On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:55:40 +0000, Guido wrote:

I hear the GWB has been talking up victory in Afghanistan today.

Yep. While Iraq burns.
Next he's off to India to see about doing more outsourcing.
What a nice vacation.

BTW, What ever happened to "WMDs" & New Orleans? Or bin Laden?
--
Cliff

On 1 Mar 2006 21:45:15 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


Cliff wrote:

BTW, What ever happened to "WMDs" & New Orleans? Or bin Laden?

WMD went to Syria, bin Laden is on the run, and New Orleans is coming
back, baby.

[
And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and
it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a
fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's
house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house.
And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch.
] - Herr Shrubbie

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...rina_lott.html
[
Trent Lott Sues State Farm over Katrina Damage
....
Like thousands of other homeowners, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) lost his home when
Hurricane Katrina roared ashore. And like thousands of his constituents, Lott
has not been able to get his insurer to pay for replacing his house.
So, like thousands of his constituents, Lott has sued his insurer, State Farm,
which has stonewalled Lott and other South Mississippians who lost their homes
on the grounds that their homeowners policies do not cover flood damage.
]

Perhaps he should have paid for flood coverage .... instead of trusting
bush .... who is, after all, a republican (in name only).
--
Cliff

On 1 Mar 2006 21:45:15 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


Cliff wrote:

BTW, What ever happened to "WMDs" & New Orleans? Or bin Laden?

WMD went to Syria, bin Laden is on the run, and New Orleans is coming
back, baby.

[
And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and
it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a
fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's
house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house.
And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch.
] - Herr Shrubbie

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...rina_lott.html
[
Trent Lott Sues State Farm over Katrina Damage
....
Like thousands of other homeowners, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) lost his home when
Hurricane Katrina roared ashore. And like thousands of his constituents, Lott
has not been able to get his insurer to pay for replacing his house.
So, like thousands of his constituents, Lott has sued his insurer, State Farm,
which has stonewalled Lott and other South Mississippians who lost their homes
on the grounds that their homeowners policies do not cover flood damage.
......
......
While Republicans in Congress are quick to bash plaintiffs' lawyers who file
class-action suits on behalf of consumers, Lott had no trouble turning for legal
help to his brother-in-law, Richard Scruggs, a famous and enormously successful
plaintiffs' lawyer who has won huge judgments against tobacco and asbestos
companies, among others.
]

Perhaps he should have paid for flood coverage .... instead of trusting
bush .... who is, after all, a republican (in name only).
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:14:05 GMT, Gunner wrote:

Yall are missing the religious core of the suicide bombers. They fully
believe that to die as a martyr, puts them on the right hand of Allah.
So the poor impoverished *******s will be going to a much better life,
with all the virgins they can abuse..and all the hasheesh they can
smoke.

What's growing in your bunker's kibble?
http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/180/hallucin.html

(Try the "WOW" too g.)

The Anti-Hippie Action League .....
http://www.devo.com/tft/hippie/
--
Cliff

wrote in message oups.com...

Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:14:05 GMT, Gunner wrote:

Yall are missing the religious core of the suicide bombers. They fully
believe that to die as a martyr, puts them on the right hand of Allah.
So the poor impoverished *******s will be going to a much better life,
with all the virgins they can abuse..and all the hasheesh they can
smoke.

What's growing in your bunker's kibble?
http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/180/hallucin.html

(Try the "WOW" too g.)

The Anti-Hippie Action League .....
http://www.devo.com/tft/hippie/
--

A few dead links
http://www.devo.com/tft/hippie/links.html

http://www.woodstock69.com/woodstock_store.htm
[
The Woodstock 69 web site will remain open....just no store
(although I will provide links to reputable merchants offering the
same or similar items). I hope you will continue to visit our site
and send all of your friends.
]

Try these:
http://www.psychedelix.com/links.html

http://www.psychedelix.com/saver.html

Psychedelix screensaver true trippy experience

http://trippervision.com/sample_videos.htm


Trip the mind fantastic,
John

"Guido" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:48:41 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:38:33 +0000, Guido wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:19:14 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
m...

So the heros were in the Pentagon plane?

With the other exceptions you overlooked. IMO if you want to put it that
way
yes it was less of a cowardly target.



???

Was your dictionary written by the Ministry of Truth?

He probably needs to do some Google searching ....
What happened to the last batch of wingers? They seemed
just a bit brighter.


Must be a new group just out of HS. The result of 5 years of
conservative education.

That was an actual definition from American Heritage Dictionary I posted and
look at the flames I get. I really didnt know there were so many sick people
like yourself in this world. You get a high on putting others down, never
offer your own answers/ solutions just make sure everything is wrong nothing
is ever right.

"Guido" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:11 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:43:04 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:47:29 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
news:8ht602556h12t243cjis96cs2gfgrktqkr@4ax. com...

Totally ****ed up says Paul Breman.

There were no plans of what to do afterwards, a vacuum was allowed
to
develop and that has been filled by bombs. Iran has restarted its
nuclear programme, and Hamas is elected in Palestine.

Look at the whole dam picture and you tell me what had to be done.
Diplomatic talks failed, embargos failed and were killing millions of
people
and needed to end, but before that could happen Saddam who vowed to
use
WMD
against us and our allies had to be removed. We tried the CIA, we
tried
opposition groups inside of Iraq, the only thing left was to go invade
Iraq
and remove him. Yes it was very difficult to do and would face
problems.
We
knew no matter what we would have a mess. You never can tell what will
happen and people who look at things hindsight which is the vast
majority
of
critics in this case are real low scum.



What hindsight? Most of the world could and did foretell what would
happen. The State Department said what would happen, but a group of
****wads like Cheney, Rumsfeldt, and Wolfowitz thought they knew
better, and the guy in charge is away with the faeries.
http://photobucket.com/albums/a181/s...pad/1143pe.jpg


Rush, rush, rush, gotta do it now, gotta do it now, rush, rush, rush,
do it on the cheap, yeah combat troops can secure the peace, do it on
the cheap.

They knew there'd be problems you say, but didn't bother with having
enough trained personel to provide security. Bremer says they were
some 30-50,000 light. Making it up day by day as they went along,
winging it on a national scale.

Kerching, kerching, kerching!
http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

And now all ****ed up and no way out.

Everyone wanted this war before it happened. Clinton wanted it, Kerry
wanted
it, in fact I think there was only one person who voted against the war
at
the time, henceforth hindsight you have all these people protesting it.


Excuse me but hardly anyone wanted it. The French NON, the German's
NIEN, the Russians NEIT, the Chinese NO (can't do Mandarin), all
around the world NO, NO, NO. So just where do you get the idea that
everyone wanted it?

