On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:46:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


George, your posts are nothing BUT nonsense. Saying that the two Iraq wars
were "one war" is about as stupid as anything you've said.

Your denial that the separation of the two periods of conflict was
only a cease fire, subject to terms of the cease fire agreement, which
was repeatedly broken by Iraq during that time frame...is absolutely
fascinating. Ill advised, ill informed, bloody moronic..but
fascinating nonetheless.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:49:47 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Why" wrote in message
.. .

Neocons are the people who want to convert the world into something like
Texas. Most Republicans aren't neocons.

Damn ED, please leave Taxes (Texas) out of it. I'm to old to move all
my WWII Brownies to another state

I'm sorry, Dave, I don't mean to pick on you. But you keep sending us these
presidents with their staffs full of neocons. After they've established
"democracy" in some foreign country at gunpoint, the next thing they want to
do is to make them all play high-school football and hold chili cook-offs.

LBJ was a neocon?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:57:47 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 05:22:03 -0400, "Proto" wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:52:08 -0400, "Proto"
wrote:

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

Maybe while you are calling me stupid YOU could cite some
examples of how
I am so wrong instead of just saying I don't know history. I am
generalizing


Generalizing? No ****.

A similar type of generalization you promoted...

"The Earth is green"

Sure is..except for the ****ing deserts and the 75% of the planet
that is water.

I didn't call you stupid.
I called you ignorant and uneducated.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Am now I am awaiting for you to educate me. Show what you got. How
does it go? put up or what?


Educate yourself, then get back to me. Its not my job to teach you all
the things you have missed out on.

Might I suggest finding a good library on military histories?

Sigh...Ok..Ill give you a starting place

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM
http://www.rnrc.org/Html/default.htm (needs high speed for best
viewing)
http://www.geocities.com/nankingatrocities/
http://www.gotrain.com/dan/nanking2.htm
http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/...enfirestor.htm
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...of_dresden.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
http://history.designerz.com/by-time...rld-war-ii.php

Come back to me in a few months and we shall discuss the issues.


Sorry to if I don't subscribe to the Gunner school of upbringing. I leaned
as much about war and killing as was required. I found no fascination in
becoming any more educated in that regard as I never considered it a career
of opportunity. I can see now all that I have missed. I feel shame.


You learned as much about war and killing as you thought you needed.
Unfortunately the big bad world refuses to comform to your world view.

As a very learned man once wrote..those that ignore history, are
doomed to repeat it.

Its evident that you are doomed. And should feel shame at going
through life butt ignorant about the things that can bite you in the
ass without a moments notice.

But hey...wipe the spittle smudges from your rose colored glasses and
keep on keeping on. And have a good nights sleep.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men
stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell


Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:13:49 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Proto" wrote in message
...

Come back to me in a few months and we shall discuss the issues.


Sorry to if I don't subscribe to the Gunner school of upbringing. I
leaned
as much about war and killing as was required. I found no fascination in
becoming any more educated in that regard as I never considered it a
career
of opportunity. I can see now all that I have missed. I feel shame.

Don't worry, you won't become more educated if you follow Gunner's
Google-Dilettante School of Historical Dabbling. g No syllabus, no canon,
just a shotgun load of miscellaneous ramblings, unexamined and unconnected
bits and pieces of history and ideas woven into a crazy quilt.

You're safe.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

And you Sir, are a pompus asshole of the first water. It must really
really suck to be you.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

"George Willer" wrote in message
...
Look, asshole... your superiority complex is getting in your way again.

Actually, George, you're the one with the superiority complex here, the one
who started lashing out with expletives when you got frustrated because I
wouldn't prostrate myself before your superior wisdom.

snip mindless bull****

Most intelligent people don't have problems comprehending that the first
phase brought hostilities to a halt with a number of conditions that
weren't
met. Some of those conditions were the disarming and the inspections to
confirm that the conditions were met. Here's a flash for you, asshole,
the
conditions were NOT met. That's primary the reason hostilities were
resumed.

George, only a freaking idiot would believe that we killed thousands of
Iraqi civilians and over 1,000 American troops because Saddam didn't meet
our "conditions." The argument made by our administration was that Saddam
was an immanent physical threat to the US, and that we launched a
pre-emptive war. It wasn't because Saddam wouldn't play by the rules we set
for inspections.


