On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:48:57 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

work that didnt leave me feeling dirty at the end of the shift.

Like having a severe (terminal) case of Winger's Disease
clearly should?
--
Cliff

On 16 Apr 2005 00:01:02 -0700, wrote:

I'd be interested to know exactly what kind of things could occur that
would leave a statist Bush supporter like you, "feeling dirty at the
end of the shift"?

He most admires:

A) Deficit spending.
B) Huge increases in central government.
C) Lies.
D) Removal of huge numbers of rights.
E) Having his house snooped.
F) Endless wars based on lies.
G) Reduction in education (it's "liberal").
H) Church (the right ones) in government.
J) Ignoring the Geneva Conventions.
K) War criminals.
L) Torture.
M) Ignoring the courts.
N) Selling things to special interests.
O) Keeping his best buddies out of jail.
P) Getting the Bin Ladens out of the US to safety.
Q) Pork.
R ..... this is getting to be a long list .... add to it.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:15:55 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

If spelling and grammar were THAT
important then English professors would probably be ruling the world,
that doesn't seem to be the case.

Because English Professors do ot teach things
like spelling?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:15:55 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Also, if your points are valid they should be able stand on their own
merits

Good.
Tell us were the WMDs are and about all of the other false claims
& lies.
Then tell us about how the US violated the UN charter against
exactly such wars & actions and why the UN refused (as most of the
world did and still does) to support the wars of aggression.

And why all of those treatires& agreements were broken & repudiated.

I think that BB is in for a bad weekend G.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:37:36 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote:

http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX

Go USA

[
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the
truth(especially among STUPID people).

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?
Where?


Read YOUR own lies up there again, Cliffie, if you can. Does you edition of the
Bill Clinton Dictionary define "no WMD's" as "some WMDs"?

What does ~1992 have to do with anything?
Found those WMD's or just too ashamed to be so known as
being so gullible?

BTW, a person who isn't fit to shine a soldier's boots shouldn't try to speak
for them. Poor form.

Or are you just claiming that you are STUPID?

Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional.

Too late for you to try that option, eh?

Poor little masochistic Cliffie. Can't get good attention, so he'll settle for
getting his ass kicked around Usenet. Hey, any attention is better than being
ignored, eh?

You seem confused .... wingers been at you again?
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:15:55 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Also, if your points are valid they should be able stand on their own
merits

Good.

Cliff:

Ipsmith stated the war was "illegal". Do YOU have evidence of that
illegality? He also said the war was immoral, but moral or immoral is a
personal value judgment. Anything could be immoral, or moral, to
someone.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On 16 Apr 2005 15:54:20 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

So they found all those tons of WMDs did they?
Where?

I believe some mustard gas and binary nerve agent artillary shells
have been found.

Empty, mangled things that *could once* *perhaps*
have been used as such, perhaps.
AFAIK All claims, when investigated & tested, have turned
out to be winger BS & lies.

Old wingerblogs cannot be used as any sort of "evidence"
(except of stupidity) and any simple check of them soon
finds the actual (sometimes later) *actual* facts.

Why do wingers so love lies & hate truth?
--
Cliff

On 16 Apr 2005 15:54:20 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

As I've said before, though, I can't blame George II for making
that charge, because Saddam was doing everything possible to
convince the world he DID have WMDs in huge quantities.

Like having UN inspectors inspect, claiming he had none,
things like that?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:56 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

It is actually very simple. For a nation of the size of the US to consider
bombing a country with over 50% children and to continue an admitted mistake
merely because of the rational that it somehow would be a mistake to back
down now proves it is murder. This is an issue or morality. A war waged and
continued under admitted falsities is a crime. Plain and simple.
The very best that can be said is that in spite of all the mistakes that
were made is that we must continue?
Sure sounds like an Adolph moment to me.

Proto

Proto,
Please consider snipping the old post from the bottom ....
--
Cliff

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:39:05 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:15:55 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Also, if your points are valid they should be able stand on their own
merits

Good.

Cliff:

Ipsmith stated the war was "illegal". Do YOU have evidence of that
illegality?

