.148.227.77...
J. Clarke
says...
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> > > > > PS: Why has the US not banned NORAID?
> > > >
> > > > Do you know of any provision of the Constitution which would cede to the
> > > > Federal government the power to do that?
> > >
> > > Just put them on the list of banned organizations that sponsor or engage
> > > in terrorism.
> > >
> > > Do you think they should be banned?
> >
> > Where does one find this list of "banned organizations"?
>
> State department. I don't know if parts of the list is classified, but I
> do know the Real I.R.A is on the list, so why not its US fund raising
> division?
Do you have a link, the number of a publication, or some other method by
which one may obtain a copy of said list?
A search for "banned organizations" on <http://www.state.gov> gives 5
hits, discussion organizations which have been banned by the governments
of Germany and Tunisia.
Perhaps you are thinking of Executive Order 13224, which authorizes the
Secretary of State to freeze the US assets of certain foreign
organizations, one of which is the "Continuity Irish Republican Army".
That is a foreign organization not subject to Constitutional
protections.
Now, under what provision of the Constitution can an organization of US
citizens be banned?
>
> Gerry
>
> Kids, every time you eat a cod fish finger, a baby dolphin dies!
Statistics please? Cod are normally caught using otter trawls or gill
nets. Most dolphin bycatch is with pair trawls and generally associated
with tuna.
Gerry Aitken
>
> In article <3E2AC138...@ntlworld.com>, g.ai...@ntlworld.com
> says...
> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >
> > > > > > PS: Why has the US not banned NORAID?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you know of any provision of the Constitution which would cede to the
> > > > > Federal government the power to do that?
> > > >
> > > > Just put them on the list of banned organizations that sponsor or engage
> > > > in terrorism.
> > > >
> > > > Do you think they should be banned?
> > >
> > > Where does one find this list of "banned organizations"?
> >
> > State department. I don't know if parts of the list is classified, but I
> > do know the Real I.R.A is on the list, so why not its US fund raising
> > division?
>
> Do you have a link, the number of a publication, or some other method by
> which one may obtain a copy of said list?
>
> A search for "banned organizations" on <http://www.state.gov> gives 5
> hits, discussion organizations which have been banned by the governments
> of Germany and Tunisia.
No, I don't have a link.
> Perhaps you are thinking of Executive Order 13224, which authorizes the
> Secretary of State to freeze the US assets of certain foreign
> organizations, one of which is the "Continuity Irish Republican Army".
Say, that's it, thanks for clarifying
> That is a foreign organization not subject to Constitutional
> protections.
>
> Now, under what provision of the Constitution can an organization of US
> citizens be banned?
Well, never mind the constitution, should NORAID be banned? I think they
should be locked up for supporting terrorists!
Cheers
Gerry
Allan Mayer
<g.ai...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>Well, never mind the constitution, should NORAID be banned? I think they
>should be locked up for supporting terrorists!
>
Tell ya what Gerry.
Everytime you mention NORAID, I'm going to send a dollar
to them. You just never stop mentioning it, Well, lets see
how you feel now.
Remember everytime you whine wbout them here, I send them
a dollar. Dont mention them here, I wont send money.
Will this make you happy ??
Gerry Aitken
>
> In article <3E2BB4CF...@ntlworld.com>, Gerry Aitken
> <g.ai...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> >Well, never mind the constitution, should NORAID be banned? I think they
> >should be locked up for supporting terrorists!
> >
>
> Tell ya what Gerry.
>
> Everytime you mention NORAID, I'm going to send a dollar
> to them. You just never stop mentioning it, Well, lets see
> how you feel now.
You're a sick man. But then I always knew there was something wrong with
you 'upstairs'!
> Remember everytime you whine wbout them here, I send them
> a dollar. Dont mention them here, I wont send money.
Ok, get a receipt from them as proof.
> Will this make you happy ??
Will supporting terrorists make you happy?
Bimo
> > >Saddam has flaunted his strictures for 12 years. We now have the
'smoking gun',
> >
> > ?? Not exactly
>
> No.
>
> Exactly.
>
> <boomboomsoon>
Snotty my good man.....
Im affraid you'll have to keep playing your "op DesertStorm" tapes over and
over again....
Even the english are getting cold feet...
Hmmm....How can I break this to you gently...
<nobadaboomanytimesoon>
Bimbo
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Bimo wrote:
> "Dr Snotty" wrote...
>
> > > >Saddam has flaunted his strictures for 12 years. We now have the
> 'smoking gun',
> > >
> > > ?? Not exactly
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > <boomboomsoon>
>
> Snotty my good man.....
> Im affraid you'll have to keep playing your "op DesertStorm" tapes over and
> over again....
Why?
> Even the english are getting cold feet...
Ya, so cold thay announced they were sending 1 armd div, 7th Armd Bgd, and a
Para Regement, yesterday.
43000 total deployed. 150 Cheiftans. 150 Warriors.
They must be very cold, as they are applying the heat to Saddam too...
Pay attention, Lars. It always helps...
> Hmmm....How can I break this to you gently...
> <nobadaboomanytimesoon>
<boomboomrealsoon>
And you can bet the girls at the Bada Bing on that...
> Bimbo
LOL
Yes.
Quite.
DrOk
LB
> > Even the english are getting cold feet...
>
> Ya, so cold thay announced they were sending 1 armd div, 7th Armd Bgd, and
a
> Para Regement, yesterday.
>
> 43000 total deployed. 150 Cheiftans. 150 Warriors.
>
> They must be very cold, as they are applying the heat to Saddam too...
There is a long way from shipping troops around to actually going to war,
especially when the voters back home really dont think its such a clever
idea...
Less than 10% from the UK, and less than 47% from USA wants a war without a
UN mandate.... Blair aint going to commit political suiside on this.... at
least not yet !!!
Now Bush is even starting to complaint that the weapons inspectors ( and
thus UN ) wants more time..
Tell me... oh wise one.... what wrong with more time ?
Will Saddam try to level Empire State Building if we give him a couple of
months more ?
Or is there a chance, that Mr Bush really dont want to wait and see the
entire thing vanish into nothing, because either the Arabs finds a way to
put Saddam in exile, or because even you guy starts to realize that Iraq is,
and never has been, a thread to the USA...
> Pay attention, Lars. It always helps...
But I am Snotty... I am....
And its a real bother that you insist on calling me by my real name.... only
your wife is allowed to do that !!!!!!!
> > Hmmm....How can I break this to you gently...
> > <nobadaboomanytimesoon>
>
> <boomboomrealsoon>
Im in for a bet !!
Bimo
J. Clarke
It's pointless to discuss banning an organization if there is no legal
mechanism by which the ban may be accomplished. So why not first figure
out a legal theory on which such a ban might be based, then worry about
what to ban?
Dr Oddness Killtroll
LB wrote:
> "Plain Snotty" wrote...