I'm finished with you. You aren't worth the trouble.

I think your work is done here, George. You've been a fine supporter of the
administration, and you're doing an excellent job of showing us what the
argument for war in Iraq was based upon.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:46:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


George, your posts are nothing BUT nonsense. Saying that the two Iraq
wars
were "one war" is about as stupid as anything you've said.

Your denial that the separation of the two periods of conflict was
only a cease fire... snip meaningless junk

Oh, Jesus, Gunner, you're losing it. Even the Bush administration makes it
clear that this latest war was (supposedly) about a threat to the US from
Iraq's "WMDs." The first one was about Iraq's first steps toward a takeover
of the Middle East.

Quit arguing for the sake of argument and get your stories straight for
once.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:44:42 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:46:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


George, your posts are nothing BUT nonsense. Saying that the two Iraq
wars
were "one war" is about as stupid as anything you've said.

Your denial that the separation of the two periods of conflict was
only a cease fire... snip meaningless junk

Oh, Jesus, Gunner, you're losing it. Even the Bush administration makes it
clear that this latest war was (supposedly) about a threat to the US from
Iraq's "WMDs." The first one was about Iraq's first steps toward a takeover
of the Middle East.

Quit arguing for the sake of argument and get your stories straight for
once.

Like this one? (Snicker)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

" If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and
unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons
of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support
for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do
by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its
civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and
others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all
Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the
remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept
liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully
cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as
required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit
trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N.
administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is
used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and
accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United
Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a
government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and
internationally supervised elections. "

Or this one?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:44:42 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Quit arguing for the sake of argument and get your stories straight for
once.

--
Ed Huntress

Or perhaps these......Did you forget about these Eddy?
**********************

U.S. and U.K. Offer Letters of War

The U.S. letter was sent by U.S./U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte, the
U.K. by its U.N. representative, Sir Jeremy Greenstock.

The verbatim reads as follows:

U.S. Letter

The Representative of the United States of America to the United
Nations

March 20, 2003

To: Mr Mamady Traore
President - Security Council
United Nations
New York, New York

Excellency:

Coalition forces have commenced military operations in Iraq. These
operations are necessary in view of Iraq's continued material breaches
of its disarmament obligations under relevant Security Council
resolutions including 1441 (2002). The operations are substantial and
will secure compliance with these obligations. In carrying out these
operations, our forces will take all reasonable precautions to avoid
civilian casualties.

The actions being taken are authorized under existing Council
resolutions: including resolution 678 (1990) and resolution 687
(1991). Resolution 687 imposed a series of obligations on Iraq,
including most importantly, extensive disarmament obligations, that
were the conditions of the cease-fire established under it. It has
been long recognized and understood that a material breach of these
obligations removes the basis of the ceasefire and revives the
authority to use force under resolution 678. This has been the basis
for coalition use of force in the past and has been accepted by the
Council, as evidenced, for example, by the Secretary General's public
announcement in January 1993 following Iraq's material breach of
resolution 687 that coalition forces had received a mandate from the
Council to use force according to resolution 678.

Iraq continues to be in material breach of its disarmament obligations
under resolution 687, as the Council affirmed in resolution 1441.
Acting under the authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the
Council unanimously decided that Iraq has been and remained in
material breach of its obligations and recalled its repeated warnings
to Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its
continued violations of its obligations. The resolution then provided
Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply, but stated specifically that
violations by Iraq of its obligations under resolution 1441 to present
a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of
its weapons of mass destruction programs and to comply with and
cooperate fully in the resolution's implementation would constitute a
further material breach.

The Government of Iraq decided not to avail itself of its final
opportunity under resolution 1441 and has clearly committed additional
violations. In view of Iraq's material beaches, the basis for the
cease-fire has been removed, and the use of force is authorized under
resolution 678.

Iraq repeatedly has refused, over a protracted period of time, to
respond to diplomatic overtures, economic sanctions, and other
peaceful means designed to help bring about Iraqi compliance with its
obligations to disarm and to permit full inspection of its WMD and
related programs. The actions that coalition forces are undertaking
are an appropriate response. They are necessary to defend the United
States and the international community from the threat posed by Iraq
and to restore international peace and security in the area. Further
delay would simply allow Iraq to continue its unlawful and threatening
conduct.

