On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:42:45 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:08:52 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:51:32 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

How many chemical weapons were the Iraqis allowed to keep under the surrender
treaty they signed?

How many did they have?

Hmmm, the answer to a "How many" question is a question. Yep,
integrity-challenged. Playing Dodge-the-Question still, eh?

IOW They told the truth and your beloved neocons are murdering
fundie loons on a rampage and lying to you.
And you are indeed a fool.


What's that again?

Integrity-challenged.

No "WMDs", eh?

Louder, please !!!

INTEGRITY-CHALLENGED.

None at all?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:00:04 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

I say we should have stayed home and fixed this county and let those
foreigners fix their own broken government.

One can always offer gentle aid to actually try to help
people.
It's usually far cheaper and more effective as well.

Perhaps the UN Human Rights group (which Herr shrubbie
& the neocons got the US thrown out of) needs a few teeth
and a larger budget too.

In the specific case of Iraq, even if some claims were true, not
much was ever going to happen with UN inspectors and the press
(now guarded & sequestered "for their own safety") watching on
... and that sort of thing was cheap and very cost-effective.

Not that the wingers cared one whit before the trumped up
war, except to whine & bitch about humanitarian efforts
& costs and "its none of our business".
--
Cliff

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

Which is why there was a combined effort to throw Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.
After this, there was a ceasefire, with conditions imposed on Iraq. Hint:
ceasefire means a state of war still existed in 2003, and exists now.

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.

No, most of us are well aware of this, and most of us recognize that Iraq was
not complying with the post Desert Storm conditions.

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.

You think we should not have thrown Iraq out of Kuwait? This is one war, not two.

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.

Unfortunately, our political system has demonstrated an inability to select
moral, competent leaders. Since Truman, anyway.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:00:04 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

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

Grady wrote:
I think it would best serve your argument of "mass murder" if you
could post some support factual truth. This does not mean some
drivel from some left wing web site either. I will be the first to
admit that the mistakes of a few have caused some shame for the US,
but I don't see anything that remotely resembles "mass murder".

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

Are you claiming that the military targets such as command and control
head quarters, ammo dumps, Republican Guard barracks and so forth,
were filled with 50% children?

Doesnt speak well for Saddam does it?


I consider things like the cluster bombs the US uses along with land mines
in general which in this high tech age are considered by many to be wrong.

And many, myself included think when properly applied, are right.

Anti personal mines in city combat was never in any book these present day
military leaders ever read.

You are not much of a student of history, are you?

Do you actually believe only military targets
were destroyed and what ever happened along the way is of no consequence?

Of course not. It sucks to be a civie during a war. You Really need to
do your homework on military history and civilian casualties. How
bout googling "Dresden", then follow up with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Add Nanking to your reading list.

The families of the 100,000+ dead civilians should be thanking the US for
liberating their country and getting rid of that evil dictator Sadam instead
of wanting an harm to come to their liberators.

Which 100,000 dead civilians might that be? Ok...Ill play. Cites?
No leftwing blogs are allowed btw.

Let's see that might be a
million if you include relatives. But wait. George said the Iraqis love us
and just have not yet had the chance to throw those flowers yet.

No..wait ...that million was the number of children starved by the
Embargo. At least, thats what you who live and breath by soundbites
said.

You really dont know much about this or any other war do you? Only
what your absorb from the Leftwing Fringe Kooks. Might want to work
on that issue a bit. It makes you look mighty foolish.

I say we should have stayed home and fixed this county and let those
foreigners fix their own broken government. What the hell is wrong with
that?

Because its far better to fight them on their territory now, then wait
around and have them try to kill you on your territory.

Perhaps you should take some remedial courses in military history,
geopolitics and concentrate on the History Channel before showing your
ass here.
Proto

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:46:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:19:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We attacked Iraq under false pretenses, selected and cooked up to make
a
good story. In the end, we're left cooking up more stories to justify
our
actions. If I'm keeping up, the current story is that we just attacked
a
country, killed thousands of their civilians, and wound up with over
1,000
of our own troops killed so we could bring elections for theocratic
political parties to Iraq. Is that the latest, or have we come up with
something else?