>
> > > Even the english are getting cold feet...
> >
> > Ya, so cold thay announced they were sending 1 armd div, 7th Armd Bgd, and
> a
> > Para Regement, yesterday.
> >
> > 43000 total deployed. 150 Cheiftans. 150 Warriors.
> >
> > They must be very cold, as they are applying the heat to Saddam too...
>
> There is a long way from shipping troops around to actually going to war,
Wana bet?
> especially when the voters back home really dont think its such a clever
> idea...
Says who?
> Less than 10% from the UK,
Well, I'm not compelled by a mass of bias. Are you?
> and less than 47% from USA wants a war without a
> UN mandate....
We're gonna do what needs doing.
> Blair aint going to commit political suiside on this....
You folks would just as soon lynch him already. Who are you kidding? The Rabble
of Intolerance aka Liberals (Labour, in blighty) are amongst the most biased,
least tolerant, folks in the free world.
Blair is done,as far as you're concerned. His only redemption is to be on the
Right side of a just cause. He is. This will stand him in good stead.
Right after WWII, the British populace voted Churchill out. Later, they realized
the error of thier ways.
So, polls dont reflect what's proper. Even if they're called elections,
sometimes.
> at least not yet !!!
Se above.
>
>
> Now Bush is even starting to complaint that the weapons inspectors ( and
> thus UN ) wants more time..
He hasnt complained about this in the past???
He wasnt concerned about the UN incompetence before?
You need to read a bit...
> Tell me... oh wise one.... what wrong with more time ?
Plenty. I suspect you know...
> Will Saddam try to level Empire State Building if we give him a couple of
> months more ?
If he does, will you shoot yourself?
> Or is there a chance, that Mr Bush really dont want to wait and see the
> entire thing vanish into nothing,
Sure. So, when we do locate the stuff (the stuff he's been persuing for
decades), will you kneel, and profess your allegiance? Or will you claim we
planted it.
You dont know the slightest thing about Iraq and SH, do you?
> because either the Arabs finds a way to put Saddam in exile,
Sure.
He's going inot exile...
LOL
> or because even you guy starts to realize that Iraq is, and never has been, a
> thread to the USA...
He is, has been, and will be, a threat, everywhere.
You see, he starts wars, for evil purposes.
Sometimes he simply kills his own..
etc, ad infinatum...
> > Pay attention, Lars. It always helps...
>
> But I am Snotty... I am....
No. Your not. You never do.
> And its a real bother that you insist on calling me by my real name.... only
Lars Lars Lars
Stop being so easy.
Lars
> your wife is allowed to do that !!!!!!!
Ouch.
LOL
> > > Hmmm....How can I break this to you gently...
> > > <nobadaboomanytimesoon>
> >
> > <boomboomrealsoon>
>
> Im in for a bet !!
<shakes head>
You wont learn from this, but..
How much?
> Bimo
Name yer stakes. Lars.
DrOk
Gerry Aitken
> > > Now, under what provision of the Constitution can an organization of US
> > > citizens be banned?
> >
> > Well, never mind the constitution, should NORAID be banned? I think they
> > should be locked up for supporting terrorists!
>
> It's pointless to discuss banning an organization if there is no legal
> mechanism by which the ban may be accomplished. So why not first figure
> out a legal theory on which such a ban might be based, then worry about
> what to ban?
So if an organization was formed in the US by US citizens, and this
organization raised funds for Arab terror groups there is now way under
the constitution that it could be banned?
Interesting bit I read in the paper today, about W asking a girl where
she came from, and her answering by saying she came from Northern
Ireland, and W saying, "Oh, really! Are you British or Irish then?"
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Gerry Aitken wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> > > > Now, under what provision of the Constitution can an organization of US
> > > > citizens be banned?
> > >
> > > Well, never mind the constitution, should NORAID be banned? I think they
> > > should be locked up for supporting terrorists!
> >
> > It's pointless to discuss banning an organization if there is no legal
> > mechanism by which the ban may be accomplished. So why not first figure
> > out a legal theory on which such a ban might be based, then worry about
> > what to ban?
>
> So if an organization was formed in the US by US citizens, and this
> organization raised funds for Arab terror groups there is now way under
> the constitution that it could be banned?
The Nazi Party, KKK, and other onerous groups exist in the US.
We dont 'ban' things, here...
> Interesting bit I read in the paper today, about W asking a girl where
> she came from, and her answering by saying she came from Northern
> Ireland, and W saying, "Oh, really! Are you British or Irish then?"
And this statement proves what. exactly?
DrOk
Gerry Aitken
>
> Gerry Aitken wrote:
>
> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >
> > > > > Now, under what provision of the Constitution can an organization of US
> > > > > citizens be banned?
> > > >
> > > > Well, never mind the constitution, should NORAID be banned? I think they
> > > > should be locked up for supporting terrorists!
> > >
> > > It's pointless to discuss banning an organization if there is no legal
> > > mechanism by which the ban may be accomplished. So why not first figure
> > > out a legal theory on which such a ban might be based, then worry about
> > > what to ban?
> >
> > So if an organization was formed in the US by US citizens, and this
> > organization raised funds for Arab terror groups there is now way under
> > the constitution that it could be banned?
>
> The Nazi Party, KKK, and other onerous groups exist in the US.
>
> We dont 'ban' things, here...
The Continuity IRA are banned, so you DO ban things. But, oddly, their
US paymasters can operate and support terrorism with total immunity from
prosecution. So much for the 'War On Terrorism'!
> > Interesting bit I read in the paper today, about W asking a girl where
> > she came from, and her answering by saying she came from Northern
> > Ireland, and W saying, "Oh, really! Are you British or Irish then?"
>
> And this statement proves what. exactly?
>
> DrOk
The level of ignorance in the US regarding Northern Ireland runs all the
way to the top, or bottom, depending which way you look at it!
Bimo
> > especially when the voters back home really dont think its such a clever
> > idea...
>
> Says who?
Says the polls... please pay attention !
> > Less than 10% from the UK,
>
> Well, I'm not compelled by a mass of bias. Are you?
>
> > and less than 47% from USA wants a war without a
> > UN mandate....
>
> We're gonna do what needs doing.
You're not real keen on facts... now.. are you ?
See above ( hah.... I leaned that from you.... )
> > Blair aint going to commit political suiside on this....
>
> You folks would just as soon lynch him already. Who are you kidding? The
Rabble
> of Intolerance aka Liberals (Labour, in blighty) are amongst the most
biased,
> least tolerant, folks in the free world.
Wow Snotty.... I didn't know that.... I feel so light now....could it be
wisdom overwhelming me :))
> Blair is done,as far as you're concerned. His only redemption is to be on
the
> Right side of a just cause. He is. This will stand him in good stead.
>
> Right after WWII, the British populace voted Churchill out. Later, they
realized
> the error of thier ways.