Do you have any that it was not?
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:39:05 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff:

Ipsmith stated the war was "illegal". Do YOU have evidence of that
illegality?

Do you have any that it was not?

Cliff:

YOU were supporting Ipsmith's claims, so it's up to you to support them
with factual evidence.


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

I believe if we had no tried so hard to appease the UN and the rest of the
world, and went in Iraq on a timely manner, you would be eating your words.
All of our negotiations with the UN, Russia, France, etc just gave them time
to move them to Syria or wherever.


"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On 16 Apr 2005 15:54:20 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

So they found all those tons of WMDs did they?
Where?

I believe some mustard gas and binary nerve agent artillary shells
have been found.

Empty, mangled things that *could once* *perhaps*
have been used as such, perhaps.
AFAIK All claims, when investigated & tested, have turned
out to be winger BS & lies.

Old wingerblogs cannot be used as any sort of "evidence"
(except of stupidity) and any simple check of them soon
finds the actual (sometimes later) *actual* facts.

Why do wingers so love lies & hate truth?
--
Cliff

Cliff,

I may not be able to prove anything to you, but what you can or could see
and touch definitely exists or has in the past... all the proof a sane
person needs. On the other hand, what you can't see or touch is no proof at
all that it's nonexistent, only that you don't know where it is. Your
hatred of sanity has clouded your thinking... a typical lefty loony disease.

George Willer

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:55:52 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote:

You're right, Ron. The pity is that we didn't go in quickly enough while
the WMD were still there and not moved out of the country, or not buried
out
in that vast desert. Then morons like Cliffie wouldn't be making such a
big
thing out of not being able to prove a negative. People like him will be
really ****ed when their whereabouts are finally determined.

Little green aliens stole it. It's now on Mars.
We must invade !!!

You cannot prove otherwise. Therefore it must be true.

Progressive Winger's Disease, Stage III?
--
Cliff

Proto,
Please consider snipping the old post from the bottom ....

Do you mean like this? I need to review a faq page on proper posting.
Sorry..

Grady wrote:

All of our negotiations with the UN, Russia, France, etc just gave them time
to move them to Syria or wherever.


Idiot.

Gunner wrote:

Chuckle..the 3 yrs I spent on the street taught me that law
enforcement was not my cup of tea. I found myself enforcing law that
I disagreed with, and my moral compass unfortunately was much stronger
than the corrupt officers I worked with. When people like you were
making their "appeals to authority" and the "authority" they were
using as some moral authority was every bit as criminal as the
criminals they were sworn to deal with..shrug..I left the force and
went into other lines of work..work that didnt leave me feeling dirty
at the end of the shift.

I knew it! You're an incurable romantic.
But I have a mystery for you, starring some of your favorite actors:
Who replaced Pablo Escobar and the Medellin cartel?

Gio

Of course Grady is right, but what purpose does your well reasoned response
serve? Oh, I get it... this is usenet so all idiotic liberal lefty comments
are to be expected.

George Willer

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Grady wrote:

All of our negotiations with the UN, Russia, France, etc just gave them
time to move them to Syria or wherever.


Idiot.

As an outsider from the other side of the world, ( though we've been sucked
into it) I believe that the problem was really caused by Bush 1.He should
have told Swartzkof not to stop when he had the chance in 1991.
My limited experience in bar fights suggests that you don't stop punching
until your enemy can't stand up. Or, was there another (oily ) reason that
they didn't want Sadam out at that time?



"George Willer" wrote in message
...
You're right, Ron. The pity is that we didn't go in quickly enough while
the WMD were still there and not moved out of the country, or not buried
out
in that vast desert. Then morons like Cliffie wouldn't be making such a
big
thing out of not being able to prove a negative. People like him will be
really ****ed when their whereabouts are finally determined.

George Willer

wrote in message
oups.com...

Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 05:59:07 GMT, Gunner

wrote:

And the Illuminati and the Masons are in charge of everything?