If I said everyone and mentioned Americans that must mean I am talking
about
our government and country.

What's with this 'our' ?

Do a Google search to look it up.



Another keyword was vote and how only one
apposed and you mention foreign countries.


What foreign countries?

There are over 30 foreign countries assisting us from troops to intel.
Nearly the whole Mid East is in support. But back to topic in the US only
one person voted against the war based on the same intel we had at the time.


However I will expand to say all
the countries in that area also wanted Saddam removed they even opened up
new bases to allow us to overthrow him! Actions speak louder then words.
The
countries you mentioned are well documented in the black market for oil.


Russia is the largest oil producer and has more oil than it knows what
to do with. The Chinese are the 6th largest producer and prepared to
pay well for any oil import deals they enter into. BTW US companies
were the major players in blackmarket Iraqi oil.

Care to link a site to this claim? Russia is the largest oil producer?
ROFLMAO!!! BTW the US wasnt a major player in comparision to other nations.
Many were involved in this and yes some US corporations were too however
Major players is some US businesses in comparison to Govt's of foreign
nations involved.


All the WMD were leaking into Syria give them more time gees. They gave
them
enough time to review all the material we presented in our case and remove
it! All the spy photos documenting the WMD were mysteriously gone by the
time we got in, no coincidence.



So Iraq is about to be attacked and is government overthown because it
has WMDs, and the Iraqi master plan was to move the WMDs to a country
that Iraq has been at odds with for decades Syria.

YES! If you remember the Iran Iraq war ended in 88 and just three years
later in 91 when Kuwait was being liberated Iraq flew its Airforce into Iran
for safekeeping! You seem to forget the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Do you know how to
tie your shoelaces?

Was that a childish insult? Sort of like your mama? How primitive of you to
stoop to this level. Ok well your mama is so ugly she looked out the window
and got arrested for mooning.



BTW if there was all this wonderful spy photos why not give directions
to the UN inspectors so that they could intercept them? Oops they did,
sent the UN inspectors scurrying from one site to another on positive
intel that there were WMDs except it all turned out to be a crock of
****.

False. If you remember Iraq wasnt complying ven Hans said this not allowing
them to inspect certain locations, giving them the run around.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION Executive
Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Plenty to read here. Also in '02 we knew:
Information provided by Member States tells us about the movement and
concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological
weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given
to us and report what we might find as well as any denial of access.


They
all had the same information the President had at the time and also
whatever
they chose to believe.


They weren't the people doing the planning, nor were they deciding
the make up the forces, nor were they directing what happened after
the fall of Saddam.

No and why would they be one and the same? If that was the case war hawks
would get away with murder literally that is why civilians elected vote
for
war and the Military does their job.


How did you get here from what preceded? What role did Clinton and
Kerry have in deciding the make up of US forces in Iraq? What role did
they play in deciding policy after the fall of Saddam?

Clinton wanted to invade Iraq on numerous occassions and did on Dec 98 just
didnt do much with no resolve. All the intel handed over from Clinton admin
insisted we invade Iraq to the newer administration. Kerry voted for the
war. No senator decides on strategy why are you even asking such silly
questions?





Most commentators said that occupying Iraq would be a difficult
undertaking and that there was likely to be resistence from large part
of the population.

I agree as would be the case no matter what country or circumstances you
face that outcome. With many different types of people living in Iraq
Sunni,
Shiite, Kurds, hostile neighbors they expected an implosion which was the
reason the first time around we didnt invade back in 1991.



Good call eh? So what changed to make one think that an implosion was
a good thing?

It was never a good thing but we had no alternatives all other means had
been exhausted and embargos were hurting the people of that country to much.



You still never touched on the fact of embargos
killing millions of people and continuing at that pace millions more.
Just
decorate your point with silly cartoons after the fact cause you cant
with
websites prior to the invasion that was against the war.


Have you taken leave of your senses?

What was done in Iraq was to blast the place up, destroy the
infrastructure, close down the government systems, leave 1000s without
jobs, shoot up people on sight, in the first few months the Iraqi
police were mostly killed by US friendly fire. Then sit back whilst
the chaos brewed for 6 months or so.

The warnings were unheeded and the ****up we see today is the result.

There was no right way to do it and the bottomline is nobody had a better
idea in the first place yet they (US Govt) all said we needed to invade
Iraq
at least admit that no matter what party line. The embargos killed so many
more people this was a more humane thing whether you see it that way or
not.
Saddam was doing the same to his people, look at all the mass graves
popping
up!



Except that at the time there was a country welcoming troops in glad
that Saddam was overthown. Botched planning of what to do afterwards
(there was no plan), inability to provide either security or
infrastructure, and heavy handed treatment of the locals have ****ed
up the place.


To be honest no plan is perfect. I am sure hoping that the existing govt at
the time would stay in tact to help in the aftermath and be a part of the
new regime was expected and unfortunately not the case. They all walked
away. All I can add is I bet far less have died now then with the embargos.
Also now there is more of a hope for better a country for their people too.

"Guido" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:57:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
. ..

Except that at the time there was a country welcoming troops in glad
that Saddam was overthown. Botched planning of what to do afterwards
(there was no plan), inability to provide either security or
infrastructure, and heavy handed treatment of the locals have ****ed
up the place.

Hey, Guido, it looks like you're holding up your end very well.


This new batch are challenged to say the least.

I hear the GWB has been talking up victory in Afghanistan today. Pity
its so dangerous out there that he can't tour the country.

Meanwhile back at home the intel staff having been telling the
Senate/Congress that the Taliban and AQ are on a roll, with their
activities 20% up on last year.

Safe enough for him to visit. I agree its unstable and the stupid comic of
Muhamad never helped, yet people still publish it time after time inciting
more problems. One side is trying to good and another just loves to provoke
or promote negativity any chance they can for the unstability.

"Smithers" wrote in message
...
Joseph Gwinn wrote in
:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

Putting words in peoples mouths is wrong thing to do. Making
conclusions
as
such is wrong too. I am fed up with this BS and you lose
credibility yourself in doing so.

Those are YOUR words, and it appears that you're now trying to
weasel
out
of
them by pointing the finger elsewhere.

Shape up, Nicholas. If you say something, either stand behind
your words or bow out. You're sounding like Greybuns.

--
Ed Huntress

I stand by my words and dont appreciate people making assumptions
from them as they have.

No no no no no. You're not getting away with that. Here are your
words again:

"Hold up Ed. The act of cowardness was attacking inocent civilians
that wont or cant fight back under the circumstances."