It is the Government of Iraq that bears full responsibility for the
serious consequences of its defiance of the Council's decisions.

Sincerely,

(signed)
John D. Negroponte

U.K. Letter

From Sir Jeremy Greenstock GCMG

20 March 2003

To HE Mamady Traore
President of the Security Council

Excellency:

I have the honor to inform you on behalf of my Government that the
Armed Forces of the United Kingdom - in association with those of the
United States and Australia - engaged in military action in Iraq on 20
March 2003. The action is continuing.

The action follows a long history of non-cooperation by Iraq with
UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and the IAEA and numerous findings by the Security
Council that Iraq has failed to comply with its disarmament
obligations imposed on it by the Council, including in resolutions 678
(1990), 687 (1991) and 1441 (2002). In resolution 1441 (2002) the
Council reiterated that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass
destruction constitutes a threat to international peace and security;
that Iraq has failed, in clear violation of its obligations to disarm;
and that in consequence Iraq is in material breach of the conditions
for the ceasefire at the end of hostilities in 1991 laid down by the
Council in resolution 687 (1991). Military action was undertaken only
when it became apparent that there was no other way of achieving
compliance by Iraq.

The objective of this action is to secure compliance by Iraq with its
disarmament obligations as laid down by the Council. All military
action will be limited to the minimum measures necessary to secure
this objective. Operations will conducted in accordance with the
international laws of armed conflict. Targets have been carefully
chosen to avoid civilian casualties.

Please accept Excellency, the assurance of my highest consideration.

(signed)
Jeremy Greenstock


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:12:13 -0400, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Yep, but I still see you haven't found the integrity to admit you changed your
lie.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
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?

Found some integrity yet?
You might look in the dictionary if you don't know what the word means.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:14:51 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote:

Your opinion is noted, Ed... as ridiculous as it is,

No "WMDs", Eh?

it doesn't address the topic of this thread,

No "WMDs", Eh?

and your comments are complete nonsense.

No "WMDs", Eh?

We all know
that opinions are like assholes... we all have one and you ARE one.

YOU have them then?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:46:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"George Willer" wrote in message
...
Your opinion is noted, Ed... as ridiculous as it is, it doesn't address
the
topic of this thread, and your comments are complete nonsense.

George, your posts are nothing BUT nonsense. Saying that the two Iraq wars
were "one war" is about as stupid as anything you've said.

What you meant, if you could hold a complete idea together all in one place,
is that, in your opinion, not taking out Saddam the first time is the cause
of the second Iraq war. That's certainly true, in a de facto way, but it was
NOT one war all about the same thing.

The first was about Saddam flexing his muscles to become the dominant power
in the Middle East. In fact, based on what he'd been told by the US
ambassador, he (and others) felt that the US had given him the go-ahead on
Kuwait. Big mistake on both our parts.

HINT: That was Bush-1 that said "go ahead".
Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. Remember those guys?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:19:19 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote:

Look, asshole... your superiority complex is getting in your way again.

So only YOU can see those invisible "WMDs"?

On
this thread as well as some others you have gone to great lengths to type
what you mistakenly think others think

That seems to be the problem. You don't think.

and try to make a case for your
superior intellect.

IF you cannot find "WMDs" and the inspectors say that there
were none therefore there ARE "WMDs"?

It isn't working.

Nobody's going to trick you, Eh?
Too dumb for them, right?

You don't have to power to discredit
anyone but yourself, and you're doing a bang-up job of that.

Found those "WMDs"?

Your confusion may be because of your basic misunderstanding of the
situation in Iraq.

No "WMDs"?
Just millions that now despise the US? And 100,000 or so
murdered?
And, naturally, their infrastructure sold off, Americans living
in the palaces, Halliburton running the pipelines & oil fields ...
Water & power supplies trashed, ..... etc., etc., etc. ....

Please don't expect others to educate you in areas you
could research for yourself.

IOW You don't know much.

Most intelligent people don't have problems comprehending that the first
phase brought hostilities to a halt with a number of conditions that weren't
met. Some of those conditions were the disarming

What "arms"?

and the inspections to
confirm that the conditions were met.

The inspections that bush stopped?

Here's a flash for you, asshole, the
conditions were NOT met.

Found those "WMDs", did you?

That's primary the reason hostilities were
resumed.

LMAO !!!

I'm finished with you. You aren't worth the trouble.