And what's wrong with the Masons?
--
Cliff

Hello all


I thought as a Retired member of the Military (23 Years US Navy),
I'd add a few comments! I did not really stand behind Prez Bushes
Decision to Go into Iraq, but now there, I see us as Needing to support
it! I was there in the 91 Gulf War and Got out in 98, I was in and out
of Both Kuait and Southern Iraq! We saw ample signs of many forms of
WMD, Both 155 Howdistzer shells with Mustard, VX and other Prohibited
weapons, as well as "AL SAMOD" Missles, NOT SURE I SPELLED THAT RIGHT?
As well, the Border with Syria was open to a Terrible amount of 18
Wheel Truck Traffic just before the Invasion. It's a simple deduction
that the WMD Stockpiles were moved to thier as well as Jordon! Both
countries have denied that,But Neither has been know for Honesty or
support of US or UN Causes! The weapons were there, The French and
Rusians admit to selling them a lot of dual Purpose to Build more,
what, did he have a Pang of Concious and destroyed it all? Grow up and
see the Evil for that which it is! They existed and still exist, now it
just a matter of who owns them now? Syria is a sister country in the
bathist Cause and would want to help Hussain at all costs! Just my .02
cents!




Ron

PS: not a darn thing wrong with Masons



Ron

BottleBob wrote:
wrote:


Yet you apparently support a war that is illegal and immoral.

IPSmith:

Let's see if we can pin down a couple of facts.

Sure.

You claim that the war
in IRAQ is "illegal", could you list the specific law that's binding
on
the U.S. that you believe is being broken?

The U.S. is a party to various treaties which clearly prohibit
aggressive war, treaties like the UN Charter.

I guess I incorrectly assumed that this was common knowledge. Our
government run schools have apparently seen to it that most Americans
are utterly clueless in such matters.

You claim the war is "immoral".

First of all, not all war is immoral, in my view. Obviously, it depends
on the circumstances. Those circumstances are spelled out generally in
treaties, and morally elucidated in the "Doctrine of Just War". Look it
up.

Put simply, aggressive war is immoral, defensive war is not.

In the case of Bush's present war against Iraq, it's plain to see that
it's immoral...it takes no sophisticated moral reasoning, IMO.

Could you please define what "immoral"
means to you.

In one important general sense regarding individual behavior, "immoral"
simply means doing something to someone else, directly or indirectly,
that you know you would not want done to yourself. Simple really.

It's when people don't follow this simple Christian doctrine of
reciprocity, usually necessitating the involvement of third parties,
that things get complicated.


The answer to a couple of simple examples might be
illuminating.

It might be, in a "simple" case, but there are complicated real life
situations that require sophisticated "moral reasoning", which, I'm
sorry to say, seems usually way beyond the moral competency of most
Americans.

I not going to sit here and say I have all the answers, either. I
don't, and I won't pretend to.

Is it "immoral" for to kill a person that is endangering
the lives of others,

Obviously, that would depend very much on the circumstances, no? It may
ultimately boil down to what's in the heart of the person who does the
killing, i.e., it may not be possible for an observer to always
determine whether a certain action taken by a certain person was
morally proper on not.

This is in part why, in my view, the most important qualification of a
politician or statesmen is his moral competency; his experience in
matters of state, is secondary, at best.

or is it "immoral" to execute serial killers.

All I can say in general is that I believe "serial killers" who are
"mentally competent" would generally be "morally defenseless", against
state sponsored execution.

As to whether or not state sponsored execution would be morally
acceptable, I think it depends on circumstances. I really don't think
you can generalize in such matters. All you can do is to develop moral
guidelines to be implemented by morally competent people.

Could a heart surgeon explain to a novice in this forum how to do a
quadruple heart bypass operation, such that the novice can go out
tomorrow and perform the operation? I don't think so.

All complicated surgeries are not the same, right? A surgeon has to
depend on his competency in his skills to get him through an operation
where things don't always go just right.

Is
ALL killing "immoral" or just some?

I think I've essentially answered that. Depending on circumstances,
killing in self-defense would be morally acceptable, in my view.


BTW, we're all not English majors in here, so spelling, grammar,
typos,
and punctuation flames are, IMO, weak and tend to make the accuser
appear petty and ineffectual.

That depends, IMO.

If spelling and grammar were THAT
important then English professors would probably be ruling the world,
that doesn't seem to be the case.