That covers a lot of territory. As anyone who knows history is well
aware, you've just defined our attacks on Dresden, on Hiroshima, on
Nagasaki, and many other places. We made a big splash with it early
in the history of modern warfare, when Sherman marched to the sea and
burned Atlanta.

Dresden: Payback for the London Blitz, and an industrial center to
boot.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Use of atomic weapons allowed WW2 to end
without requiring the physical invasion of the island of Japan.

Contemporary estimates were that, based on the scale of fighting
required as the Allies retook the Pacific islands one by one, taking
Japan itself would cost at least one million Allied dead. Civilian
deaths would have been far higher, at least ten million, as Japan has
about the population of the US compressed into an island the size of
California. And most of Japan would have been devastated, causing
agriculture to collapse, causing mass starvation. All this would have
made Normandy and Lenningrad look like picnics.

In the most basic terms, compared to a full-scale invasion, atomic
attack was a *very* good deal for the Japanese population -- it cost
only two smallish cities and 200,000 dead.

And a very good deal for the Allied soldiers, the million who would
have died.


Atlanta: Sherman's objective was not terror, it was strategic, to
destroy the South's economy and thus her capacity to make war.
Sherman did things like tearing railroad tracks up, to block shipping
between the interior and the port of Atlanta. It worked.


Joe Gwinn


Pretty much everything you said is either puffed up or untrue. The
Russians were about to invade Japan right at the end of the war. They
declared war on Japan about a week before we dropped the bombs. Had we
not done so they would have invaded Japan from the north so they could
have taken land from Japan they lost in 1904, and then occupied Japan
like they did Europe. All the trumped up estimates of the cost of not
dropping the atom bombs was grossly exaggerated to justify their use. We
wanted the war over quickly so we wouldn't have to contend with Russian
troops in Japan. Oh, and the targets picked were intended to kill mainly
civilians to instill terror in the Japanese. Unfortunately, our military
didn't factor in that the Japanese war leaders didn't care if we killed
everyone. They weren't going to surrender. It took the emperor to
overrule their recklessness.

Hawke


Notice you said we attacked the civilians to instill terror on the Japanese
who didnt care if we killed everyone. Evidentally it worled cause look at
how it unravled. I am not going to get into the symantics of our choices at
the time just the outcome cause its all hindsite and has many spins
depending what you choose to believe.

"Smithers" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

Putting words in peoples mouths is wrong thing to do. Making
conclusions
as
such is wrong too. I am fed up with this BS and you lose
credibility yourself in doing so.

Those are YOUR words, and it appears that you're now trying to
weasel
out
of
them by pointing the finger elsewhere.

Shape up, Nicholas. If you say something, either stand behind your
words or
bow out. You're sounding like Greybuns.

--
Ed Huntress

I stand by my words and dont appreciate people making assumptions
from
them
as they have.

No no no no no. You're not getting away with that. Here are your words
again:

"Hold up Ed. The act of cowardness was attacking inocent civilians
that wont or cant fight back under the circumstances."

That covers a lot of territory. As anyone who knows history is well
aware, you've just defined our attacks on Dresden, on Hiroshima, on
Nagasaki, and many other places. We made a big splash with it early in
the history of modern warfare, when Sherman marched to the sea and
burned Atlanta.

You've made a twisted and blatantly incorrect definition of cowardice.
Killing innocent civilians is a perverse act that's usually done to
inflict terror. It has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice. That's
what we did in Dresden. That's what we did in Hiroshima. That's what
we did in Nagasaki. That's what we did in Atlanta.

Our purpose was to terrorize those populations into surrender. Don't
give us some silly moralizing revisionism. That was intentional
terror, which we did to shorten the wars and to save the lives of many
of our own soldiers. IMO, it was entirely justified terrorism. It was
perverse. But I'd do it myself, under the same circumstances. Humans
often do perverse things out of necessity.

What bravery and cowardice are about is individual sacrifice, putting
oneself at risk of possible or certain death--or shrinking from it,
even when the coward knows that risking his life could save many more,
by winning a battle, or by terrorizing the enemy, if it comes to that.
The WTC attackers were not cowards. And your definition of cowardice
is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

Ed you are better then this. Here is what I am annoyed about.
No it isnt something we are doing regulary in Iraq, nor do imply that
we
are
cowards, that is what I am talking about putting words in other
peoples mouth quit the ****!

What to you MEAN we aren't doing it regularly in Iraq?? We bomb some
place, killing a lot of people, and we usually don't even apologize
for killing the civilians. We puff up some words about how unfortunate
the "collateral damage" is. But we killed those civilians. You can
argue all you want about whether it's necessary or not, or about how
unfortunate it all is, but what you CAN'T do is moralize and hide from
the fact that we've killed thousands of them ourselves. And we knew we
were going to wind up killing them, going in, just like we knew we'd
kill tens of thousands of civilians in Dresden, or in the two cities
in Japan.

And to put it in the context of bravery or cowardice displays a lack
of clear-headed thinking about what those words MEAN. They mean
something. They don't mean what you're claiming they mean. If you let
yourself fall into that kind of self-delusion, you've become
irrelevant to the issue. If you can't think straight about these
things, you can't do anything that contributes to understanding the
subject.

--
Ed Huntress




Anyone with half a brain can understand that over the years the US has
killed innocent people by the thousands. The only difference is that some
Americans can't accept that we do the same thing terrorists do so they
concoct some kind of goofy fantasy where our killing innocents is
acceptable but when others do it's a horrendous crime. Any reasonable
mind understands that the only difference between what we do and what
others do is the excuses we use are different.

Hawke


More like the intent or how it happens the loss of lives. You made a blanket
statement that has flaws. In so many events Iraqi military used civilian
shields so you mix that into your stats. I remember during no fly zones they
would use tripple a fire in residential areas or areas with high asset
levels like oil pipelines to strategically deter our return fireI bet if you
look overall what we do and other countries do you would agree we still are
angels comparitvely.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:13:05 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:11 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:




What foreign countries?

There are over 30 foreign countries assisting us from troops to intel.
Nearly the whole Mid East is in support. But back to topic in the US only
one person voted against the war based on the same intel we had at the time.


Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the
Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia,
Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania,
Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2862343.stm

Whoopie! I notice Andorra isn't in the list *******s!




However I will expand to say all
the countries in that area also wanted Saddam removed they even opened up
new bases to allow us to overthrow him! Actions speak louder then words.
The
countries you mentioned are well documented in the black market for oil.