Lost your cluestick?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:07:10 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:46:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


George, your posts are nothing BUT nonsense. Saying that the two Iraq wars
were "one war" is about as stupid as anything you've said.

Your denial that the separation of the two periods of conflict was
only a cease fire, subject to terms of the cease fire agreement, which
was repeatedly broken by

The US & the UK.
Back to those "no fly" zones and attacks again, are you?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:49:47 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Why" wrote in message
.. .

Neocons are the people who want to convert the world into something like
Texas. Most Republicans aren't neocons.

Damn ED, please leave Taxes (Texas) out of it. I'm to old to move all
my WWII Brownies to another state

I'm sorry, Dave, I don't mean to pick on you. But you keep sending us these
presidents with their staffs full of neocons. After they've established
"democracy" in some foreign country at gunpoint, the next thing they want to
do is to make them all play high-school football and hold chili cook-offs.

Only on secretly financed dude ranches ....
--
Cliff

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:14:51 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

As a very learned man once wrote..those that ignore history, are
doomed to repeat it.

Voted for the shrubbie, fundies & neocons a second time, did you?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:19:19 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:12:13 -0400, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Yep, but I still see you haven't found the integrity to admit you changed your
lie.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

Found those "WMDs" yet?


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

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?

Found some integrity yet?

Found those "WMDs" yet?

You might look in the dictionary if you don't know what the word means.

"Something that does not exist"?
--
Cliff

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:01:19 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:58:26 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

Hmmm, maybe you should reword that, and waffle a bit. Surely there are
some
weasel words you could come up with that could obscure it a bit more so
that it
would look like they didn't REALLY vote "in favor" of anything. Maybe
they
only
thought they were thinking of voting in favor of something. Yeah, that
could be
it. They were mislead by George Bush. Yeah, pass the buck. That'll work.
Blame
Bush.

Bush as the CNC of the military made the decision to invade Iraq. He made
it alone and he alone should take responsibility for his actions.

And NOBODY voted to give him the authority to do that, eh? So NOBODY else
should
share in the responsibility for what Bush did, right? I guess if Bush has
all
the power and takes all the blame, maybe we should just get rid of all
those
other money-wasting jobs in Washington. We don't need them. Why pay them
if we
don't need them? We could sure use that money somewhere else.

Bush and Bush alone made the decision to invade. Yes, NOBODY else should
share in the responsiblity for what Bush did. He did it. He should take
responsiblity for it. Hell, even Nixon had the balls to resign. What money
wasting jobs share the titile Commander and Chief? I will help you get rid
of them if you find any.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:28:02 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:19:19 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:12:13 -0400, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Yep, but I still see you haven't found the integrity to admit you changed your
lie.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

Found those "WMDs" yet?


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

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?

Found some integrity yet?

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Found 2 different versions of the Cliffie Lie in this thread. You can run, but
you can't hide. Holding your feet to the fire. Getting a little warm for you,
isn't it?

You might look in the dictionary if you don't know what the word means.

"Something that does not exist"?

Integrity exists. CLIFFIE'S integrity may not exist, but the concept of
integrity is still alive and well with other people.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:28:02 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:19:19 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:12:13 -0400, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Yep, but I still see you haven't found the integrity to admit you changed your
lie.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

Found those "WMDs" yet?


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

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?

Found some integrity yet?

I've found a person who lies on Usenet, then doesn't have the integrity to admit
it. A week later he's still trying to hide from the truth. When confronted with
the lie, he still ignores it as if he doesn't see it. Pathetic. :/

Found those "WMDs" yet?

You might look in the dictionary if you don't know what the word means.

"Something that does not exist"?

No, not "Cliffie's Integrity", integrity. THAT exists.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:49:47 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Why" wrote in message
. ..

Neocons are the people who want to convert the world into something
like
Texas. Most Republicans aren't neocons.

Damn ED, please leave Taxes (Texas) out of it. I'm to old to move all
my WWII Brownies to another state

I'm sorry, Dave, I don't mean to pick on you. But you keep sending us
these
presidents with their staffs full of neocons. After they've established
"democracy" in some foreign country at gunpoint, the next thing they want
to
do is to make them all play high-school football and hold chili cook-offs.

LBJ was a neocon?