I really think you should reconsider my last advice about reading a book on
history sometime...
Churchill never was that popular, and had probably never been priminister if
it hadn't been for WW2.
He did a good job then, but in peacetime he simply was no good...
Hell... even the english admit to that !!
> So, polls dont reflect what's proper. Even if they're called elections,
> sometimes.
Like I said.... you _really_ don't like facts..
> > Now Bush is even starting to complaint that the weapons inspectors ( and
> > thus UN ) wants more time..
>
> He hasnt complained about this in the past???
Could have been a stand-in... or Industrial Light & Magic....
> > Tell me... oh wise one.... what wrong with more time ?
>
> Plenty. I suspect you know...
That qualifyes as the worst answer of the day.... Snotty... you _must_ do
better than that to compete with me... at least when Im sober ;o)
Let's try again...
What's wrong with more time ?
> > Will Saddam try to level Empire State Building if we give him a couple
of
> > months more ?
>
> If he does, will you shoot yourself?
I really don't have a deathwish, and we really don't do as much as you guys
do in shooting, but I promise I will at least bang my head _real_ hard, and
send you a video, should he even try to destroy the building....
> > Or is there a chance, that Mr Bush really dont want to wait and see the
> > entire thing vanish into nothing,
>
> Sure. So, when we do locate the stuff (the stuff he's been persuing for
> decades), will you kneel, and profess your allegiance? Or will you claim
we
> planted it.
Sure... if the inspectors finds chemical weapons, or nukes of any kind, I'll
kneel and call you "Dr God" in all eternity !!
Problem is.... they will not find a darn thing....
> You dont know the slightest thing about Iraq and SH, do you?
>
> > because either the Arabs finds a way to put Saddam in exile,
>
> Sure.
> He's going inot exile...
> LOL
Read the papers my friend.... many on this side of the pond think it's the
best alternative.. allt he arab nations are working on it...
We only have to persuade _him_...... but thats _your_ job..... right ?
> > or because even you guy starts to realize that Iraq is, and never has
been, a
> > thread to the USA...
>
> He is, has been, and will be, a threat, everywhere.
> You see, he starts wars, for evil purposes.
> Sometimes he simply kills his own..
> etc, ad infinatum...
What wars ?
I though you had finished the Kuwait thing ?
And are you trying to tell me this is payback for his chemical attacks
against the Kurds ?
In that case you're late.... veeeeery late !!!
Nahhh Snotty....
It because Bush wants to... oil or whatever.... he even told you americans
that Iraq was behind Al'queda.... sheesh.... over 50% of your countrymen
believes this to be the truth...
You are an educated man Snotty ( unless you're faking it ofcause ) so you
and I know better..... right ?
> No. Your not. You never do.
Erhmm... shouldn't that be "you're".... <cough>
> > Im in for a bet !!
> <shakes head>
> You wont learn from this, but..
> How much?
Money or honor ?
Bimo
Confidential
under the Clinton Administration. After all Clinton was much more
intelligent that Bush and he also got more PUSSY. LOL
And Bush can't play the Sax
"Gerry Aitken" <g.ai...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3E2E4E51...@ntlworld.com...
Confidential
under the Clinton Administration. After all Clinton was much more
intelligent that Bush and he also got more PUSSY. LOL
And Bush can't play the Sax
"Gerry Aitken" <g.ai...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3E2E4E51...@ntlworld.com...
Confidential
That is why time is of the essence. North Korea has already developed the A
bomb. How many more countries will be building the bomb now?
We already caught North Korea shipping missiles to Yemin this last month and
they were trying to hide the shipment under ordinary goods. Why hide the
weapons if you are doing something that is not wrong? Well what else have
the North Koreans shipped to the Persian Gulf? And why would the leader of
North Korea be using ph
"LB" <replace_with...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:3e2dabf3$0$71617$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Bimo wrote:
> Snotty wrote
>
> > > especially when the voters back home really dont think its such a clever
> > > idea...
> >
> > Says who?
>
> Says the polls... please pay attention !
Polls???
Did you say POLLS???
LOL...
I can provide you with a poll which states that the greatest jockey in history
was an armadillo...
Polls are meaningless, bimbo...
> > > Less than 10% from the UK,
> >
> > Well, I'm not compelled by a mass of bias. Are you?
> >
> > > and less than 47% from USA wants a war without a
> > > UN mandate....
> >
> > We're gonna do what needs doing.
>
> You're not real keen on facts... now.. are you ?
> See above ( hah.... I leaned that from you.... )
Yes.
Monkey see. Monkey do...
We're gonna do what needs doing.
The fact that you dont see/understand the problem dose not compel us to ignore
the problem.
The UN had 12 years, and did nothing.
When something serious needs doing. it's alaways the Brits and ourselves who do
the heavy lifting.
We lead.
You follow.
Sort of...
Like little school kids on a straggly walk...
> > > Blair aint going to commit political suiside on this....
> >
> > You folks would just as soon lynch him already. Who are you kidding? The
> Rabble
> > of Intolerance aka Liberals (Labour, in blighty) are amongst the most
> biased,
> > least tolerant, folks in the free world.
>
> Wow Snotty.... I didn't know that.... I feel so light now....could it be
> wisdom overwhelming me :))
You dont know much, bimbo...
> > Blair is done,as far as you're concerned. His only redemption is to be on
> the
> > Right side of a just cause. He is. This will stand him in good stead.
> >
> > Right after WWII, the British populace voted Churchill out. Later, they
> realized
> > the error of thier ways.
>
> I really think you should reconsider my last advice about reading a book on
> history sometime...
LOL. Shut up, childer...
> Churchill never was that popular,
LOL.
NO?
How many times was he Prime Minister?
> and had probably never been priminister if it hadn't been for WW2.
Except he was PM BEFORE the war started. Your convoluted non-logic is beyond
appalling. Its downright comical, in a sad, misinformed, sort of way...
> He did a good job then, but in peacetime he simply was no good...
He did a good job all the time.
> Hell... even the english admit to that !!
And, even the Brits can be clueless, enmasse, sometimes. Thats why they put him
out in '46 (as if HE was to blame for the economic problems, or the war), then,
brought him back later...
You ought to read a history book.
Or maybe 10 or 20.
For starters...
> > So, polls dont reflect what's proper. Even if they're called elections,
> > sometimes.
>
> Like I said.... you _really_ don't like facts..
>
No.
I dont like opinions.
Polls are a sample of opinions.
"These rocks are made of granite' is an example of a factual statement.
"I dont want to go to war in Iraq" is an example of an opinion.
I dont suppose I've helped you much, but...
>
> > > Now Bush is even starting to complaint that the weapons inspectors ( and
> > > thus UN ) wants more time..
> >
> > He hasnt complained about this in the past???
>
> Could have been a stand-in... or Industrial Light & Magic....
"Have another hit, if you're under the waether..."