Russia is the largest oil producer and has more oil than it knows what
to do with. The Chinese are the 6th largest producer and prepared to
pay well for any oil import deals they enter into. BTW US companies
were the major players in blackmarket Iraqi oil.

Care to link a site to this claim? Russia is the largest oil producer?
ROFLMAO!!!

Some have Russia as the largest some at 2nd largest, tends to
fluctuate - take your pick
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#producers
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html

But number one or number two they ain't into black market oil.

BTW the US wasnt a major player in comparision to other nations.
Many were involved in this and yes some US corporations were too however
Major players is some US businesses in comparison to Govt's of foreign
nations involved.


All the WMD were leaking into Syria give them more time gees. They gave
them
enough time to review all the material we presented in our case and remove
it! All the spy photos documenting the WMD were mysteriously gone by the
time we got in, no coincidence.



So Iraq is about to be attacked and is government overthown because it
has WMDs, and the Iraqi master plan was to move the WMDs to a country
that Iraq has been at odds with for decades Syria.

YES! If you remember the Iran Iraq war ended in 88 and just three years
later in 91 when Kuwait was being liberated Iraq flew its Airforce into Iran
for safekeeping! You seem to forget the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


So tell us what good his WMDs would be to him in Syria? He had them
apparently according to you numskulls in order to threaten his
neighbours, but now you say he gave them to his neighbours for safe
keeping. Pretty safe his airforce in Iran was too. After 12 years they
still had them all:

# 15 MiG-29 ground-attack aircraft
# 30 Mirage F1 ground-attack aircraft
# 50 MiG-23 multi-role fighters
# 20 Su-25 ground-attack aircraft
# 30 Su-20/-22 ground-attack aircraft
# 7 Tu-16 and B-6D bombers
# 10 Tu-22 supersonic bombers

not a single one of them returned to Saddam. Damn those sure were in
safekeeping alright. Now did any of the pilots that flew them to Iran
for 'safekeeping' ever return to Iraq?


Do you know how to
tie your shoelaces?

Was that a childish insult? Sort of like your mama? How primitive of you to
stoop to this level. Ok well your mama is so ugly she looked out the window
and got arrested for mooning.


So you are still using the ones that fasten with velcro then?



BTW if there was all this wonderful spy photos why not give directions
to the UN inspectors so that they could intercept them? Oops they did,
sent the UN inspectors scurrying from one site to another on positive
intel that there were WMDs except it all turned out to be a crock of
****.

False. If you remember Iraq wasnt complying ven Hans said this not allowing
them to inspect certain locations, giving them the run around.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION Executive
Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Plenty to read here. Also in '02 we knew:
Information provided by Member States tells us about the movement and
concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological
weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given
to us and report what we might find as well as any denial of access.


"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find
weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish
diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United
Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981
to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We
went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in
three cases did we find something"

"The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was
that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite
the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes
inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any
inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to
endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces,
he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear
that the inspectors would pass on their findings of
conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies,
providing easy future targets."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r.../18_blix.shtml



They weren't the people doing the planning, nor were they deciding
the make up the forces, nor were they directing what happened after
the fall of Saddam.

No and why would they be one and the same? If that was the case war hawks
would get away with murder literally that is why civilians elected vote
for
war and the Military does their job.


How did you get here from what preceded? What role did Clinton and
Kerry have in deciding the make up of US forces in Iraq? What role did
they play in deciding policy after the fall of Saddam?

Clinton wanted to invade Iraq on numerous occassions and did on Dec 98 just
didnt do much with no resolve.


But he didn't did he? He wasn't the one doing the planning in 2003
that was Bush Inc.


All the intel handed over from Clinton admin
insisted we invade Iraq to the newer administration. Kerry voted for the
war. No senator decides on strategy why are you even asking such silly
questions?


Because you seem to think that they are somehow to blame for the
current **** up. That they decided how many troops to send, the make
up of those troops, and how Iraq should be administered after the fall
of the Saddam regime. It had nothing to do with them that **** up is
entirely to the credit of the present administration.




Except that at the time there was a country welcoming troops in glad
that Saddam was overthown. Botched planning of what to do afterwards
(there was no plan), inability to provide either security or
infrastructure, and heavy handed treatment of the locals have ****ed
up the place.


To be honest no plan is perfect. I am sure hoping that the existing govt at
the time would stay in tact to help in the aftermath and be a part of the
new regime was expected and unfortunately not the case. They all walked
away. All I can add is I bet far less have died now then with the embargos.
Also now there is more of a hope for better a country for their people too.



Actually they were all sacked, told to go home, etc. The policy was
de-Baathification:
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...sbas051903.asp

Paul Bremen says it was a huge mistake.

"Guido" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:13:05 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:11 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:




What foreign countries?

There are over 30 foreign countries assisting us from troops to intel.
Nearly the whole Mid East is in support. But back to topic in the US only
one person voted against the war based on the same intel we had at the
time.


Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the
Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia,
Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania,
Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2862343.stm

Whoopie! I notice Andorra isn't in the list *******s!




However I will expand to say all
the countries in that area also wanted Saddam removed they even opened
up
new bases to allow us to overthrow him! Actions speak louder then words.
The
countries you mentioned are well documented in the black market for oil.


Russia is the largest oil producer and has more oil than it knows what
to do with. The Chinese are the 6th largest producer and prepared to
pay well for any oil import deals they enter into. BTW US companies
were the major players in blackmarket Iraqi oil.

Care to link a site to this claim? Russia is the largest oil producer?
ROFLMAO!!!

Some have Russia as the largest some at 2nd largest, tends to
fluctuate - take your pick
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#producers
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html

I am greatful you are posting links to back what you say it helps. I just
want to point out to you they are showing production, not reserves. So if
Russia is producing the second most but has less reserves then say 10 other
nations it isnt going to last long or be significant.




But number one or number two they ain't into black market oil.

BTW the US wasnt a major player in comparision to other nations.
Many were involved in this and yes some US corporations were too however
Major players is some US businesses in comparison to Govt's of foreign
nations involved.


All the WMD were leaking into Syria give them more time gees. They gave
them
enough time to review all the material we presented in our case and
remove
it! All the spy photos documenting the WMD were mysteriously gone by the
time we got in, no coincidence.



So Iraq is about to be attacked and is government overthown because it
has WMDs, and the Iraqi master plan was to move the WMDs to a country
that Iraq has been at odds with for decades Syria.