If someone demonstrates a lack of understanding of simple grammar, I've
generally found it unlikely that they are in any position to debate
issues involving complex moral reasoning.

If you were consulting several doctors regarding a complicated,
life-saving operation you required, with everything else being the
same, who would you choose, the doctor who picked his nose for five
minutes, right in front of you, or the doctor who was not so rank?


Also, if your points are valid they should be able stand on their
own
merits and not need any bolstering emotional component in the form of
statements made solely for the intention of belittling and demeaning
others.

The problem, BottleBob, is that regardless of the merit of my position,
my points are really "valid" only to the extent the other party in the
"discussion" is open-mined, morally and mentally competent, and
intellectually honest. A rare combination on usenet.


PS I'm posting from a.m.c, which group are you posting from? This
information will let me remove any irrelevant crossposted groups.

Unfortunately I don't have much time in the next few days for much
"discussion".


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

Tom Miller wrote:

As an outsider from the other side of the world, ( though we've been sucked
into it) I believe that the problem was really caused by Bush 1.He should
have told Swartzkof not to stop when he had the chance in 1991.

Right after the "catastrophic success" Bush 1 merely suggested that we
finish the job when he was immediately met with threats of impeachment
by a Democrat controlled Congress and the mainstream press practically
declared he was breaking the alliance and starting World War 3.

That's why we didn't go into Bagdad.

Or, was there another (oily ) reason that
they didn't want Sadam out at that time?

Because if we did Bush would win the next election hands down. That's
also why Bush was under so much pressure to sign that "no new taxes" tax
bill.


The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said:

http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg


The press lied about who lied about WMD:

http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...y/WMD-liar.mov

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote:

http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX

Go USA

[
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the
truth(especially among STUPID people).

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?

Notice the lie changed in mid-stream there? When caught in a lie, it's always
good to TRY to change it and hope nobody notices.

Where?

Aww, poor little Cliffie is confused again. No, not again, STILL confused. Again
would mean he stopped at some point, which he gave no evidence of doing.
(snip)

On 16 Apr 2005 15:54:20 GMT, (Frank White) wrote:

In article , says...

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote:

http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX

Go USA

[
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the
truth(especially among STUPID people).

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?
Where?

I believe some mustard gas and binary nerve agent artillary shells
have been found. But the stockpiles of atomic/biological/chemical
weapons Iraq was supposed to have, simply don't seem to exist.

The TONS of chemical weapons he allegedly buried probably still exist, since
burying them in sand usually doesn't harm them.

As I've said before, though, I can't blame George II for making
that charge, because Saddam was doing everything possible to
convince the world he DID have WMDs in huge quantities. I can
blame Dubya for all sort of things, but not that.

Might as well. The dumbDemocrats are trying to blame him for everything anyway.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:30:00 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:37:36 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote:

http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX

Go USA

[
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the
truth(especially among STUPID people).

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?
Where?

So, Cliffie, why are there 2 different versions of this lie in this thread? Was
one version not enough? Need more weasel room?


Read YOUR own lies up there again, Cliffie, if you can. Does you edition of the
Bill Clinton Dictionary define "no WMD's" as "some WMDs"?

What does ~1992 have to do with anything?

Do you have a more current edition? Are you going with the Hillary Clinton
Dictionary of DoubleSpeak?

Found those WMD's or just too ashamed to be so known as
being so gullible?

Are you going to redefine WMD's yet again? How many redefinitions does this
make? Are you going to redefine the phrase every time something else happens?
Must be darned inconvenient for you lieberals, eh?

BTW, a person who isn't fit to shine a soldier's boots shouldn't try to speak
for them. Poor form.

Or are you just claiming that you are STUPID?

Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional.

Too late for you to try that option, eh?

Poor little masochistic Cliffie. Can't get good attention, so he'll settle for
getting his ass kicked around Usenet. Hey, any attention is better than being
ignored, eh?

You seem confused .... wingers been at you again?

Yep, Cliffie's confused, babbling still.

"Willcox" wrote in message
ss.com...
Tom Miller wrote:

As an outsider from the other side of the world, ( though we've been
sucked
into it) I believe that the problem was really caused by Bush 1.He
should
have told Swartzkof not to stop when he had the chance in 1991.