> > > Tell me... oh wise one.... what wrong with more time ?
> >
> > Plenty. I suspect you know...
>
> That qualifyes as the worst answer of the day.... Snotty... you _must_ do
> better than that to compete with me... at least when Im sober ;o)
> Let's try again...
> What's wrong with more time ?
The answre is so egregiously obvious, that repeating the question simply conveys
your bias.
Why were 12 years inadequate for the UN to complete this?
Why should we allow more time, when, at the point when the surrender agreement
was signed, if the Iraqis balked, as they are now, we would have marched onm
Bagdhad?
Why do you persist in disbeleief, when he has already developed, and weaponized,
chemicl, biological, and nerve agentsa, and used same? Additionally, you are
aware of the fact that he did have a nuclear weapons program, thta had
progressed rather far down the road
>
>
> > > Will Saddam try to level Empire State Building if we give him a couple
> of
> > > months more ?
> >
> > If he does, will you shoot yourself?
>
> I really don't have a deathwish, and we really don't do as much as you guys
> do in shooting, but I promise I will at least bang my head _real_ hard, and
> send you a video, should he even try to destroy the building....
That will do. I will hold you to that promise. Dont hurt the building.
> > > Or is there a chance, that Mr Bush really dont want to wait and see the
> > > entire thing vanish into nothing,
> >
> > Sure. So, when we do locate the stuff (the stuff he's been persuing for
> > decades), will you kneel, and profess your allegiance? Or will you claim
> we
> > planted it.
>
> Sure... if the inspectors finds chemical weapons, or nukes of any kind, I'll
> kneel and call you "Dr God" in all eternity !!
> Problem is.... they will not find a darn thing....
No?
He's stopped developing these?
What planet do you live on, lars?
BTW. what if we do?
> > You dont know the slightest thing about Iraq and SH, do you?
> >
> > > because either the Arabs finds a way to put Saddam in exile,
> >
> > Sure.
> > He's going inot exile...
> > LOL
>
> Read the papers my friend...
I'm not your friend. You're a misinformed european ignoramous.
> . many on this side of the pond think it's the
> best alternative..
Many on that side of the pond have held beleifs, which, in retrospect, are
shameful when not laughable.
The fact that you think SH would even entertain such a notion displays your lack
of basic understanding of this.
Answer this: What happens to the 10000 or so (maybe many more) Takritis who form
his innnermost circle? His Baaath party folks, etc?
What will the Shites do to them, and the Sunnis, if SH just walks?
Etc.
> allt he arab nations are working on it...
Yes, that and thier perpetual motion machines.
Saddam isnt going anywhere...
> We only have to persuade _him_...... but thats _your_ job..... right ?
LOL. "...persuade him..."
Funny that, "...persuade him...". I dont suspect you see the irony. We cannot
persuade a man to give up his guns, so, instead, as a better option, we persuade
him to leave his guns, and his house, and move into a snakepit.
Also, our job? Seems we're the only one brining any leverage here.
You euros are perpetually asleep.
> > > or because even you guy starts to realize that Iraq is, and never has
> been, a
> > > thread to the USA...
> >
> > He is, has been, and will be, a threat, everywhere.
> > You see, he starts wars, for evil purposes.
> > Sometimes he simply kills his own..
> > etc, ad infinatum...
>
> What wars ?
Iran.
Kuwait.
His own people.
Shias.
Kurds.
> I though you had finished the Kuwait thing ?
Have we? Ask the Kuwaitis.
> And are you trying to tell me this is payback for his chemical attacks against
> the Kurds ?
Payback?
How about prevention? We cant change the past. Its the future thats the
concern...
> In that case you're late.... veeeeery late !!!
> Nahhh Snotty....
> It because Bush wants to... oil or whatever.... he even told you americans
> that Iraq was behind Al'queda.... sheesh.... over 50% of your countrymen
> believes this to be the truth...
You dont know what you talking about lars. I see that hasnt stopped you...
> You are an educated man Snotty ( unless you're faking it ofcause ) so you
> and I know better..... right ?
Yes. Exactly. I am more educated than your dumb, spoiled ass. I am surprised you
noticed...
>
>
> > No. Your not. You never do.
>
> Erhmm... shouldn't that be "you're".... <cough>
LOL. Spellchecking, aye?
Cold?
Flu?
> > > Im in for a bet !!
> > <shakes head>
> > You wont learn from this, but..
> > How much?
>
> Money or honor ?
You proposed the bet. Set your stakes.
Again, how much?
DrOk
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Gerry Aitken wrote:
> Dr Oddness Killtroll wrote:
> >
> > Gerry Aitken wrote:
> >
> > > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Now, under what provision of the Constitution can an organization of US
> > > > > > citizens be banned?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, never mind the constitution, should NORAID be banned? I think they
> > > > > should be locked up for supporting terrorists!
> > > >
> > > > It's pointless to discuss banning an organization if there is no legal
> > > > mechanism by which the ban may be accomplished. So why not first figure
> > > > out a legal theory on which such a ban might be based, then worry about
> > > > what to ban?
> > >
> > > So if an organization was formed in the US by US citizens, and this
> > > organization raised funds for Arab terror groups there is now way under
> > > the constitution that it could be banned?
> >
> > The Nazi Party, KKK, and other onerous groups exist in the US.
> >
> > We dont 'ban' things, here...
>
> The Continuity IRA are banned,
No. They're NOT banned.
Members are not allowed in the country.
We dont ban things.
And you dont even understand what your talking about...
LOL
[snip embarrisingly ignorant stuff]
> > And this statement proves what. exactly?
> >
> > DrOk
>
> The level of ignorance in the US regarding Northern Ireland runs all the
> way to the top, or bottom, depending which way you look at it!
Really? More Irish live in the US than in Erie. We all see the ignornce here. It's
not within the US.
DrOk
Bimo
> Bush will not let Sadam get the Bomb. PERIOD.
No ofcause not... I never said he should...
> That is why time is of the essence. North Korea has already developed the
A
> bomb. How many more countries will be building the bomb now?
I don't thin anyone believes Iraq is developing nukes while the inspecors
are in the country, so why is time important ?
Bimo
Gerry Aitken
> > >
> > > The Nazi Party, KKK, and other onerous groups exist in the US.
> > >
> > > We dont 'ban' things, here...
> >
> > The Continuity IRA are banned,
>
> No. They're NOT banned.
>
> Members are not allowed in the country.
There's a difference is there?
> We dont ban things.
>
> And you dont even understand what your talking about...
I think I do. But go on, explain what it is I don't understand?
> LOL
>
> [snip embarrisingly ignorant stuff]
You mean stuff you cannot deal with, stuff outside your intellectual
reach!
> > > And this statement proves what. exactly?
> > The level of ignorance in the US regarding Northern Ireland runs all the
> > way to the top, or bottom, depending which way you look at it!