YES! If you remember the Iran Iraq war ended in 88 and just three years
later in 91 when Kuwait was being liberated Iraq flew its Airforce into
Iran
for safekeeping! You seem to forget the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


So tell us what good his WMDs would be to him in Syria? He had them
apparently according to you numskulls in order to threaten his
neighbours, but now you say he gave them to his neighbours for safe
keeping. Pretty safe his airforce in Iran was too. After 12 years they
still had them all:

# 15 MiG-29 ground-attack aircraft
# 30 Mirage F1 ground-attack aircraft
# 50 MiG-23 multi-role fighters
# 20 Su-25 ground-attack aircraft
# 30 Su-20/-22 ground-attack aircraft
# 7 Tu-16 and B-6D bombers
# 10 Tu-22 supersonic bombers

not a single one of them returned to Saddam. Damn those sure were in
safekeeping alright. Now did any of the pilots that flew them to Iran
for 'safekeeping' ever return to Iraq?

Yes they still have them and looking at events post war there was no fly
zones set up so no use for them anyway. I am not certain of the pilots, if
they deffected or returned. I wish you would have posted the outcome rather
then speculate.






Do you know how to
tie your shoelaces?

Was that a childish insult? Sort of like your mama? How primitive of you
to
stoop to this level. Ok well your mama is so ugly she looked out the
window
and got arrested for mooning.


So you are still using the ones that fasten with velcro then?


Lol no and I dont have an R or L on them either.





BTW if there was all this wonderful spy photos why not give directions
to the UN inspectors so that they could intercept them? Oops they did,
sent the UN inspectors scurrying from one site to another on positive
intel that there were WMDs except it all turned out to be a crock of
****.

False. If you remember Iraq wasnt complying ven Hans said this not
allowing
them to inspect certain locations, giving them the run around.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION Executive
Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Plenty to read here. Also in '02 we knew:
Information provided by Member States tells us about the movement and
concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for
biological
weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given
to us and report what we might find as well as any denial of access.


"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find
weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish
diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United
Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981
to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We
went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in
three cases did we find something"

"The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was
that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite
the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes
inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any
inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to
endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces,
he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear
that the inspectors would pass on their findings of
conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies,
providing easy future targets."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r.../18_blix.shtml

Sigh the source. But anyway if you read the article I posted it illustrated
in the Jan 03 report just before us going in many of the problems and
discrepencies which eventually lead to us invading Iraq.






They weren't the people doing the planning, nor were they deciding
the make up the forces, nor were they directing what happened after
the fall of Saddam.

No and why would they be one and the same? If that was the case war
hawks
would get away with murder literally that is why civilians elected vote
for
war and the Military does their job.


How did you get here from what preceded? What role did Clinton and
Kerry have in deciding the make up of US forces in Iraq? What role did
they play in deciding policy after the fall of Saddam?

Clinton wanted to invade Iraq on numerous occassions and did on Dec 98
just
didnt do much with no resolve.


But he didn't did he? He wasn't the one doing the planning in 2003
that was Bush Inc.

Operation Desert Fox Dec 98. No he bombed inocent people in a city instead,
lol. Of course he couldnt with out the consent of congress otherwise he
would have. No matter who had the balls to get the job done I do feel war
sucks we all lose in the end but it was the last elternative that would end
the embargos and remove Saddam.


All the intel handed over from Clinton admin
insisted we invade Iraq to the newer administration. Kerry voted for the
war. No senator decides on strategy why are you even asking such silly
questions?


Because you seem to think that they are somehow to blame for the
current **** up. That they decided how many troops to send, the make
up of those troops, and how Iraq should be administered after the fall
of the Saddam regime. It had nothing to do with them that **** up is
entirely to the credit of the present administration.

I dont think anyone had any answers to this. Can one person even hindsight
say they had a better way to do things? The answer is no.


Except that at the time there was a country welcoming troops in glad
that Saddam was overthown. Botched planning of what to do afterwards
(there was no plan), inability to provide either security or
infrastructure, and heavy handed treatment of the locals have ****ed
up the place.


To be honest no plan is perfect. I am sure hoping that the existing govt
at
the time would stay in tact to help in the aftermath and be a part of the
new regime was expected and unfortunately not the case. They all walked
away. All I can add is I bet far less have died now then with the
embargos.
Also now there is more of a hope for better a country for their people
too.



Actually they were all sacked, told to go home, etc. The policy was
de-Baathification:
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...sbas051903.asp

Paul Bremen says it was a huge mistake.

I would have to agree that it was a mistake and hindsight sure we can see
this. At the time I would probably have agreed it was a bad idea to leave
Saddams appointed people in place. Thanks for a level headed discussion and
the links it is much appreciated.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:22:21 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

That was an actual definition from American Heritage Dictionary I posted

Where?

and look at the flames I get.

A lack of reading comprehension capabilities on your part is not
our problem, now is it?

"Was your dictionary written by the Ministry of Truth?"
--
Cliff

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:13:05 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Another keyword was vote and how only one
apposed and you mention foreign countries.


What foreign countries?

There are over 30 foreign countries assisting us

Halliburton is buying French catering so that counts.

from troops to intel.
Nearly the whole Mid East is in support.

Name some. BTW, It's not next door to downtown Anderson.

But back to topic in the US only
one person voted against the war based on the same intel we had at the time.

That "one person" must be a hero indeed as the lying wingers
were fabricating "evidence" wholesale, much as usual.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-35.htm
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/s...004114558.html

""A Cabal" That Has "Courted Disaster""
http://www.tedkennedy.com/journal/29...urted-disaster

~ 84,000 "cites":
http://tinyurl.com/rvxe8
--
Cliff

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:10:19 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Some have Russia as the largest some at 2nd largest, tends to
fluctuate - take your pick
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#producers
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html

I am greatful you are posting links to back what you say it helps. I just
want to point out to you they are showing production, not reserves. So if
Russia is producing the second most but has less reserves then say 10 other
nations it isnt going to last long or be significant.

Many of the Russian reserves have yet to be explored, even if they
have been discovered.
Much is just coming online as well.
Not that it is likely to make up for losses in production
elsewhere as fields run rather dry.

For someone that knows so little you sure don't know much.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:10:19 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Do you know how to
tie your shoelaces?

Was that a childish insult? Sort of like your mama? How primitive of you
to
stoop to this level. Ok well your mama is so ugly she looked out the
window
and got arrested for mooning.


So you are still using the ones that fasten with velcro then?


Lol no and I dont have an R or L on them either.

Don't let this guy near any blonde jokes/instruction manuals.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:10:19 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

But anyway if you read the article I posted it illustrated
in the Jan 03 report just before us going in many of the problems and
discrepencies which eventually lead to us invading Iraq.