They didn't write their manifesto until Regan's presidency.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:58:30 -0400, "Bob Brock" wrote:

(snip)
Bush and Bush alone made the decision to invade. Yes, NOBODY else should
share in the responsiblity for what Bush did. He did it. He should take
responsiblity for it. Hell, even Nixon had the balls to resign. What money
wasting jobs share the titile Commander and Chief? I will help you get rid
of them if you find any.

OK, we should abolish the Congress then, since they apparently have no power.
Their votes are meaningless and have no power(or responsibility). John Kerry
really loves that. Finally, he has a job where he can do things and disavow any
responsibility for his actions.
I'm a bottom line sort of guy. If those people in the Congress are wasting our
time and money we should stop paying them.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:58:30 -0400, "Bob Brock" wrote:
(snip)
Bush and Bush alone made the decision to invade. Yes, NOBODY else should
share in the responsiblity for what Bush did. He did it. He should take
responsiblity for it. Hell, even Nixon had the balls to resign.

I didn't catch that earlier. I guess Clinton didn't have the balls to resign
after he was impeached, huh? He never did quite take the responsibility for his
actions. He did get in front of the American people and give them a half-assed
semi-apology, then waffled some more with his "I did it because I could" speech.
Talk about your meaningless speeches. If he couldn't have done it he wouldn't
have.

What money
wasting jobs share the titile Commander and Chief? I will help you get rid
of them if you find any.

I'm not just interested in the Commander-in-Chief job. I'm interested in saving
money wherever I can.

If those people in Congress felt they had some reason to take a vote, they must
have felt they had some say in whether George Bush went to war or not.
Otherwise, they were all wasting their time and his. Was it just an exercise to
entertain everybody? Kerry and all those other politicians made a big deal about
that vote. They must have had some point in doing it.

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:08:05 GMT
in misc.survivalism :
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:49:47 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Why" wrote in message
. ..

Neocons are the people who want to convert the world into something like
Texas. Most Republicans aren't neocons.

Damn ED, please leave Taxes (Texas) out of it. I'm to old to move all
my WWII Brownies to another state

I'm sorry, Dave, I don't mean to pick on you. But you keep sending us these
presidents with their staffs full of neocons. After they've established
"democracy" in some foreign country at gunpoint, the next thing they want to
do is to make them all play high-school football and hold chili cook-offs.

LBJ was a neocon?

"We are everywhere."

Or should that be "They are everywhere!"? (It has been described as a
"Vast Conspiracy" was it not?)

"You cannot trust your neighbor,
or even next of kin
If momie is a neoconnie
Then you got to turn her in." (With apologies to Phil Ochs.)


tschus
pyotr

there's no one left but me and thee,
and I'm not sure of thee

--
pyotr filipivich
"MTV may talk about lighting fires and killing children,
but Janet Reno actually does something about it." --Spy Magazine

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:02:16 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:28:02 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:19:19 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:12:13 -0400, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Yep, but I still see you haven't found the integrity to admit you changed your
lie.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

Found those "WMDs" yet?


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

Found those "WMDs" yet?


So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?

Found some integrity yet?

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Found 2 different versions of the Cliffie Lie in this thread.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

You can run, but you can't hide.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Holding your feet to the fire. Getting a little warm for you,
isn't it?

Found those "WMDs" yet?


You might look in the dictionary if you don't know what the word means.

"Something that does not exist"?

Integrity exists.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

CLIFFIE'S integrity may not exist,

Found those "WMDs" yet?

but the concept of
integrity is still alive and well with other people.

Clearly you are not a member of that elite group.
Winger's Disease excludes you on the face of it.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:05:15 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:28:02 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:19:19 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:12:13 -0400, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Yep, but I still see you haven't found the integrity to admit you changed your
lie.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

Found those "WMDs" yet?


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

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?

Found some integrity yet?

I've found a person who lies on Usenet,

I know where there are quite a few in Washington.
And at Faux "news".
And more than one right here.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

then doesn't have the integrity to admit it.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

A week later he's still trying to hide from the truth.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

When confronted with the lie,

Found those "WMDs" yet?

he still ignores it as if he doesn't see it.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Pathetic. :/

Indeed.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

You might look in the dictionary if you don't know what the word means.

"Something that does not exist"?

No, not "Cliffie's Integrity", integrity. THAT exists.

Found those "WMDs" yet?