>
> Really? More Irish live in the US than in Erie. We all see the ignornce here. It's
> not within the US.
yes it is, son! All those ignorant Americans of Irish descent, who are
more than happy to send republican terror groups money so they can kill
innocent men, women and children, are also the voters that your cowardly
politicians don't want to upset!
I find the acts of terror carried out by the loyalists absolutely
disgusting and abhorrent, just as the Irish Americans do. But I would
not send money to the republican groups, knowing full well they would
use the funds to carry out equally terrible crimes, to in some way even
the score!
Another little story of American ignorance in regard to the Irish
troubles for you:
Ted Kennedy, on a 'fact' finding mission to Ulster, walked up to a
member of the UDR and said, "Son, why don't you go back to your own
country?!" The soldiers reply was succinct, to the point, and delivered
in a wonderfully broad Belfast accent, "This is my country, why don't
you fuck off!"
As I said, ignorance from top to bottom! And the truth? The truth is
Americans are funding terrorist groups which operate within the borders
of their closest ally, Great Britain.
BTW, how many armoured divisions are the Irish Republic sending to the
gulf?
Dusty Rhodes
I'll
> kneel and call you "Dr God" in all eternity !!
> Problem is.... they will not find a darn thing....
>
Hrrmmm enlighten us as to how you know this Bimo? The UN has already
admitted in their findings that Iraq has an ADVANCED Nuclear program and is
only months from being able to build a Nuke. Once he builds one, won't it
be too late? You attack him after he has a Nuke, then he can light it off
in Kuwait City, or Tel Aviv, or Istanbul. Is that the smoking gun you want?
BTW, where are the tons upon tons of chemical and biological weapons that
the UN admits Saddam has and has provided no proof that he got rid of? I
guess when he gas' Iraqi citizens again, or the Kurds, or Kuwaiti's then you
will be proven wrong. Is that the smoking gun you want Bimo? Are all those
lives lost to a Nuke or Chem/Bio weapons being used the smoking gun you
want?
Dusty Rhodes
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Gerry Aitken wrote:
> Dr Oddness Killtroll wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > The Nazi Party, KKK, and other onerous groups exist in the US.
> > > >
> > > > We dont 'ban' things, here...
> > >
> > > The Continuity IRA are banned,
> >
> > No. They're NOT banned.
> >
> > Members are not allowed in the country.
>
> There's a difference is there?
Yes. Non citizens, who pose a threat, and are disallowed entry, are not the same entity
as a law formulated to inhibit the creation, and membership too, a group which holds
views not consistent with the stated policy of the US.
Protest is legal. Sedition, or treason, is not.
Citizens enjoy rights.
Aliens, who may wish us harn, are disaalowed entry.
One has nothing to do with the other.
> > We dont ban things.
> >
> > And you dont even understand what your talking about...
>
> I think I do. But go on, explain what it is I don't understand?
We dont ban groups, in the US. TheNazi party is legal. The KKK is legal. The Communist
Party is legal.
Traitorous, or seditious, activity isnt.
I think you dont understand, as you confuse the limiting of access, by aliens who may
have ill intent, to the country, while you suggest we should ban the ability for US
citizens to create, and join, a group, whose views you (and I) dont agree with.
See the difference yet?
> > LOL
> >
> > [snip embarrisingly ignorant stuff]
>
> You mean stuff you cannot deal with, stuff outside your intellectual
> reach!
Nothing of the sort will ever emanate from you. Your inability to grasp the minor
abstraction above is proof of that...
lol...
> > > > And this statement proves what. exactly?
>
> > > The level of ignorance in the US regarding Northern Ireland runs all the
> > > way to the top, or bottom, depending which way you look at it!
> >
> > Really? More Irish live in the US than in Erie. We all see the ignornce here. It's
> > not within the US.
>
> yes it is, son!
No its not, pappy...
> All those ignorant Americans of Irish descent,
Are more Catholic, or Protestant?
Dont assume, find sources...
> who are more than happy to send republican terror groups money so they can kill
> innocent men, women and children, are also the voters that your cowardly
> politicians don't want to upset!
>
> I find the acts of terror carried out by the loyalists absolutely
> disgusting and abhorrent, just as the Irish Americans do.
I thought we were all ignorant...
LOL
> But I would not send money to the republican groups, knowing full well they would use
> the funds to carry out equally terrible crimes, to in some way even the score!
<yawn>
Good for you...
> Another little story of American ignorance in regard to the Irish
> troubles for you:
You think you know the mindset of all Americans?
<Tee Hee>
A bit prejudiced, no?
> Ted Kennedy,
ROFLMAO....
You wrote: Ted Kennedy...
And I responded: ROFLMAO....
ROFLMAO....
ROFLMAO....
ROFLMAO....
> on a 'fact' finding mission to Ulster, walked up to a
> member of the UDR and said, "Son, why don't you go back to your own
> country?!" The soldiers reply was succinct, to the point, and delivered
> in a wonderfully broad Belfast accent, "This is my country, why don't
> you fuck off!"
While I think Ted is a pickled imbecile, I dont find this statement surprisinmg. I
suspect its untrue, but, Teddy likes his position known...
> As I said, ignorance from top to bottom!
Based on what sample, you lunatic? TK's statement???
LOL
> And the truth? The truth is Americans are funding terrorist groups which operate
> within the borders of their closest ally, Great Britain.
Truth is you're bad at this...
<yawn>
> BTW, how many armoured divisions are the Irish Republic sending to the
> gulf?
106.
Point being?
DrOk
Bimo
> Polls are meaningless, bimbo...
Yeah... they don't fit your world... so they must be meaningless..
Real clever
> Except he was PM BEFORE the war started. Your convoluted non-logic is
beyond
> appalling. Its downright comical, in a sad, misinformed, sort of way...
Oh... he was ?
Then tell me who became PM in May 40....
> You ought to read a history book.
Hey... that was my punchline.... thief !!!
But I think I just demonsrated above that it is YOU who needs to do a bit of
reading.
> I dont like opinions.
Yes you do... you like your OWN opinions.... and those of the other
rednecks.... remember ?
> > That qualifyes as the worst answer of the day.... Snotty... you _must_
do
> > better than that to compete with me... at least when Im sober ;o)
> > Let's try again...
> > What's wrong with more time ?
>
> The answre is so egregiously obvious, that repeating the question simply
conveys
> your bias.
Pfftt...
You are pathetic beyond belief....
Admit it Snotty... you HAVE no answer to this !!!
> I'm not your friend. You're a misinformed european ignoramous.
Sarcasm seems to be wasted on you
> > What wars ?
>
> Iran.
Silly me Snotty..... I forgot that one...
Tell me now Snotty....... what side were you guys on in that war....
By all means... take some time to think it over...
> Kuwait.
That has been delt with...
And try checking the official Kuwaiti reactions to your new war ideas !!!
> His own people.
>
> Shias.