A list of well-known lies?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:10:19 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

No matter who had the balls to get the job done I do feel war
sucks we all lose in the end but it was the last elternative that would end
the embargos and remove Saddam.

Gee .. how novel .... the war (& invasion & occupation) against
Iraq was to lift the sanctions most of the world wanted lifted as
there were no "WMDs" and a few more weeks of UN inspections ....

BTW, Saddam seems to be on trial for authorizing (failing to commute)
148 death sentences ... over how many years of rule?
Texas led the nation in executions under Bush with 131 executed
in only 5 years ....
--
Cliff

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:16:29 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Safe enough for him to visit.

Seems like the bombs just missed him again.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:16:29 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

One side is trying to good and another just loves to provoke
or promote negativity any chance they can for the unstability.

http://www.notinourname.net/graphics/shock-awe.jpg
HTH
--
Cliff

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:28:34 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

In so many events Iraqi military used civilian
shields so you mix that into your stats.

"Israel's supreme court says the use of Palestinian human shields in arrest
raids violates international law."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4314898.stm

But we knew that ...
--
Cliff

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:28:34 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

I remember during no fly zones they
would use tripple a fire in residential areas or areas with high asset
levels like oil pipelines to strategically deter our return fireI bet if you
look overall what we do and other countries do you would agree we still are
angels comparitvely.

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.

HTH
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.


Thank you Ramsey Clark.

Anyone with half a brain can understand that over the years the US
has killed innocent people by the thousands. The only difference is
that some Americans can't accept that we do the same thing terrorists
do so they concoct some kind of goofy fantasy where our killing
innocents is acceptable but when others do it's a horrendous crime.
Any reasonable mind understands that the only difference between what
we do and what others do is the excuses we use are different.

Hawke


More like the intent or how it happens the loss of lives. You made a
blanket statement that has flaws. In so many events Iraqi military
used civilian shields so you mix that into your stats. I remember
during no fly zones they would use tripple a fire in residential areas
or areas with high asset levels like oil pipelines to strategically
deter our return fireI bet if you look overall what we do and other
countries do you would agree we still are angels comparitvely.



Sorry but we're no angels no matter how you look at it. Intent is important
and in that regard we are different from the terrorists. They target non
military targets intentionally and seek to kill innocent people. We aren't
doing that. But we are killing a lot of innocent people nevertheless. To
some the idea that we aren't aiming at them on purpose seems to make a big
difference. To others and especially those we kill and their families it
doesn't make a bit of difference. To them all that matters is that
Americans killed their family members.

There is also the case to be made that the excuse that we only kill
innocent people by accident, which makes it okay, is not valid. In the law
if you cause damage by your actions you are responsible whether your action
was intentional or not. The idea is this; was it forseeable that your
action would cause the damage. If it was forseeable then you are liable for
the damage. I would suggest that if we drop a 500lb. bomb in a highly
populated area of Baghdad because we want to destroy a target it is
forseeable that we are going to kill innocent people. According to that
view, our killings are no less wrong than the killings of the terrorists.
The terrorists are guilty of intentionally killing innocent people. We are
guilty of the same thing because a reasonable person could see that our
actions would kill innocent people. Which means the US is really no better
than the terrorists because we know our actions are going to kill innocent
people but we go ahead and do it anyway. The bottom line is as I said, we
kill more innocent people than anyone else and have done so for a long
time. We have our excuses but the innocent people are just as dead whether
we were trying to kill them or not.

Hawke

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 09:08:46 -0600, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:


wrote in message oups.com...

Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:14:05 GMT, Gunner wrote:

Yall are missing the religious core of the suicide bombers. They fully
believe that to die as a martyr, puts them on the right hand of Allah.
So the poor impoverished *******s will be going to a much better life,
with all the virgins they can abuse..and all the hasheesh they can
smoke.

What's growing in your bunker's kibble?
http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/180/hallucin.html

(Try the "WOW" too g.)

The Anti-Hippie Action League .....
http://www.devo.com/tft/hippie/
--

A few dead links
http://www.devo.com/tft/hippie/links.html

http://www.woodstock69.com/woodstock_store.htm
[
The Woodstock 69 web site will remain open....just no store
(although I will provide links to reputable merchants offering the
same or similar items). I hope you will continue to visit our site
and send all of your friends.
]

Try these:
http://www.psychedelix.com/links.html

http://www.psychedelix.com/saver.html

Psychedelix screensaver true trippy experience

http://trippervision.com/sample_videos.htm


Trip the mind fantastic,
John

"no responsibility for those who are sucked in."
--
Cliff

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:39:52 +0000, Guido wrote:

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:13:05 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:11 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:




What foreign countries?

There are over 30 foreign countries assisting us from troops to intel.
Nearly the whole Mid East is in support. But back to topic in the US only
one person voted against the war based on the same intel we had at the time.


Afghanistan,

Dang !! They were just conquered. How did that happen?

Albania,

120 non-combat troops, patrolling Mosul airport.

Australia,

Roughly 550 troops and support in Iraq.

Azerbaijan,

150 troops.

Bulgaria,

The last four Bulgarian soldiers left.

Pulled out it's 380 infantry troops in December; will deploy 120 non-combat
troops by mid-March to guard refugee camp.

Colombia,

They had one "security contractor" shot.

the Czech Republic,

100 military police training Iraqis.

Denmark,

Independent contingent of 550 troops including infantry, medics and military
police in South East Iraq near Basra at "Camp Danevang".
Denmark has plans to leave Iraq in early to late 2006 ....

El Salvador,

380 soldiers doing humanitarian work in Hillah.

Eritrea,


Estonia,

34 troops.

Ethiopia,


Georgia,

858 combat forces, medics and support personnel in Baqouba.

Hungary,

Hungary's contingent of 300 transportation troops had begun arriving home in
Budapest from Iraq on the 22nd of December 2004, reported AFP. All of Hungary's
troops were reported by the Defence Ministry to have left Iraq by the end of
that day.

Italy,

About 2,600 troops, most in Nasiriyah. Half will be gone by June.

Japan,

600 non-combat troops based in Samawah to purify water. Pullout may
be in March.

South Korea,

3,270 troops training Iraqis; security for U.N.; 1,000 to withdraw this year;
mission expires at end of 2006.

Latvia,

135 soldiers, pulling out by year's end.

Lithuania,

60 soldiers, with the Danish.

Macedonia,

32 troops providing security.

the Netherlands,

15 soldiers as part of NATO mission training police, gone by August.

Nicaragua,

230 troops left in February 2004, no replacement.

the Philippines,

Their 51 medics, engineers and soldiers were withdrawn July 14 2004.