--
Ed Huntress

Based on the dates in the following quotes, it appears the Democrats
cooked the books, made up the "lies". You should complain to your
handlers in the DNC

The quotes you have are people talking about what they knew, or thought
they
knew, but which lacked the certainty necessary for going to war. It was
enough for international politics, for sabre-rattling and posturing, but
not
enough to send troops to their deaths.

The numbnutz neocons don't seem to know the difference. They took some
flimsy evidence, filled with caveats and uncertainties, and used it to
attack another country and to kill by the thousands -- other people, and
our
own troops.

That's the difference. You have politicians, and you have ideologues who
live a fantasy life who think the world stage is a pulp-fiction novel.
And
now tens of thousands of people are dead, we're looking around trying to
figure out why, and the most we'll have to show for it is a change of
government (for better or worse will depend on the degree to which
theocrats
wind up running it) in a country halfway around the world that never even
laid a hand on us.

Does that make you proud?

It makes me proud that Saddam is finally gone, you Libs
notwithstanding...
It makes me proud that you Libs are ****ed and running scared
It makes me proud that Libs hypocrasy is so well exposed.
etc.
And it makes me Proud, to be an American.

And how many more American lives do you think should be sacrificed for the
sake of your pride?

I'm proud to be an American, too. But I'm not so proud of the way some of my
fellow Americans are ready to see people die for the sake of *their* pride.

Because you have nothing to show for all of those lives, Gunner, except for
your pride.

--
Ed Huntress

"Willcox" wrote in message
ss.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com...
The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there
were
no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based
on
the
actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk
and
some
wishful thinking, but no "ties."

Tied to defination of "ties" i guess.

Well, if you're going to call an entire institution "liars," you'd
better
have your definition down pat. The Commission said there were no ties.
The
quotation omitted that, conveniently.

The Commission DID NOT say there were no ties. Stop making things up.

They said that they saw no evidence of ties. So there was no justification
on those grounds to invade, right?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Yeah. No evidence, or proof. Did you actually READ the references in the
9-11 Commission report? Or are you just parroting more crap that you
haven't
checked?

Ive read that report backwards and forwards. Likely am far more
familiar with it than you are.

So, what's your conclusion, Gunner? And who would you like to invade
next...now that you're too old to worry about it?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:46:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

handlers in the DNC

The quotes you have are people talking about what they knew, or thought
they
knew, but which lacked the certainty necessary for going to war. It was
enough for international politics, for sabre-rattling and posturing, but
not
enough to send troops to their deaths.

Not true. The Left, so profoundly represented in those quotes, was
occupied with other matters. But they did have time for Monica
Missiles.

Then of course, there was Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia etc etc etc.....

Still an apologist for the Left I see.....

'Still looking for excuses to kill thousands of people you don't like, I
see. And excuses for the numbnutz neocons who laugh their asses off at the
libertarians for voting for them.

Why don't you just admit it, Gunner? Our government exaggerated what they
knew, lied about some things they really didn't know and KNEW they didn't
know, but claimed they did, and generally led us down the primrose path to
war.

It was like the Tonkin Gulf, all over again.

--
Ed Huntress

Cliff wrote:


I still find the carriers headed to Afghanistan's local waters
the week after 9-11 VERY suspect as well.


Uhm Cliff,

Afghanistan is land locked.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:17:11 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Im fascinated that the chairman of the committee claims that there Was
links.


You seem to be illiterate.
HTH

Seem to be illiterate?!?

If it were possible, he would receive an honorary degree in Illiteracy. And if
he could have studied it (although that would present a contradiction in terms)
he would have graduated Summa Cum Laude.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:16:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Yeah. No evidence, or proof. Did you actually READ the references in the
9-11 Commission report? Or are you just parroting more crap that you
haven't
checked?

Ive read that report backwards and forwards. Likely am far more
familiar with it than you are.

So, what's your conclusion, Gunner? And who would you like to invade
next...now that you're too old to worry about it?

Conclusion about what? Whether or not Iraq had WMDs? Of course they
did. Even the UN admits it. Now the next question is, where did they
go? Were they destroyed in a proper and timely manner? Unlikely with
a maniac like Saddam at the helm. Where did they go? No one knows.
But they will turn up.

And interestingly enough, we are both still alive..which means neither
of us are too old do die from them, if we are in the wrong place when
they do turn up.