Right after the "catastrophic success" Bush 1 merely suggested that we
finish the job when he was immediately met with threats of impeachment
by a Democrat controlled Congress and the mainstream press practically
declared he was breaking the alliance and starting World War 3.

That's why we didn't go into Bagdad.

Or, was there another (oily ) reason that
they didn't want Sadam out at that time?

Because if we did Bush would win the next election hands down. That's
also why Bush was under so much pressure to sign that "no new taxes" tax
bill.


The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said:

http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg

Your reference clips the 9-11 Commission report at an interesting and
probably (for them) a convenient place. Here's what they left out, after
their last sentence, "According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered
Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq..."

"Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in
Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports
describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides'
hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these
or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational
relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with
al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United
States. [76]"

That's from the Commission Report. It's exactly the way _The New York Times_
reported it, and other print media reported much the same thing.

--
Ed Huntress

In article szf8e.24422$gs4.19743@okepread05, says...

I believe if we had no tried so hard to appease the UN and the rest of the
world, and went in Iraq on a timely manner, you would be eating your words.
All of our negotiations with the UN, Russia, France, etc just gave them time
to move them to Syria or wherever.

I don't understand where this 'Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria'
idea comes from.

The guy running Syria and Saddam DID NOT like each. With a
capital 'hate'. Stalin would have been more likely to send
all of the Soviet Union's nukes to Mao in Communist China
AFTER he broke with Russian Communist dogma and went off on
his own, than Saddam would have been to give HIS goodies to
the Syrians. I suspect the trucks and convoys that went
roaring into Syria contained money, files, and men instead
of WMDs, and that SAddam was sending them to ships waiting
in Syrian harbors to be taken safely out of the area; the
money to go into his accounts overseas, and the men and
material to set up for a guerilla war so they could come
back after the invasion and kick American boo-thay...

FW

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:05:24 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:55:52 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote:

You're right, Ron. The pity is that we didn't go in quickly enough while
the WMD were still there and not moved out of the country, or not buried
out
in that vast desert. Then morons like Cliffie wouldn't be making such a
big
thing out of not being able to prove a negative. People like him will be
really ****ed when their whereabouts are finally determined.

Little green aliens stole it. It's now on Mars.
We must invade !!!

You cannot prove otherwise. Therefore it must be true.

Progressive Winger's Disease, Stage III?

George,
Bottom posting, often with snippage, is often a good method,
so I moved your response to the bottom and snipped my prior
sig for you.

Cliff,

I may not be able to prove anything to you, but what you can or could see
and touch definitely exists or has in the past... all the proof a sane
person needs.

What existed in the past is no cause for actions in the present.
Hitler existed in the past. Are you saying that we should bomb
Germany today?

If you use that sort of "reasoning" I'd question your sanity as well
as your progressive Winger's Disease.

On the other hand, what you can't see or touch is no proof at
all that it's nonexistent,

It's clearly NOT proof that it exists, now is it?

only that you don't know where it is.

The neocons claimed that they knew (but refused to tell the UN's
inspectors).
Now we find out that these were just more of their lies.

Invading Mars soon are you?

Your hatred of sanity has clouded your thinking... a typical lefty loony disease.

See above.
Get help. Probably any second grader would do ....

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:39:27 -0700,
(Willcox) wrote:

The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said:

http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg


The press lied about who lied about WMD:

http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...y/WMD-liar.mov

You clearly have comprehension problems.
Don't trust winger-blogs.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:19:59 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:39:05 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff:

Ipsmith stated the war was "illegal". Do YOU have evidence of that
illegality?

Do you have any that it was not?

Cliff:

YOU were supporting Ipsmith's claims, so it's up to you to support them
with factual evidence.

You are supporting the winger's. Do you have any foorp at all?

Since when is the murder of over 100,000 legal?
Since when is violating the Geneva Conventions legal?
Since when is violating the UN charter legal?
Since when are war crimes legal?
Since when are wars not declared by congress legal?
Since when is torture legal?

Nice long list but chew on those a bit to begin with.