Poland,

900 non-combat troops.

Romania,

863 troops, including 400 infantry, 150 mine experts, 100 military police, 50
military intelligence plus medics and U.N. guards.

Slovakia,

107 troops stationed in Hillah in Polish sector, mostly removing mines.

Spain,

.... declared the end of the mission on April 28, 2004 with the withdrawal of
the last 260 troops ...

Turkey,

Had ~30 contactors killed, mostly truck drivers.

United Kingdom

About 8,000 troops in southern Iraq.

and Uzbekistan.

US forces: ~ 138,000 as of February 2006.

Pulled out thus far: Bulgaria, Ukraine, Nicaragua, Spain, Honduras,
Norway, Dominican Republic, Philippines, Thailand, Hungary,
New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Netherlands, Moldova & Tonga.

NEVER THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt,
Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Oman, Yemen, Lebanon, Israel
Pakistan, India, Bahrain ..... Oops ... why did none of them want
the wars or supply troops & bombs?

They were, after all, the only ones Saddam could have reached with
his purported "WMDs". And who the shrubbie was "protecting".
--
Cliff

On 2 Mar 2006 21:12:24 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

Cliff wrote:

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.


Thank you Ramsey Clark.

You think otherwise, eh?
Find it.

"U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go."
"The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the U.S. government after
the Persian Gulf War, supposedly to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. There was
one big problem, however: The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones
to be established."
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp

"Again, the no-fly zones are not imbedded in any UN resolution. This is
something the United States, Britain, and France essentially did unilaterally
..."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...raq_12-31.html

"Although the “no-fly-zones” have never been sanctioned by the Security
Council, under Paragraph 8, the U.S. could justify its use of military force
against Iraq, if Iraq fired on a U.S. airplane which was unlawfully violating
Iraq’s airspace within these zones."
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew74.php

[
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEMO SAYS:

President Bush to Tony Blair: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance
aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on
them, he would be in breach"
]
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/whitehousememo

HTH
--
Cliff

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 07:58:27 -0000, Hawke wrote:

There is also the case to be made that the excuse that we only kill
innocent people by accident, which makes it okay, is not valid.

Like asking to be shown those pesky "WMDs" ...

Consider:

So when the neocons claimed that they knew & had irrefutable proof
and refused to tell any that asked?
When they set up their plans to tell lies?

Can you use this excuse to break into your neighbor's house,
steal his things, murder him & his family, burn the house down,
call all your other neighbors that would not help you "terrorists",
and get off with huge prizes from the police?

"Officer, someday he might have had a BB gun in his basement. If
he ever got one he might have hurt someone's cat or invaded
Antartica with it ."

It's murder, pure & simple. Of about ~ 100,000 ++ ...

"If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and
does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital
offense charged, be put to death." - Third Law, The Code of Hammurabi
written in about 1786 BC. In what is now (or was) Iraq.

The Neocon Menace is worse by far than the Communist Menace
ever was.
http://www.lincoln-ma.com/news_archi...cebuilders.htm
--
Cliff

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 07:58:27 -0000, Hawke wrote:

There is also the case to be made that the excuse that we only kill
innocent people by accident, which makes it okay, is not valid. In the law
if you cause damage by your actions you are responsible whether your action
was intentional or not. The idea is this; was it forseeable that your
action would cause the damage. If it was forseeable then you are liable for
the damage. I would suggest that if we drop a 500lb. bomb in a highly
populated area of Baghdad because we want to destroy a target it is
forseeable that we are going to kill innocent people. According to that
view, our killings are no less wrong than the killings of the terrorists.
The terrorists are guilty of intentionally killing innocent people. We are
guilty of the same thing because a reasonable person could see that our
actions would kill innocent people. Which means the US is really no better
than the terrorists because we know our actions are going to kill innocent
people but we go ahead and do it anyway. The bottom line is as I said, we
kill more innocent people than anyone else and have done so for a long
time. We have our excuses but the innocent people are just as dead whether
we were trying to kill them or not.

We killed many, many more than were killed on 9-11 *by criminals*
and lied about it.
The wingers are still lying & in psychotic denial. Blood ...
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On 2 Mar 2006 21:12:24 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

Cliff wrote:

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.


Thank you Ramsey Clark.

You think otherwise, eh?
Find it.

"U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go."
"The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the U.S. government after
the Persian Gulf War, supposedly to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. There was
one big problem, however: The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones
to be established."
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp

"Again, the no-fly zones are not imbedded in any UN resolution. This is
something the United States, Britain, and France essentially did unilaterally
.."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...raq_12-31.html

"Although the "no-fly-zones" have never been sanctioned by the Security
Council, under Paragraph 8, the U.S. could justify its use of military force
against Iraq, if Iraq fired on a U.S. airplane which was unlawfully violating
Iraq's airspace within these zones."
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew74.php

[
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEMO SAYS:

President Bush to Tony Blair: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance
aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on
them, he would be in breach"
]
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/whitehousememo

HTH
--
Cliff

So to sum it up, the no-fly zones in Iraq would have been "legal" if
the UN said they were. The same UN whose leaders were on the take under
the oil for food program that Saddam used for bribe money.
GW

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cliff wrote:

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.


Thank you Ramsey Clark.

How horrible of us to set up no fly zones to prevent the genocide of the
Kurds in the north and Shiites in south.

On 3 Mar 2006 08:04:13 -0800, "Gus" wrote:


Cliff wrote:
On 2 Mar 2006 21:12:24 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

Cliff wrote:

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.


Thank you Ramsey Clark.

You think otherwise, eh?
Find it.

"U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go."
"The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the U.S. government after
the Persian Gulf War, supposedly to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. There was
one big problem, however: The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones
to be established."
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp

"Again, the no-fly zones are not imbedded in any UN resolution. This is
something the United States, Britain, and France essentially did unilaterally
.."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...raq_12-31.html

"Although the "no-fly-zones" have never been sanctioned by the Security
Council, under Paragraph 8, the U.S. could justify its use of military force
against Iraq, if Iraq fired on a U.S. airplane which was unlawfully violating
Iraq's airspace within these zones."
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew74.php

[
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEMO SAYS:

President Bush to Tony Blair: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance
aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on
them, he would be in breach"
]
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/whitehousememo

HTH

So to sum it up, the no-fly zones in Iraq would have been "legal" if
the UN said they were. The same UN whose leaders were on the take under
the oil for food program that Saddam used for bribe money.
GW

IOW You are confused.
HTH
--
Cliff

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 17:15:55 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

How horrible of us to set up no fly zones to prevent the genocide of the
Kurds in the north and Shiites in south.