>
> Kurds.
I guess you refer to his use of chemical weapons....
If so, I really think USA should have taken a standpoint at the time of the
events, and not now, decades later
> How about prevention? We cant change the past. Its the future thats the
> concern...
Then start by proving he has weapons of mass destruction !!!
> You proposed the bet. Set your stakes.
If USA is not at war with Iraq by March 1, you keep your ugly face out of
c.s.i.p.g.f.s for a month..
Otherwise I do...
Bimo
Gerry Aitken
>
> > > Members are not allowed in the country.
> >
> > There's a difference is there?
>
> Yes. Non citizens, who pose a threat, and are disallowed entry, are not the same entity
> as a law formulated to inhibit the creation, and membership too, a group which holds
> views not consistent with the stated policy of the US.
>
> Protest is legal. Sedition, or treason, is not.
>
> Citizens enjoy rights.
>
> Aliens, who may wish us harn, are disaalowed entry.
>
> One has nothing to do with the other.
But the Republican terrorists are your friends! They only want to visit
their US friends and fund raisers. To my knowledge no Republican
terrorist has ever committed a terrorist act in the US.
> > > We dont ban things.
> > >
> > > And you dont even understand what your talking about...
> >
> > I think I do. But go on, explain what it is I don't understand?
>
> We dont ban groups, in the US. TheNazi party is legal. The KKK is legal. The Communist
> Party is legal.
>
> Traitorous, or seditious, activity isnt.
>
> I think you dont understand, as you confuse the limiting of access, by aliens who may
> have ill intent, to the country, while you suggest we should ban the ability for US
> citizens to create, and join, a group, whose views you (and I) dont agree with.
>
> See the difference yet?
I see only double standards and stupidity.
> > > [snip embarrisingly ignorant stuff]
> >
> > You mean stuff you cannot deal with, stuff outside your intellectual
> > reach!
>
> Nothing of the sort will ever emanate from you. Your inability to grasp the minor
> abstraction above is proof of that...
The fact is money raised by US citizens is being used to fund murder in
the UK!
> > > > > And this statement proves what. exactly?
> >
> > > > The level of ignorance in the US regarding Northern Ireland runs all the
> > > > way to the top, or bottom, depending which way you look at it!
> > >
> > > Really? More Irish live in the US than in Erie. We all see the ignornce here. It's
> > > not within the US.
> >
> > yes it is, son!
>
> No its not, pappy...
>
> > All those ignorant Americans of Irish descent,
>
> Are more Catholic, or Protestant?
Not to say they are all ignorant, of course. But those that send money
to Republican terrorists couldn't really be anything else, could they?
> Dont assume, find sources...
>
> > who are more than happy to send republican terror groups money so they can kill
> > innocent men, women and children, are also the voters that your cowardly
> > politicians don't want to upset!
> >
> > I find the acts of terror carried out by the loyalists absolutely
> > disgusting and abhorrent, just as the Irish Americans do.
>
> I thought we were all ignorant...
Anyone who gives money to NORAID is ignorant, and guilty of supporting
terror!
>
> LOL
>
> > But I would not send money to the republican groups, knowing full well they would use
> > the funds to carry out equally terrible crimes, to in some way even the score!
>
> <yawn>
>
> Good for you...
>
> > Another little story of American ignorance in regard to the Irish
> > troubles for you:
>
> You think you know the mindset of all Americans?
>
> <Tee Hee>
>
> A bit prejudiced, no?
>
> > Ted Kennedy,
>
> ROFLMAO....
>
> You wrote: Ted Kennedy...
>
> And I responded: ROFLMAO....
>
> ROFLMAO....
> ROFLMAO....
> ROFLMAO....
>
> > on a 'fact' finding mission to Ulster, walked up to a
> > member of the UDR and said, "Son, why don't you go back to your own
> > country?!" The soldiers reply was succinct, to the point, and delivered
> > in a wonderfully broad Belfast accent, "This is my country, why don't
> > you fuck off!"
>
> While I think Ted is a pickled imbecile, I dont find this statement surprisinmg. I
> suspect its untrue, but, Teddy likes his position known...
I bet you had to run off to yahoo to look up the meaning of UDR.
> > As I said, ignorance from top to bottom!
>
> Based on what sample, you lunatic? TK's statement???
Explain the absurdity of his statement to me then?
> LOL
>
> > And the truth? The truth is Americans are funding terrorist groups which operate
> > within the borders of their closest ally, Great Britain.
>
> Truth is you're bad at this...
>
> <yawn>
The truth is the US allows its citizens to support terrorists who
operate within the borders of its closest ally!
> > BTW, how many armoured divisions are the Irish Republic sending to the
> > gulf?
>
> 106.
>
> Point being?
Drop dead you twat!
Bimo
> Hrrmmm enlighten us as to how you know this Bimo? The UN has already
> admitted in their findings that Iraq has an ADVANCED Nuclear program and
is
> only months from being able to build a Nuke.
No they have NOT Dusty...
The UN weapons inspectors that previously was in Iraq ( ie not this time
around ), said that at the time, he was planning to build nukes and that
that was stopped by the inspectors.
This time very very little has been found, and as the final report hasn't
been filed yet, we really cant say for sure.
Same goes for chemical weapons. Only thing they have found so war is a
couple of empty warheads.
But the UN is very clear on this.
If the inspectors is denied access to ANY area, the UN can go to war against
Iraq.... and in that case Im 100% behind.
The thing is Dusty. Iraq can NOT nuke of gas anybody at the moment, so there
is NO point in starting a war. Give the inspectors the time they need to
turn over every stone... go to war if he hides anything... and if he
doesn't, accept the UN resolution and keep out of Iraq...
Bimo
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Bimo wrote:
> Yes you do... you like your OWN opinions.... and those of the other
> rednecks.... remember ?
'redneck'
Mwahahaha...
> > > That qualifyes as the worst answer of the day.... Snotty... you _must_
> do
> > > better than that to compete with me... at least when Im sober ;o)
> > > Let's try again...
> > > What's wrong with more time ?
> >
> > The answre is so egregiously obvious, that repeating the question simply
> conveys
> > your bias.
>
> Pfftt...
> You are pathetic beyond belief....
> Admit it Snotty... you HAVE no answer to this !!!
No. I do. It is so obvious, that I am amazed you would use this tack.
Here it is:
We gave him 12 years.
Thats enough.
No need for you to agree...
> > I'm not your friend. You're a misinformed european ignoramous.
>
> Sarcasm seems to be wasted on you
Nope.
Directness seems to be wasted on you, tho...
> > > What wars ?
> >
> > Iran.
>
> Silly me Snotty..... I forgot that one...
Ya.
Its a habit, I see. Missing enourmously significant facts, that is...
> Tell me now Snotty....... what side were you guys on in that war....
Our own.
Couldnt you tell.
The common conversation here was the hope that it would end in a tie...