It was quite obvious that Sadams staff, like Hitlers, was running
scared of the old *******....and his Feyadeen/sons/staff. He had the
tendency, like the SS, to correct errors and bad news with a bullet to
the back of the skull. Was his programs as far along as everyone
seemed to think? Probably not. Did the programs exist? Yep. But
they could have been simply on paper. Seems unlikely though..even a
micromanager like him would sooner or later find out if he was being
snowballed..and of course the penalty for that, was death, not just to
the poor ******* who was running the big windy..but to his family as
well.

Did the Russians help move them? Seems there is a good body of
evidence to that effect, though mostly ancedotal. But where they
went..no one knows.

As to invading someone..why would we? We corrected our mistake in not
finishing the job in Sandbox1, and spanked Saddam for 12 yrs of cease
fire agreement violations. We have enough operatives working in Iran
at the moment, and with a bit of luck, they will foment a revolution
against the mullahs by the Iranians themselves. The Palistinian
problem is being corrected, the Indians and the Pakistanis are licking
each others feet, Libya is on a leash, and Syria is running scared.

Things are coming together just nicely.

The next headache will be Korea..but I suspect we can buy the crazy
******* off like Clinton did..and with luck, he will die before long,
which will solve a lot of problems.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:43:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:46:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:19:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We attacked Iraq under false pretenses, selected and cooked up to make
a
good story. In the end, we're left cooking up more stories to justify
our
actions. If I'm keeping up, the current story is that we just attacked
a
country, killed thousands of their civilians, and wound up with over
1,000
of our own troops killed so we could bring elections for theocratic
political parties to Iraq. Is that the latest, or have we come up with
something else?

--
Ed Huntress

Based on the dates in the following quotes, it appears the Democrats
cooked the books, made up the "lies". You should complain to your
handlers in the DNC

The quotes you have are people talking about what they knew, or thought
they
knew, but which lacked the certainty necessary for going to war. It was
enough for international politics, for sabre-rattling and posturing, but
not
enough to send troops to their deaths.

The numbnutz neocons don't seem to know the difference. They took some
flimsy evidence, filled with caveats and uncertainties, and used it to
attack another country and to kill by the thousands -- other people, and
our
own troops.

That's the difference. You have politicians, and you have ideologues who
live a fantasy life who think the world stage is a pulp-fiction novel.
And
now tens of thousands of people are dead, we're looking around trying to
figure out why, and the most we'll have to show for it is a change of
government (for better or worse will depend on the degree to which
theocrats
wind up running it) in a country halfway around the world that never even
laid a hand on us.

Does that make you proud?

It makes me proud that Saddam is finally gone, you Libs
notwithstanding...
It makes me proud that you Libs are ****ed and running scared
It makes me proud that Libs hypocrasy is so well exposed.
etc.
And it makes me Proud, to be an American.

And how many more American lives do you think should be sacrificed for the
sake of your pride?

I'm proud to be an American, too. But I'm not so proud of the way some of my
fellow Americans are ready to see people die for the sake of *their* pride.

Because you have nothing to show for all of those lives, Gunner, except for
your pride.

My pride? I find it interesting you snipped so much of the post. Let
me correct that for you.....

It makes me proud that Saddam is finally gone, you Libs
notwithstanding.
It makes me proud that they have elections, a government is forming
and things are on the mend in Iraq.
It makes me proud that the middle east is undergoing big changes and
eventually they all will join the 21st century.
It makes me proud that a 12th century culture is coming along so
fast.
It makes me proud of our soldiers.
It makes me proud that the Kurds are prospering and are no longer
hunted like animals
It makes me proud the childrens prisons are empty
It makes me proud the rape camps are gone.
It makes me proud the wood chippers and acid baths are no longer
claiming Saddams enemies
It makes me proud that Qusay and Uday no longer snatch young girls off
the street, rape then kill them.
It makes me proud that Saddam is no longer starving his people
It makes me proud that Iraqis are getting water and utilites they have
not had as Saddam turned them off as punishment.
It makes me proud that hard case Jihadists are dying like flies
It makes me proud that you Libs are ****ed and running scared
It makes me proud that Libs hypocrasy is so well exposed


Seems to me, that we have a lot to show for it, Ed. And I left out the
part where 25,000,000 Iraqis are now free to persue rebuilding their
nation in a democracy, free from a mad dictator who considered his
people simply expendable pawns to further his own power and fortune.