HTH
--
Cliff

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:44:08 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:58:30 -0400, "Bob Brock" wrote:
(snip)
Bush and Bush alone made the decision to invade. Yes, NOBODY else should
share in the responsiblity for what Bush did. He did it. He should take
responsiblity for it. Hell, even Nixon had the balls to resign.

I didn't catch that earlier. I guess Clinton didn't have the balls to resign
after he was impeached, huh? He never did quite take the responsibility for his
actions. He did get in front of the American people and give them a half-assed
semi-apology

Like your new handbag?
http://www.thereal-monica.com/
--
Cliff

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:37:31 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:58:30 -0400, "Bob Brock" wrote:

(snip)
Bush and Bush alone made the decision to invade. Yes, NOBODY else should
share in the responsiblity for what Bush did. He did it. He should take
responsiblity for it. Hell, even Nixon had the balls to resign. What money
wasting jobs share the titile Commander and Chief? I will help you get rid
of them if you find any.

OK, we should abolish the Congress then, since they apparently have no power.
Their votes are meaningless and have no power(or responsibility). John Kerry
really loves that. Finally, he has a job where he can do things and disavow any
responsibility for his actions.
I'm a bottom line sort of guy. If those people in the Congress are wasting our
time and money we should stop paying them.

Why are you against the Republican Party? Is it the jackboots?
They control both houses & the Executivve branch, right? And
ignore the Judicial.
It's almost a one-party system .....
--
Cliff

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:37:55 GMT, Strabo
wrote:


Like this one? (Snicker)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

"If the US wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally
forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass
destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

I was thinking you had suffered some brain damage a year or so ago,
now Im convinced of it.

Btw...who dictated the terms of the ceasefire as the winner? Sadam or
the coallition?

shrug.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:44:34 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

In Try this Gunner/WMDS? on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:23:28 GMT, by
Gunner, we read:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:37:55 GMT, Strabo
wrote:


Like this one? (Snicker)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

"If the US wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally
forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass
destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

I was thinking you had suffered some brain damage a year or so ago,
now Im convinced of it.

Btw...who dictated the terms of the ceasefire as the winner? Sadam or
the coallition?

Do you want to win a battle or win the war?

Irrelevant when coupled with the UN and the stated objective of
removing the Iraqis from Kuwait

For the record, I am not an advocate of your list. I just
reversed the names to expose the logic.

No logic was exposed.

I told you three years ago not to screw around with the Arabs,
that there was more there than met the eye.

Noted then as now.

You either go back a hundred years and address the the beginning
of all the problems or you have no case. You cannot logically
segment aspects of conflict and treat each as an isolated
incident. Your enemy sees and acts on the whole while you insist
on ignoring this obvious point.

Some truth to this. Some. Not much. A little.

This irrational course has weakened the US position and threatens
defeat.

It will only become defeat if popular will is deflected.
Even before the first bomb was dropped, Bush and Co. quite clearly
stated that this may take commitment for generations.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:04:29 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You're so deep into full-time bull**** and your *own* damage control that
you don't even know what you're saying anymore. Why don't you just get some
sleep and give it a rest? You're trying to hold up about ten threads at once
and the smoke is blowing out of every orifice in your body.

http://tinyurl.com/757cy 85 posts a day? Seems like the normal amount
of smoke to me. Nothing to be alarmed about unless it goes over 100,
or turns white. G

Wayne

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:04:29 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You're so deep into full-time bull**** and your *own* damage control that
you don't even know what you're saying anymore. Why don't you just get some
sleep and give it a rest? You're trying to hold up about ten threads at once
and the smoke is blowing out of every orifice in your body.

http://tinyurl.com/757cy 85 posts a day? Seems like the normal amount
of smoke to me. Nothing to be alarmed about unless it goes over 100,
or turns white. G

Wayne

"Strabo" wrote in message
...
In Try this Gunner/WMDS? on Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:37:31 GMT, by
The Watcher, we read:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:58:30 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

(snip)
Bush and Bush alone made the decision to invade. Yes, NOBODY else
should
share in the responsiblity for what Bush did. He did it. He should
take
responsiblity for it. Hell, even Nixon had the balls to resign. What
money
wasting jobs share the titile Commander and Chief? I will help you get
rid
of them if you find any.