Buy some clues too.

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:39:48 -0500, "Grady" wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On 16 Apr 2005 15:54:20 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

So they found all those tons of WMDs did they?
Where?

I believe some mustard gas and binary nerve agent artillary shells
have been found.

Empty, mangled things that *could once* *perhaps*
have been used as such, perhaps.
AFAIK All claims, when investigated & tested, have turned
out to be winger BS & lies.

Old wingerblogs cannot be used as any sort of "evidence"
(except of stupidity) and any simple check of them soon
finds the actual (sometimes later) *actual* facts.

Why do wingers so love lies & hate truth?

Grady,
I moved your reply to the bottom for you. No charge today
for educating wingers.


I believe if we had no tried so hard to appease the UN

By kicking the UN's inspectors out?
By starting a war that the UN was very much against?
By tapping their phones?
By telling them blatent lies?

Which did you have in mind?

and the rest of the world,

Instead you are well known to blindly follow lying scum and
approve of murder, torture, lies, etc., etc.

and went in Iraq on a timely manner, you would be eating your words.

snicker

So you are eating yours, are you?

All of our negotiations with the UN, Russia, France, etc just gave them time
to move them to Syria or wherever.

Moved all those tons of stuff *that the trrops did not even bother
to look for because it was known that they did not exist* to
Mars, did they?

Do your neighbors look at you oddly? Lock their doors whan
you go by?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:16:55 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Grady wrote:

All of our negotiations with the UN, Russia, France, etc just gave them
time to move them to Syria or wherever.


Idiot.


Of course Grady is right,

HE has the WMDs?

WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS????

but what purpose does your well reasoned response
serve? Oh, I get it... this is usenet so all idiotic liberal lefty comments
are to be expected.

George Willer

Two in a row.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:26:21 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Proto,
Please consider snipping the old post from the bottom ....

Do you mean like this? I need to review a faq page on proper posting.
Sorry..

Just fine & dandy .... but you may wish to also leave that header
bit in .... see the one above .... shows who you responded to ...
usually ...
--
Cliff

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:55:07 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote:

http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX

Go USA

[
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the
truth(especially among STUPID people).

So they found all those tons of WMDs did they?

Notice the lie changed in mid-stream there?

The one about all of thse WMDs?
Not my lie.
Try again if you are so confused.

When caught in a lie, it's always
good to TRY to change it and hope nobody notices.

Found those WMDs did you?
Where?

Where?

Aww, poor little Cliffie is confused again. No, not again, STILL confused. Again
would mean he stopped at some point, which he gave no evidence of doing.
(snip)

So you in fact have none ......

Considered buying clues?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:56:51 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On 16 Apr 2005 15:54:20 GMT, (Frank White) wrote:

In article , says...

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote:

http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX

Go USA

[
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the
truth(especially among STUPID people).

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?
Where?

I believe some mustard gas and binary nerve agent artillary shells
have been found. But the stockpiles of atomic/biological/chemical
weapons Iraq was supposed to have, simply don't seem to exist.

The TONS of chemical weapons he allegedly buried probably still exist, since
burying them in sand usually doesn't harm them.

Pity that they can find nobody that buried them.
Did they offer a huge reward or just torture people?

Or did they instead just camp out in ammo bunkers and not
even bother to look, knowing that there were none ....? Then
march on after breaking camp and take over the Oil Ministry,hunting
for WMDs?

As I've said before, though, I can't blame George II for making
that charge, because Saddam was doing everything possible to
convince the world he DID have WMDs in huge quantities. I can
blame Dubya for all sort of things, but not that.

Might as well. The dumbDemocrats are trying to blame him for everything anyway.


There are dumb ones there too.
But they are not the raving pack of lying loons ...
--
Cliff

On 17 Apr 2005 04:28:52 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

In article szf8e.24422$gs4.19743@okepread05, says...

I believe if we had no tried so hard to appease the UN and the rest of the
world, and went in Iraq on a timely manner, you would be eating your words.
All of our negotiations with the UN, Russia, France, etc just gave them time
to move them to Syria or wherever.

I don't understand where this 'Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria'
idea comes from.