Seems like a lot to me. But then..I never spent time under a bridge
groked out of my skull on pot and playing at being a hippie..

I was too busy shedding my blood for my country. Odd how that tends
to put a different outlook on life. No?

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:20:47 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:46:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

handlers in the DNC

The quotes you have are people talking about what they knew, or thought
they
knew, but which lacked the certainty necessary for going to war. It was
enough for international politics, for sabre-rattling and posturing, but
not
enough to send troops to their deaths.

Not true. The Left, so profoundly represented in those quotes, was
occupied with other matters. But they did have time for Monica
Missiles.

Then of course, there was Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia etc etc etc.....

Still an apologist for the Left I see.....

'Still looking for excuses to kill thousands of people you don't like, I
see. And excuses for the numbnutz neocons who laugh their asses off at the
libertarians for voting for them.

Why don't you just admit it, Gunner? Our government exaggerated what they
knew, lied about some things they really didn't know and KNEW they didn't
know, but claimed they did, and generally led us down the primrose path to
war.

It was like the Tonkin Gulf, all over again.


Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm?

Indeed. Another bloodthirsty braindamaged evil ****ing DemonRat.
When Iraq consumes 55,000 brave men and women..we can discuss the
subject.

Your bile is noted. And disregarded.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:43:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Because you have nothing to show for all of those lives, Gunner, except
for
your pride.

My pride? I find it interesting you snipped so much of the post. Let
me correct that for you.....

I snipped your post because you snipped the part about the tens of thousands
of people, including over 1,000 Americans, we sent to their deaths so that
Iraqis would have a choice of voting for Shiite Islamists or Sunni
Islamists. You seem to have lost sight of the question and you need to
re-focus.


Seems to me, that we have a lot to show for it, Ed.

"It" is tens of thousands of lives. How do you think their families feel
about it? 'Glad we came and killed off their brothers, sisters, mothers, and
fathers?

And I left out the
part where 25,000,000 Iraqis are now free to persue rebuilding their
nation in a democracy, free from a mad dictator who considered his
people simply expendable pawns to further his own power and fortune.

Hot damn. They'll be singing La Marseillaise before you know it.


Seems like a lot to me. But then..I never spent time under a bridge
groked out of my skull on pot and playing at being a hippie..

You were too busy diving for dinner in a dumpster, with your feet up in the
air and your head down among the rotten turnips. g


I was too busy shedding my blood for my country. Odd how that tends
to put a different outlook on life. No?

I'm sure glad you beat those commie heathens for us, Gunner. If you hadn't
won that war, we'd probably be drinking vodka Martinis instead of gin
Martinis now, and who knows what else.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:42:32 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:29:14 -0700, "Dan" wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:

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.

Can you please point out the lie.

The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

That's Version #1 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.

So they found all those tons of WMDs did they?

That's Version #2 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.

There ya go, Dan. Can you spot the lie? Poor little Cliffie can see it, but he
can't seem to face it.
The harsh truth must be hurting his feelings. Awww.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:16:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Yeah. No evidence, or proof. Did you actually READ the references in
the
9-11 Commission report? Or are you just parroting more crap that you
haven't
checked?

Ive read that report backwards and forwards. Likely am far more
familiar with it than you are.

So, what's your conclusion, Gunner? And who would you like to invade
next...now that you're too old to worry about it?

Conclusion about what? Whether or not Iraq had WMDs?

No. Your conclusion about whether the government had real evidence
sufficient to go to war, or whether, as the Commission said, the evidence
was flimsy and was contradicted by many reports they didn't tell us about
until later.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:20:47 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:46:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

handlers in the DNC

The quotes you have are people talking about what they knew, or
thought
they
knew, but which lacked the certainty necessary for going to war. It
was
enough for international politics, for sabre-rattling and posturing,
but
not
enough to send troops to their deaths.

Not true. The Left, so profoundly represented in those quotes, was
occupied with other matters. But they did have time for Monica
Missiles.