OK, we should abolish the Congress then, since they apparently have no
power.
Their votes are meaningless and have no power(or responsibility). John
Kerry
really loves that. Finally, he has a job where he can do things and
disavow any
responsibility for his actions.
I'm a bottom line sort of guy. If those people in the Congress are
wasting our
time and money we should stop paying them.

Originally one of the mechanisms for controlling the Congress
was each state's ability to recall senators. The could just send
a telegram and tell Senator so-and-so that a replacement was on
the way and for him to pack his bags and leave DC.

It was a very effective way to compel the people's interests.

The 1913 17th A. took that critical control away.

You are reading a lot into an amendment that says no such thing... It
didn't
take any power away from any state (unless you can point to the provision
which does as you say it does).

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each
State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall
have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications
requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State
legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the
executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such
vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the
executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the
vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

It did change the way Senators were originally selected, subjecting them to
a vote of the voting populace,
and requires permanent replacements be selected thusly.

I GUESS it is a bad thing to vote for Senators.

What else happened in 1913?

- Federal Reserve Act creating a central bank and debt money.

Is there any other kind of money?

- Federal Income Tax Act rejecting the Constitution's
prohibition against a progressive head tax.

The Marxists were busy in 1913.

Marxists? What do/did Marxists have to do with it?

Just one of the many evidences that the US has been shanghied.

Yeah, but more recently with two verifiably crooked "elections" (not
that such hasn't happened in the past, mind you).

Dan


--
"White people in this country will have quite enough to do in learning how
to accept and love themselves and each other, and when they have achieved
this - which will not be tomorrow and may very well be never - the Negro
problem will no longer exist, for it will no longer be needed."

- James Baldwin -
"The Fire Next Time"

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:58:30 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:
(snip)
Bush and Bush alone made the decision to invade. Yes, NOBODY else should
share in the responsiblity for what Bush did. He did it. He should take
responsiblity for it. Hell, even Nixon had the balls to resign.

I didn't catch that earlier. I guess Clinton didn't have the balls to
resign
after he was impeached, huh? He never did quite take the responsibility
for his
actions. He did get in front of the American people and give them a
half-assed
semi-apology, then waffled some more with his "I did it because I could"
speech.
Talk about your meaningless speeches. If he couldn't have done it he
wouldn't
have.

Is Clinton the Commander and Chief? If not, why are you bringing him up?
Does Clinton's evils somehow justify Bush's in your mind? What a strange
world you live in.

BTW, I never voted for Clinton. I cannot say the same about Bush.


What money
wasting jobs share the titile Commander and Chief? I will help you get
rid
of them if you find any.

I'm not just interested in the Commander-in-Chief job. I'm interested in
saving
money wherever I can.

If those people in Congress felt they had some reason to take a vote, they
must
have felt they had some say in whether George Bush went to war or not.
Otherwise, they were all wasting their time and his. Was it just an
exercise to
entertain everybody? Kerry and all those other politicians made a big deal
about
that vote. They must have had some point in doing it.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:13:49 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Proto" wrote in message
...

Come back to me in a few months and we shall discuss the issues.


Sorry to if I don't subscribe to the Gunner school of upbringing. I
leaned
as much about war and killing as was required. I found no fascination
in
becoming any more educated in that regard as I never considered it a
career
of opportunity. I can see now all that I have missed. I feel shame.

Don't worry, you won't become more educated if you follow Gunner's
Google-Dilettante School of Historical Dabbling. g No syllabus, no
canon,
just a shotgun load of miscellaneous ramblings, unexamined and
unconnected
bits and pieces of history and ideas woven into a crazy quilt.

You're safe.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

No worries about having to learn an original idea, either...


And you Sir, are a pompus asshole of the first water. It must really
really suck to be you.

Actually, it's pretty pleasant. No hating people for their political
beliefs, no crossing my fingers that no one will read the baloney I cut and
paste, and no dumpster-diving for what I eat.

You ought to try it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:44:41 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

Does Clinton's evils somehow justify Bush's in your mind?

Poor Monica was none of your business in the first place.

HTH
--
Cliff

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:44:42 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:46:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


George, your posts are nothing BUT nonsense. Saying that the two Iraq
wars
were "one war" is about as stupid as anything you've said.