You had no problem murdering ~100,000 ++ anyway ....
Or with swallowing that stuff.
--
Cliff

Nicholas Anthony wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cliff wrote:

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.


Thank you Ramsey Clark.


How horrible of us to set up no fly zones to prevent the genocide of the
Kurds in the north and Shiites in south.

Exactly how did they do that?

(Don't strain yourself - they didn't)

Dan

"dan" wrote in message
...
Nicholas Anthony wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cliff wrote:

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.


Thank you Ramsey Clark.


How horrible of us to set up no fly zones to prevent the genocide of the
Kurds in the north and Shiites in south.

Exactly how did they do that?

(Don't strain yourself - they didn't)

Dan


How did they establish the no fly zones? They took the northern parrelel and
southern and told Iraq you can not fly past these areas or you will be
intercepted. If you choose to bash America shame on you. If you look at what
had transpired after the war you would have agreed very well with this
discision but do to flagrent political agenda most choose to ignore the
facts. Look up Operation Provide Comfort and you will see exactly how the no
fly zones evolved. I even did some home work for you and got you a link to
look at. Yes Dan the Americans arent so bad after all.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...de_comfort.htm

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:26:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They killed thousands of people, and themselves, for the sake of inflicting
terror. We killed thousands of Germans at Dresden for the sake of inflicting
terror. That's all it was; it had no other military purpose. We wanted to
break the Germans' morale and terrify them.

"We"??? You are British?

My regards to "Bomber Harris"

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 02:18:42 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"dan" wrote in message
...
Nicholas Anthony wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cliff wrote:

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.


Thank you Ramsey Clark.


How horrible of us to set up no fly zones to prevent the genocide of the
Kurds in the north and Shiites in south.

Exactly how did they do that?

(Don't strain yourself - they didn't)

Dan


How did they establish the no fly zones? They took the northern parrelel and
southern and told Iraq you can not fly past these areas or you will be
intercepted.

So if I toss a coin I can shoot you?

ANY uncleared & unwanted military flights overIraq were new acts
of war by the aggressors attempting to provoke more conflict..

"Suppose Nicaragua unilaterally decided to enforce the World Court's judgment
by establishing a no-fly zone in the southern part of the United States, .."

"The US treated the World Court's ruling with contempt .."

[
Hundreds of bombing raids over Iraq have been made by USA and UK war planes
under cover of patrolling no-fly zones. The USA and UK have frequently declared
that the no-fly zones are supported by United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688. Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali was Secretary General of the United
Nations when this resolution was passed in 1992:
"The issue of no fly zones was not raised and therefore not debated: not a word.
They offer no legitimacy to countries sending their aircraft to attack Iraq.
They are illegal".

The bombings occurred from 1992 to 2003. Between July 1998 and January 2000, the
USA flew 36,000 missions over Iraq. In 1999 alone, USA and UK aircraft dropped
over 1,800 bombs hitting 450 targets. This was the longest Anglo-American
bombing campaign since World War II with bombing occuring on a daily basis. Yet
it was mostly ignored by the media in the West.
]

If you choose to bash America shame on you.

Scum is where you find it. Often growing on brain dead wingers.

If you look at what
had transpired after the war you would have agreed very well with this
discision but do to flagrent political agenda most choose to ignore the
facts. Look up Operation Provide Comfort and you will see exactly how the no
fly zones evolved. I even did some home work for you and got you a link to
look at. Yes Dan the Americans arent so bad after all.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...de_comfort.htm


That blames Turkey & the US for the purported problems.
Missed that bit, did you?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:55:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


In the most basic terms, compared to a full-scale invasion, atomic
attack was a *very* good deal for the Japanese population -- it cost
only two smallish cities and 200,000 dead.

Wasn't that a fine thing for us to do, then? We only killed 200,000
civilians, including women and children.


Tojo

http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/...tory/rape.html


http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/...t77/rape19.jpg
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/...t77/rape23.jpg
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/...t77/rape25.jpg
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/...st77/rape6.jpg

Hitler

http://www.mengele.dk/DACHAU/index.htm
http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/poland.htm
http://www.auschwitz.dk/id17.htm


Stalin
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/russian/
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html


Mao
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...9/202829.shtml
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM
http://www.refugeesinternational.org...e/detail/1112/

Saddam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm
http://massgraves.info/
http://massgraves.info/16.jpg
http://massgraves.info/18.jpg
http://massgraves.info/25.jpg
http://www.rantingprofs.com/rantingp...s_victims.html


Pol Pot
http://www.time.com/time/daily/polpot/1.html
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/po...s/pixbone1.jpg


And yet..you leftists love them all.
Speaks volumes about you.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:36:24 -0000, Smithers
wrote:


Which century's culture are _you_ in favor of, Gunner? g

-- TP

21st of course.


Well, I do admire your optimism. We've only seen about 5% of it so
far, and it doesn't seem to be off to an auspicious start. Let's talk
again in about 2050 :-)

-- TP



Actually..it looks pretty rosey to me. Peace though much of the world,
2 dictatorships overthrown, machine shops are hauling ass making
parts, the USSR is still dead and likely to remain that way, the
Democratic party is in its death throes, work is picking up for me, my
August invoices just got paid, rebuilt the engine in the truck, guy
just gave me a Rem 700 in 7 Mag, (shoulder surgery and he cant shoot
it anymore...), Ed appears to be imploding (well..thats actually very
sad), the Ice Age appears to be nearly over, Conservatives are now the
majority on the Supreme Court, there is an ongoing Federal effort to
give Full Faith and Credit to all states CCWs, my cat just had 5
kittens this morning, lots of good things happening.

Is there something I dont know about?

Gunner


Oh yes, the world is in a wonderful state, the US is in great shape, Iraq
and Afghanistan are proving to be examples of successful foreign policy.
Things have never been better in fact. With thoughts like that it's no
wonder that republicans have a blissful attitude. Of course, that
viewpoint is contrary to the majority of people's and to reality but hey,
don't we already know that republicans are in a world of their own where
reality isn't a permanent item?

And is there something Gunner doesn't know about? OBVIOUSLY!

Hawke


I take you you skipped out on Geography?

http://geography.about.com/cs/countr...rcountries.htm

You seem to be about 189 short....

Buffoon

Gunner




"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:25:06 -0000, Smithers
wrote:

Anyone with half a brain can understand that over the years the US has
killed innocent people by the thousands. The only difference is that some
Americans can't accept that we do the same thing terrorists do


Another leftist liar.

Buffoon.


Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3