Then of course, there was Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia etc etc etc.....

Still an apologist for the Left I see.....

'Still looking for excuses to kill thousands of people you don't like, I
see. And excuses for the numbnutz neocons who laugh their asses off at
the
libertarians for voting for them.

Why don't you just admit it, Gunner? Our government exaggerated what they
knew, lied about some things they really didn't know and KNEW they didn't
know, but claimed they did, and generally led us down the primrose path
to
war.

It was like the Tonkin Gulf, all over again.


Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm?

Sloppy effort at deflection, Gunner. You can do better. I don't care if it
was a Democrat or Republican, the Tonkin Gulf "incident" was a cooked-up
affair, a lot like Iraq's "WMDs." Pure vaporware. Somehow it all just
disappeared...gosh, I wonder where all those North Vietnamese submarines got
to...

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 03:01:02 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Because you have nothing to show for all of those lives, Gunner, except
for
your pride.

My pride? I find it interesting you snipped so much of the post. Let
me correct that for you.....

I snipped your post because you snipped the part about the tens of thousands
of people, including over 1,000 Americans, we sent to their deaths so that
Iraqis would have a choice of voting for Shiite Islamists or Sunni
Islamists. You seem to have lost sight of the question and you need to
re-focus.

Actually Ed..you snipped the post, as you often do, to try to weasel
word your followup to suit your side of the argument.

Its not the first time, nor the last time, based on the long history
of you doing this, and not to just me either.

As I told Proto..you might want to check out the history of warfare,
and you can stick to the 20th century if you wish.

Compared to any of the past wars where 25 million people were set
free..this war is relatively bloodless.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:22:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

The families of the 100,000+ dead civilians should be thanking the US for
liberating their country and getting rid of that evil dictator Sadam instead
of wanting an harm to come to their liberators.

Which 100,000 dead civilians might that be? Ok...Ill play. Cites?
No leftwing blogs are allowed btw.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct28.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3964311.stm
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/300266.html

Here are about 41,500 mo http://tinyurl.com/eytqq
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:07:22 GMT, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

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

Which is why there was a combined effort to throw Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.
After this, there was a ceasefire, with conditions imposed on Iraq. Hint:
ceasefire means a state of war still existed in 2003, and exists now.

How are the clues coming along?

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.

No, most of us are well aware of this, and most of us recognize that Iraq was
not complying with the post Desert Storm conditions.

Per the UN?

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.

You think we should not have thrown Iraq out of Kuwait? This is one war, not two.

Bush & Cheney & Rumsfled should not have approved the invasion
in the first place then.

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.

Unfortunately, our political system has demonstrated an inability to select
moral, competent leaders. Since Truman, anyway.

So don't be praising any wingers ....
--
Cliff

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:43:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

And it makes me Proud, to be an American.

And how many more American lives do you think should be sacrificed for the
sake of your pride?

I'm proud to be an American, too. But I'm not so proud of the way some of my
fellow Americans are ready to see people die for the sake of *their* pride.

Because you have nothing to show for all of those lives, Gunner, except for
your pride.

Gummer wrote:
[
Here's a great quote from Ann Coulter

"The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning
Iraq around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with
their 40-year 'War on Poverty.' So far, fewer troops have been killed
by hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians
were murdered in Washington, DC, last year (239 deaths in Iraq
compared to 262 murders in DC.)
]

US (ONLY) dead: TOTAL 1,559
US (ONLY) Wounded/maimed: 11,888
US (ONLY) Evacuated alive: 17,184

That's ONLY counting since March 2003 and the attacks on Iraq
started a bit earlier IIRC ....

Here's a list bound to please gummer:
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/list.php
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:25:16 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

It makes me proud that the middle east is undergoing big changes and
eventually they all will join the 21st century.

Kind of depends on how fast you can bomb them up,
right?

--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:25:16 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

I was too busy shedding my blood for my country.

Did Kerry save your life?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 03:01:02 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

My pride? I find it interesting you snipped so much of the post. Let
me correct that for you.....

I snipped your post because you snipped the part about the tens of thousands
of people, including over 1,000 Americans, we sent to their deaths so that
Iraqis would have a choice of voting for Shiite Islamists or Sunni
Islamists.