Your denial that the separation of the two periods of conflict was
only a cease fire... snip meaningless junk

Oh, Jesus, Gunner, you're losing it. Even the Bush administration makes
it
clear that this latest war was (supposedly) about a threat to the US from
Iraq's "WMDs." The first one was about Iraq's first steps toward a
takeover
of the Middle East.

Quit arguing for the sake of argument and get your stories straight for
once.

Like this one? (Snicker)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

No, the two differrent ones that the two Bushes told the American people
when each explained why we were going to war. Both of these speeches were
delivered within hours of each respective invasion:

In 1991, it was this:
================================
(George I): Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military
targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces
are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2nd when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small
and helpless neighbor. Kuwait -- a member of the Arab League and a member of
the United Nations -- was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago,
Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle
has been joined.

This military action, taken in accord with United Nations resolutions and
with the consent of the United States Congress, follows months of constant
and virtually endless diplomatic activity on the part of the United Nations,
the United States, and many, many other countries. Arab leaders sought what
became known as an Arab solution, only to conclude that Saddam Hussein was
unwilling to leave Kuwait. Others traveled to Baghdad in a variety of
efforts to restore peace and justice. Our Secretary of State, James Baker,
held an historic meeting in Geneva, only to be totally rebuffed. This past
weekend, in a last-ditch effort, the Secretary-General of the United Nations
went to the Middle East with peace in his heart -- his second such mission.
And he came back from Baghdad with no progress at all in getting Saddam
Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait.

Now the 28 countries with forces in the Gulf area have exhausted all
reasonable efforts to reach a peaceful resolution -- have no choice but to
drive Saddam from Kuwait by force. We will not fail.

================================

In 2003 we went to war, our president told us, because of this:

================================
(George II): My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces
are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its
people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of
military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure.
The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at
the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass
murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast
Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of
fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
================================

It sure seems that THEY thought they were two different wars, fought for
different reasons. And that's what they told us, wasn't it? Or did they tell
you something different?

I'd snicker, but snickerers usually wind up being the snickeree. It's about
the attitude.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:44:42 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Quit arguing for the sake of argument and get your stories straight for
once.

--
Ed Huntress

Or perhaps these......Did you forget about these Eddy?
**********************

U.S. and U.K. Offer Letters of War

That's what he told the Security Council. As I quoted his actual speech to
the American people, you can see that the one to the Council was legaleeze
intended to counter charges against us under international law. The one to
the American people was the reason that you and I are supposed to believe is
the truth.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed,
It is too early to tell if the war was worthwhile or not. At this time
there is no evidence that theocrats are going to rule Iraq. It is too
early to tell what affect the war is going to have on the governments
of Syria, but considering that they are pulling their troops out of
Lebanon, it appears there may be some other benefits. You need to wait
for another five years before saying it was or was not worthwhile.

I personally am not proud to be an American, but I am thankful that I
am. I really do not understand how you think that anyone died for the
sake of pride. People died because there were mistakes made. Sadam
was one of those that made mistakes. He wanted the countries around
Iraq to believe that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He did not
think that anyone would invade Iraq. He had not had any problem with
the United Nations when he defied it as far as the terms coming from
the Gulf War. He did not have any problem with the United Nations and
the Food for Oil program.

We made mistakes too. Hind sight is alway better. If we had know
everything we now know, I don't think we would have invaded. But that
is life. One never knows as much at the time as one does later.

Is Iraq better off because of the invasion? Probably. The number of
people that have died because of the invasion is less per year than the
number that died because Sadam was in power. Will the United States be
loved because we invaded? Of course not.

Was it the fault of the Democrats for not doing better in dealing with
Iraq while Clinton was president or was the fault of the Republicans
after Bush became president. Probably both.

Is this thread appropriate for RCM? Hardly.


Dan

"wmbjk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:04:29 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You're so deep into full-time bull**** and your *own* damage control that
you don't even know what you're saying anymore. Why don't you just get
some
sleep and give it a rest? You're trying to hold up about ten threads at
once
and the smoke is blowing out of every orifice in your body.

http://tinyurl.com/757cy 85 posts a day? Seems like the normal amount
of smoke to me. Nothing to be alarmed about unless it goes over 100,
or turns white. G

Wayne

Haha! That's being pretty quick to pick up a news angle for a joke. g

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message roups.com...
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!

You do know that Iraq used mustard against Iran in the 1980s and
Washington sold arms to Iraq during and after the conflict?