The guy running Syria and Saddam DID NOT like each.

Syria seems to be one of the places that the CIA sends
folks to for torture in their plane(s) after kidnapping
them in other nations.

With a
capital 'hate'. Stalin would have been more likely to send
all of the Soviet Union's nukes to Mao in Communist China
AFTER he broke with Russian Communist dogma and went off on
his own, than Saddam would have been to give HIS goodies to
the Syrians. I suspect the trucks and convoys that went
roaring into Syria contained money, files, and men instead
of WMDs, and that SAddam was sending them to ships waiting
in Syrian harbors to be taken safely out of the area; the
money to go into his accounts overseas, and the men and
material to set up for a guerilla war so they could come
back after the invasion and kick American boo-thay...

Are you calling bush & the neocons liars?
They've now admitted that there were no "WMDs".

Perhaps the trucks were evacuating foreign nationals
& their posessions?
The Russians also say "No WMDs in the trucks".

Try doing some research instead of reading old
wingerblogs?

The wingers & neocons have told hundreds of lies so far ..
NOW you want to buy this one?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 04:01:10 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:30:00 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:37:36 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote:

http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX

Go USA

[
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the
truth(especially among STUPID people).

So they found all those tons of WMDs did they?
Where?

So, Cliffie, why are there 2 different versions of this lie in this thread? Was
one version not enough? Need more weasel room?

Are you drooling on your keyboard again?
Remember what happened last time .....


Read YOUR own lies up there again, Cliffie, if you can. Does you edition of the
Bill Clinton Dictionary define "no WMD's" as "some WMDs"?

What does ~1992 have to do with anything?

Do you have a more current edition? Are you going with the Hillary Clinton
Dictionary of DoubleSpeak?

I guess your memory of events is rather poor.
Symptom of Winger's Disease, usually.

Better get tested ASAP.

Found those WMD's or just too ashamed to be so known as
being so gullible?

Are you going to redefine WMD's yet again? How many redefinitions does this
make? Are you going to redefine the phrase every time something else happens?
Must be darned inconvenient for you lieberals, eh?

Visions of sugar plums too?

BTW, a person who isn't fit to shine a soldier's boots shouldn't try to speak
for them. Poor form.

Or are you just claiming that you are STUPID?

Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional.

Too late for you to try that option, eh?

Poor little masochistic Cliffie. Can't get good attention, so he'll settle for
getting his ass kicked around Usenet. Hey, any attention is better than being
ignored, eh?

You seem confused .... wingers been at you again?

Yep, Cliffie's confused, babbling still.

I think that they took his money ....
--
Cliff

"Cliff"

Might as well. The dumbDemocrats are trying to blame him for everything
anyway.


There are dumb ones there too.
But they are not the raving pack of lying loons ...
--
Cliff

Are you trying to be serious? That's a hard case to make to anyone who has
read anything you have written.

George Willer

Cliff wrote:

"Quotations about Patriotism."


snipped

Patriotism

Main Entry: pa=B7tri=B7ot=B7ism
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-
Function: noun
: love for or devotion to one's country

Main Entry: pa=B7tri=B7ot
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&t, -"=E4t, chiefly British 'pa-trE-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota,
from Greek patriOtEs, from patria lineage, from patr-, patEr father
: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and
interests


Main Entry: com=B7mu=B7nist
Pronunciation: 'k=E4m-y&-nist
Function: noun
1 : an adherent or advocate of communism
2 capitalized : COMMUNARD
3 a capitalized : a member of a Communist party or movement b often
capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a Communist government, party,
or movement
4 often capitalized : one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or
revolutionary activities
- communist adjective, often capitalized
- com=B7mu=B7nis=B7tic /"k=E4m-y&-'nis-tik/ adjective, often capitalized
- com=B7mu=B7nis=B7ti=B7cal=B7ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


Cliff, since it is obvious, you are not a patriot, are you a communist?
anarchist?

:/

On misc.survivalism, in
.com,
"Halcitron" wrote:

Hmmm....Could the gibberish below be why only plain text
is supposed to be used on text newsgroups?