> By all means... take some time to think it over...
I dont need time. I do understand the complexities you ignore, tho..
No matter...
<ggg>
> > Kuwait.
>
> That has been delt with...
Has it?
Or is Saddam, even recently, claiming part of Kuwait as his own?
Has he paid all reparations?
Has he freed Kuwaiti POW's?
And, ultimately, has he conformed to the surrender agreement?
The answer to all is "No"...
> And try checking the official Kuwaiti reactions to your new war ideas !!!
Offical Kuwaiti reactions are negetive?
On what planet?
> > His own people.
> >
> > Shias.
> >
> > Kurds.
>
> I guess you refer to his use of chemical weapons....
Yes.
You know, those weapons first defined as 'weapons of mass destruction', and
outlawed, even before nuclear weapons were created.
> If so, I really think USA should have taken a standpoint at the time of the
> events, and not now, decades later
Really?
Provide a logical underpinning for that gem, that doesnt literally seep with
anti-US venom.
What you just posted was stupid. We registered our complaints at the time. He
has ahd 12 years to conform. He hasnt, and he's going on an extended leave
because of that fact. Your suggestion that we should ignore it now is
selfserving, and focuses on US responses, not Iraqi actions. He's got wepons
now. He's hiding them. Just like he did previously.
he's not even declaring wepons that he declered previously, and, not providing
any sort of verification that these have been destroyed.
Hes got tons of Anthrax he hasnt provided documentation for, as an example...
> > How about prevention? We cant change the past. Its the future thats the
> > concern...
>
> Then start by proving he has weapons of mass destruction !!!
What are you going to do when you're proven wrong?
Slink?
> > You proposed the bet. Set your stakes.
>
> If USA is not at war with Iraq by March 1,
Hahahahaha.
A bit early, that...
> you keep your ugly face out of
> c.s.i.p.g.f.s for a month..
>
I'd probably win that one, to, BUT...
Lets not be pussies about this.
Lets act like MEN!!!
I know its a stretch, for you, but, maybe this exercise will teach you
something.
If the US goes to war with Iraq, you disappear, and never come back.
If the US DOESNT go to war with Iraq, I disappear, and never come back.
Can you handle that, slinky?
DrOk
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Gerry Aitken wrote:
> Dr Oddness Killtroll wrote:
> >
>
> > > > Members are not allowed in the country.
> > >
> > > There's a difference is there?
> >
> > Yes. Non citizens, who pose a threat, and are disallowed entry, are not the same entity
> > as a law formulated to inhibit the creation, and membership too, a group which holds
> > views not consistent with the stated policy of the US.
> >
> > Protest is legal. Sedition, or treason, is not.
> >
> > Citizens enjoy rights.
> >
> > Aliens, who may wish us harn, are disaalowed entry.
> >
> > One has nothing to do with the other.
>
> But the Republican terrorists are your friends!
Not mine.
> They only want to visit their US friends and fund raisers. To my knowledge no Republican
> terrorist has ever committed a terrorist act in the US.
No?
> > > > We dont ban things.
> > > >
> > > > And you dont even understand what your talking about...
> > >
> > > I think I do. But go on, explain what it is I don't understand?
> >
> > We dont ban groups, in the US. TheNazi party is legal. The KKK is legal. The Communist
> > Party is legal.
> >
> > Traitorous, or seditious, activity isnt.
> >
> > I think you dont understand, as you confuse the limiting of access, by aliens who may
> > have ill intent, to the country, while you suggest we should ban the ability for US
> > citizens to create, and join, a group, whose views you (and I) dont agree with.
> >
> > See the difference yet?
>
> I see only double standards and stupidity.
So, you dont, then.
No matter.
I didnt expect you would.
Your bias disallows even rather simple abstarctions...
> > > > [snip embarrisingly ignorant stuff]
> > >
> > > You mean stuff you cannot deal with, stuff outside your intellectual
> > > reach!
> >
> > Nothing of the sort will ever emanate from you. Your inability to grasp the minor
> > abstraction above is proof of that...
>
> The fact is money raised by US citizens is being used to fund murder in the UK!
Any British members of Al Qeada?
Richard Reed, for example?
We have our own idiots, while you have yours...
> > > > > > And this statement proves what. exactly?
> > >
> > > > > The level of ignorance in the US regarding Northern Ireland runs all the
> > > > > way to the top, or bottom, depending which way you look at it!
> > > >
> > > > Really? More Irish live in the US than in Erie. We all see the ignornce here. It's
> > > > not within the US.
> > >
> > > yes it is, son!
> >
> > No its not, pappy...
> >
> > > All those ignorant Americans of Irish descent,
> >
> > Are more Catholic, or Protestant?
>
> Not to say they are all ignorant, of course.
You did, tho...
> But those that send money to Republican terrorists couldn't really be anything else, could
> they?
Sure.
Smart, but biased. Plenty of folks fit that bill. Even here...
> > Dont assume, find sources...
> >
> > > who are more than happy to send republican terror groups money so they can kill
> > > innocent men, women and children, are also the voters that your cowardly
> > > politicians don't want to upset!
> > >
> > > I find the acts of terror carried out by the loyalists absolutely
> > > disgusting and abhorrent, just as the Irish Americans do.
> >
> > I thought we were all ignorant...
>
> Anyone who gives money to NORAID is ignorant, and guilty of supporting terror!
While I dont disagree, its a free country. Clean up all the mosques collecting to destroy the
west, if your smart. They will make 'the trouble' look like small change, if you dont...
In all thier bombings of stores, etc, how many people did the Provos/ IRA offshoots kill?
How many would die in one islamicist inspired ricin attack?
The IRA had access to a plethora of weapons, and while they did engage in much terror, they
never intended to kill every Brit, or subjugate them. In the end, they were about Belfast,
and jobs, as much as protection of their rackets.
The Islamicist are a wholey different ilk..
Rolling on Floor Laughing My Ass Off!!!
I did.
I'm waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over 40, pally.
I was familiar with the Ulster Defense Regiment before you were born.
I'm Irish.
I remember whenb the troubles started.
The actual day.
In 1969.
I'm originally From Turenclousaigh, in Cork, on the border with Kerry.
Foolish child...
> > > As I said, ignorance from top to bottom!
> >
> > Based on what sample, you lunatic? TK's statement???
>
> Explain the absurdity of his statement to me then?
He's a politician. He's playing to his audience. You'll have to devine the finer points on
your own...
I wont do all your work for you.
> > LOL
> >
> > > And the truth? The truth is Americans are funding terrorist groups which operate
> > > within the borders of their closest ally, Great Britain.
> >
> > Truth is you're bad at this...
> >
> > <yawn>
>
> The truth is the US allows its citizens to support terrorists who operate within the
> borders of its closest ally!
No, thats not the truth.
You keep beleiving it, tho...