IIRC The Socialists won ..... and the Iraqi Communist Party did
not do badly .... the new Culture Minister is one of theirs ....
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:19:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:16:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..

Yeah. No evidence, or proof. Did you actually READ the references in the
9-11 Commission report? Or are you just parroting more crap that you
haven't
checked?

Ive read that report backwards and forwards. Likely am far more
familiar with it than you are.

So, what's your conclusion, Gunner? And who would you like to invade
next...now that you're too old to worry about it?

Conclusion about what? Whether or not Iraq had WMDs? Of course they
did. Even the UN admits it. Now the next question is, where did they
go? Were they destroyed in a proper and timely manner? Unlikely with
a maniac like Saddam at the helm. Where did they go? No one knows.
But they will turn up.

Snicker
So the UN inspectors and Herr shrubbie are both liars?

Off to Mars are you?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:19:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On "WMDS":

Did the Russians help move them? Seems there is a good body of
evidence to that effect, though mostly ancedotal. But where they
went..no one knows.

Gummer badly needs a few whacks with a cluestick.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:19:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

and spanked Saddam for 12 yrs of cease
fire agreement violations.

Too bad that all the ones you've claimed were lies.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:28:49 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

It was like the Tonkin Gulf, all over again.


Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm?

"Presidents Johnson and Richard M. Nixon used it to justify later
military action in Southeast Asia."

"it was revealed that President Johnson, in a taped conversation
with McNamara several weeks after passage of the resolution, had
expressed doubt that the attack ever occurred."

Looks like they had lying wingers back then too.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:56:27 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:42:32 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:29:14 -0700, "Dan" wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:

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.

Can you please point out the lie.

The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

That's Version #1 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.

So they found all those tons of WMDs did they?

That's Version #2 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.

There ya go, Dan. Can you spot the lie? Poor little Cliffie can see it, but he
can't seem to face it.
The harsh truth must be hurting his feelings. Awww.

No "WMDs", eh?

Your denial is amusing.
--
Cliff

In article , Gunner says...

Compared to any of the past wars where 25 million people were set
free..this war is relatively bloodless.

If they're free then those soldiers can come home now.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Cliff piddled around and finally wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:22:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

The families of the 100,000+ dead civilians should be thanking the US for
liberating their country and getting rid of that evil dictator Sadam instead
of wanting an harm to come to their liberators.

Which 100,000 dead civilians might that be? Ok...Ill play. Cites?
No leftwing blogs are allowed btw.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct28.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3964311.stm
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/300266.html

Here are about 41,500 mo http://tinyurl.com/eytqq

**** 'em. There will hopefully be a few hundred thousand more before the
stupid ragheads learn to think for once in their lives.

Cliff, wondering how all this works, wrote:

I bought all these CD's and my record player *still* won't play them.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:07:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:20:47 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:46:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

handlers in the DNC

The quotes you have are people talking about what they knew, or
thought
they
knew, but which lacked the certainty necessary for going to war. It
was
enough for international politics, for sabre-rattling and posturing,
but
not
enough to send troops to their deaths.

Not true. The Left, so profoundly represented in those quotes, was
occupied with other matters. But they did have time for Monica
Missiles.

Then of course, there was Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia etc etc etc.....

Still an apologist for the Left I see.....

'Still looking for excuses to kill thousands of people you don't like, I
see. And excuses for the numbnutz neocons who laugh their asses off at
the
libertarians for voting for them.

Why don't you just admit it, Gunner? Our government exaggerated what they
knew, lied about some things they really didn't know and KNEW they didn't
know, but claimed they did, and generally led us down the primrose path
to
war.

It was like the Tonkin Gulf, all over again.


Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm?

Sloppy effort at deflection, Gunner. You can do better. I don't care if it
was a Democrat or Republican, the Tonkin Gulf "incident" was a cooked-up
affair, a lot like Iraq's "WMDs." Pure vaporware. Somehow it all just
disappeared...gosh, I wonder where all those North Vietnamese submarines got
to...

Probably to the same place all the Republicans who want to starve your
children, poison your air and water and toss Granny out into the snow,
went to.