Cliff wrote:

"Quotations about Patriotism."


snipped

Patriotism

Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m,
chiefly British 'pa- Function: noun : love for or devotion to
one's country

Main Entry: pa·tri·ot Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&t, -"ät, chiefly
British 'pa-trE-&t Function: noun Etymology: Middle French
patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek
patriOtEs, from patria lineage, from patr-, patEr father : one
who loves his or her country and supports its authority and
interests


Main Entry: com·mu·nist Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-nist Function:
noun 1 : an adherent or advocate of communism 2 capitalized :
COMMUNARD 3 a capitalized : a member of a Communist party or
movement b often capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a
Communist government, party, or movement 4 often capitalized :
one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or revolutionary
activities - communist adjective, often capitalized -
com·mu·nis·tic /"käm-y&-'nis-tik/ adjective, often capitalized
- com·mu·nis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


Cliff, since it is obvious, you are not a patriot, are you a
communist? anarchist?

:/



"Religion is the opiate of the people. But it's the heart of a
heartless world."

--Karl Marx

What the Russians and the West called "Communism" was about
as much like what Karl Marx had in mind as Capitalism is
what the Founding Fathers of America had in mind.

Or what is called "Christianity" resembles what Jesus had
in mind.

All three groups are just pirates hiding behind one or more
documents that they give little but lip service to.

Many of them are so far gone that they believe their own
bullsit. That would be billions of people, all told.


AC


--
If you posted to me, and I didn't reply to your post, it is
because I didn't read it. If I didn't read it, I won't be reading
any responses to it. Nor will I be reading any other posts by
that alias, regardless of the subject, nor any responses to them.

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:19:59 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:39:05 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff:

Ipsmith stated the war was "illegal". Do YOU have evidence of that
illegality?

Do you have any that it was not?

Cliff:

YOU were supporting Ipsmith's claims, so it's up to you to support them
with factual evidence.

You are supporting the winger's. Do you have any foorp at all?

Cliff:

Silly Wabbit, I'm "supporting" no one. Go back and re-read my original
post to Ipsmith for content, and not as a basis for one of your
off-the-wall emotional knee-jerk reactions. I asked Ipsmith: "...could
you list the specific law that's binding on the U.S. that you believe is
being broken?". I also asked him what immoral means to him.

snip rest of your comments that are totally irrelevant to my original
comments

I thought you said in another post that you could READ. This proves
you see the personal bogeymen that you WANT to see regardless of the
content of the post.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 05:36:21 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:56:51 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On 16 Apr 2005 15:54:20 GMT, (Frank White) wrote:

In article , says...

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote:

http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX

Go USA

[
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the
truth(especially among STUPID people).

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?
Where?

I believe some mustard gas and binary nerve agent artillary shells
have been found. But the stockpiles of atomic/biological/chemical
weapons Iraq was supposed to have, simply don't seem to exist.

The TONS of chemical weapons he allegedly buried probably still exist, since
burying them in sand usually doesn't harm them.

Pity that they can find nobody that buried them.
Did they offer a huge reward or just torture people?

No, all they have is the claims by Saddam Hussein's people that they buried
them. If they didn't bury them, they must still have them stockpiled somewhere.
Imagine what that would do for all you lieberal apologist tail-chasers spinning
around trying to cover for his lies all these years. :/

Or did they instead just camp out in ammo bunkers and not
even bother to look, knowing that there were none ....? Then
march on after breaking camp and take over the Oil Ministry,hunting
for WMDs?

I guess somebody wasn't paying attention too well. Don't remember UN inspectors
being repeatedly denied access and thrown out of Iraq, eh? Some more of that
selective memory, I suppose.

As I've said before, though, I can't blame George II for making
that charge, because Saddam was doing everything possible to
convince the world he DID have WMDs in huge quantities. I can
blame Dubya for all sort of things, but not that.

Might as well. The dumbDemocrats are trying to blame him for everything anyway.


There are dumb ones there too.
But they are not the raving pack of lying loons ...

No, that's why we have these Incredible Morphing Lies, eh?
No WMD's, uhhh, NO TONS of WMD's, what's it gonna be next? No POUNDS of WMD's?