> > > BTW, how many armoured divisions are the Irish Republic sending to the
> > > gulf?
> >
> > 106.
> >
> > Point being?
>
> Drop dead you twat!
Mwahahahahahahaha...
You're a loser, Gerry.
Adjust to your lot in life...
DrOk
Phil Young
<an...@annex.annex> wrote:
>
>> Churchill never was that popular,
>
>LOL.
>
>NO?
>
>How many times was he Prime Minister?
>
>> and had probably never been priminister if it hadn't been for WW2.
>
>Except he was PM BEFORE the war started. Your convoluted non-logic is beyond
>appalling. Its downright comical, in a sad, misinformed, sort of way...
>
Churchill became Prime Minister on the 10th of May 1940.
England declared war on Germany on the 3rd of September 1939 (on which
date Churchill was appointed First lord of the Admiralty).
Cheers,
Phil Young
Dusty Rhodes
UN (NOT the US, the UN) has said that Iraq has an advanced Nuke program.
You need to read up or stay the fuck out. You are making yourself look
stupid.
It amazes me how you think 200 (Give or take some) inspectors are going to
find what Saddam has had 4 years + to hide in a country as big as the state
of California. Where have they gone so far? To places that were previously
known to manufactur and hide WMD's. Do you think Saddam is so stupid to
hide these WMD's in places like this? C'mon Bimo, you are one of those
people who no matter what the circumstances would be opposed to war, no
matter what! No amount of evidence, shenanigans, lies, treachory, or games
would allow your pea brain to agree at some point you have to set limits.
Stop or I will yell Stop Again diplomacy that the UN has tried for the last
11 years DOES NOT WORK!!!!!!! 11 years Bimo, 11 years he has played games
and snubbed his nose at the international community. When in hell do you
finally say enough?
> The thing is Dusty. Iraq can NOT nuke of gas anybody at the moment, so
there
> is NO point in starting a war. Give the inspectors the time they need to
> turn over every stone... go to war if he hides anything... and if he
> doesn't, accept the UN resolution and keep out of Iraq...
>
> Bimo
Just how in the hell do you know the above to be fact? Will it take an
attack on a city with a nuke/chem/or bio to prove you wrong. Sorry Bimo my
friend, I don't have the conscience or the balls to bet a million or more
lives on that statement above.
Dusty Rhodes
Dr Oddness Killtroll
Yes.
Quite so.
Better yet, that's what I meant. When the British people realized that
the appeaser, Chamberlain, got them into a heap of trouble, the went
with the Lion to get 'em out.
Good choice. But, unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished. I
suppose that explains 1946 and the 40 year disastrous experiment with
'nationalization'...
Thanks for the correction, Phil
DrOk
Dr Oddness Killtroll
He had a reactor destroyed by Israel, in 1982, bimo. His chief nuclear
scientist defected to us a few years ago, bimo. He was, and is, pursuing
weapons of mass destruction, bimo.
He is going away, bimo.
DrOk
Dusty Rhodes
"Advanced Nuclear Program". Do the work Bimo, stop asking someone else to
do it for you. That is why you have no clue why you are even against this
war we are already in. You don't stop to read and learn what is happening.
Do the work, ye shall find. I did.
Dusty Rhodes
"Dr Oddness Killtroll" <an...@annex.annex> wrote in message
news:3E2F7134...@annex.annex...
Phil Young
You were probably thinking of Dec. 1941.
And I'm not getting into the birth of the welfare state with you,
absolutely no chance, I don't have time for 2000-line posts flying
back and forwards for aeons. I'm just anticipating that we wouldn't
see eye to eye, somehow.
You might want to look up the London Underground PPP (Public Private
Partnership) and what the LU Transport Commissioner (Kiley, the
American guy who turned round the NYC and Philadelphia (?)
undergrounds and was imported by Ken Livingstone to do the same for
London) thinks of the private contracts he is going to have imposed on
him by Mr. Tony. Very interesting stuff, the phrase 'daylight bloody
robbery' comes to mind.
Anyway,
Phil Young
Bimo
> Bimo, it isn't fair for me to fight an unarmed uninformed person. YES,
the
> UN (NOT the US, the UN) has said that Iraq has an advanced Nuke program.
> You need to read up or stay the fuck out. You are making yourself look
> stupid.
Sheesh Dusty... you're in a bad mood... ehh ;o)
Yes, the UN "has said" that Iraq was only months away from building a
bomb.... that was LAST TIME the weapons inspectores were in Iraq.... I am
not disputing that....
But read again what I wrote...
_This_time_ around there has been _NO_ evidence, and if you keep insisting
there has, I suggest you back it up with facts !!!
> It amazes me how you think 200 (Give or take some) inspectors are going to
> find what Saddam has had 4 years + to hide in a country as big as the
state
> of California. Where have they gone so far? To places that were
previously
> known to manufactur and hide WMD's. Do you think Saddam is so stupid to
> hide these WMD's in places like this?
Erhmmm Dusty.... you dont just hide nukes....
"Lets see... the inspectors are on their way... stuff the damn thing in the
closet.. they will never notice"
( translate to Iraqi for full effect ;o)
USA voted for the resolution, and you cant come afterwards and say "we didnt
find anything", but we KNOW you have it, so we'll bomb you anyway.... that
is simply not how the world works, and thats why pretty much any nation on
this planet thinks a UN mandate is a must to start a war !!!
> C'mon Bimo, you are one of those
> people who no matter what the circumstances would be opposed to war, no
> matter what! No amount of evidence, shenanigans, lies, treachory, or
games
> would allow your pea brain to agree at some point you have to set limits.
No I aint...
If it's proven that Saddam is hiding nukes or chemical weapons, his country
should be put under administration.
If he doesnt want this, force should be used.
> Stop or I will yell Stop Again diplomacy that the UN has tried for the
last
> 11 years DOES NOT WORK!!!!!!! 11 years Bimo, 11 years he has played games
> and snubbed his nose at the international community. When in hell do you
> finally say enough?
Im not following you here...
What have UN tried for 11 years that havent succeeded ?
The fact that he is a dictator that nobody likes, and have continued to call
USA "the big satan" for the past 11 years, still doesnt give us the right to
blow him away....
> > The thing is Dusty. Iraq can NOT nuke of gas anybody at the moment, so
> there
> > is NO point in starting a war. Give the inspectors the time they need to
> > turn over every stone... go to war if he hides anything... and if he
> > doesn't, accept the UN resolution and keep out of Iraq...
> >
> > Bimo
>
> Just how in the hell do you know the above to be fact? Will it take an
> attack on a city with a nuke/chem/or bio to prove you wrong. Sorry Bimo
my
> friend, I don't have the conscience or the balls to bet a million or more
> lives on that statement above.
According to you, he should then be capable of deploying nukes or chemical
weapons at this time, and while the inspectors are in Iraq.
NOBODY think that this is possible.... check around
Bimo