Or perhaps where the Bay of Pigs air support went to.
snip long list

Or perhaps what these folks (a number of whom sat on intelligence
committees) requested:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe
Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John
Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors
last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam
Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that
biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be
back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile
program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the
United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter
signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among
others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement
between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by
failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and
refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations
inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction,
including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive
progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a
joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18,
2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline
Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and
some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he
has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger,
Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up
to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability.
Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons,
but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October
2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has
chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But
the United States right now is on a very much different defensive
posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as
we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't
have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I
think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as
would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq
represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did
use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to
think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international
inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques
Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,
ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond
today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be
emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no
evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects
American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence
back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from
gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up
and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense
William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades,
Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons.
He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and
is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to
build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to
achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national
security. It should be clear that our national security requires
Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is
united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its
weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf
and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his
access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of
mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we
should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to
deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."
-- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27,
2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger,
that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy,
Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the
authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F.
Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end
of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after
Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has
continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years
to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the
interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and
the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous
dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his
offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating
America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp
for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the
United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding
that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of
Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not
new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." --
John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19,
2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological
weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for
the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N.
inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear
facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons
capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear
weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical
weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological
weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used
chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish
population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the
past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can
be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining
weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware
that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue
of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in
the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the
weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq
still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and
clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen
bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue
manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons
of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and
mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and
ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use
industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute
large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector
Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he
can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources --
something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also
should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John
Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a
very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons
before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial
vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and
U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy
towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s
conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past
11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he
snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors;
and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the
just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security
Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the
facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm?

This brings images to mind of daddy Bush sitting on AF-1 with his son and
Clinton on the way to the Pope's funeral discussing politics. The million
dollar question is, "Will gummer ever figure out that both political parties
are bought out by big business?" It makes no difference which party is in
control, the corporate interests will be served.

Gunner wrote:


Seems like a lot to me. But then..I never spent time under a bridge
groked out of my skull on pot and playing at being a hippie..

I was too busy shedding my blood for my country. Odd how that tends
to put a different outlook on life. No?

Gunner

Your sob story is touching. Pathetic, but touching nevertheless.
--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Bob Brock wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
Tonkin Gulf..hum...wasnt that a Democrat at the helm?

This brings images to mind of daddy Bush sitting on AF-1 with his son and
Clinton on the way to the Pope's funeral discussing politics. The million
dollar question is, "Will gummer ever figure out that both political parties
are bought out by big business?" It makes no difference which party is in
control, the corporate interests will be served.


Yea, but as long as the pot is stirred with a good us vs them battle
neither side will notice.

On 19 Apr 2005 05:31:31 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Compared to any of the past wars where 25 million people were set
free..this war is relatively bloodless.

If they're free then those soldiers can come home now.

Jim

They will, when its time. We remained in Japan after WW2 with a very
large force for over 7 yrs. Germany..we still have troops there.

When its time, they will come home. Im sure you recall Bush stating
quite clearly and succenctly that this may take generations before the
problem is fully resolved.

Think of it as cancer. We removed the tumor..but the treatments
continue.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Cliff, wondering how all this works, wrote:

Someone told me my stupidity was abhorant. What's that mean?

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ss.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com...
The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there
were
no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based
on
the
actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk
and
some
wishful thinking, but no "ties."

Tied to defination of "ties" i guess.

Well, if you're going to call an entire institution "liars," you'd
better
have your definition down pat. The Commission said there were no ties.
The
quotation omitted that, conveniently.

The Commission DID NOT say there were no ties. Stop making things up.

They said that they saw no evidence of ties. So there was no justification
on those grounds to invade, right?

Wrong.

"Willcox" wrote in message
ress.com...

Well, if you're going to call an entire institution "liars," you'd
better
have your definition down pat. The Commission said there were no
ties.
The
quotation omitted that, conveniently.

The Commission DID NOT say there were no ties. Stop making things up.

They said that they saw no evidence of ties. So there was no
justification
on those grounds to invade, right?

Wrong.

OK, then, Willcox, tell us what most people in the US and around the world
have been waiting to hear: What is it that you know about how Iraq
constituted an immediate threat to the US, one that was substantial enough
to go to war, and that no one else seems to know?

We're all ears.

--
Ed Huntress