On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:19:12 -0500, Phil wrote:

Ok, Tom enlighten me, specifics on:

1. Raping and Pilaging
2. Damage to the enviornment
3. Impact on social structure


http://www.washingtonpost.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/


Regards, Tom
Tom Watson - Woodworker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson

And don't forget his questionable activities during the S&L crisis.


??? Is Neil Bush = George W. Bush?


But I wonder if we can blame the Republicans for George? After all, the
last president from Texas was LBJ. Maybe it's the water (or the oil) .


??? George H.W. Bush wasn't a citizen of TX?

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

I guess when President Clinton ordered the bombing of Baghdad during his
impeachment hearings a few years back (the reason given was to rid Sadam of
WMD), the military must have destroyed them all!

Ask for a description of oak, and you say look at the rain forrest? You
obviously have a beef, just want to know the specifics. Your answer
spoke volumes.

Tom Watson wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:19:12 -0500, Phil wrote:

Ok, Tom enlighten me, specifics on:

1. Raping and Pilaging
2. Damage to the enviornment
3. Impact on social structure


http://www.washingtonpost.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/

Regards, Tom
Tom Watson - Woodworker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson

Mark & Juanita wrote in message ws.com...
In article ,
says...

"Norm Abram" wrote in message
...


Follow the money A.K.A. Halliburton A.K.A. the company that can't even
supply weapons to our soldiers.



So we spend billions of dollars on a war with Iraq just so Haliburton has
something to rebuild?
Of all the criticisms in the world of this war, why anyone would believe
this is beyond me.


It's not Halliburton that spent the billions of doallars to escalate the
was with Iraq. Why would you beleive that Halliburton care how much the
governemnt spends on anything else so long as they get their share of
government spending?


Follows the same line of logic that getting *more* oil onto the world
market by freeing Iraq helps the oil companies (and by inference Bush
and Cheney). Seem more logical that by keeping that supplier of oil out
of the markets as sanctions were supposedly doing (and the sanctions
were working according to the people who follow the aforementioned line
of tortured logic), the oil companies (and by inference Bush and Cheney)
would be benefited more because they control a smaller supply of
something in high demand.

Would you care to address the logic of transfering the Iraqi oil
contracts from Russia, France and China to a US company?

How about the possibility that Saudi Arabia might, in the near
future, experience a coup putting an anti-American government
in power there?

--

FF

In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

How about the possibility that Saudi Arabia might, in the near
future, experience a coup putting an anti-American government
in power there?

There's *already* an anti-American goverment in Saudi Arabia.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

I don't think there's too much oak growing in a rain forrest ;-)

Renata

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:36:31 -0500, Phil wrote:

Ask for a description of oak, and you say look at the rain forrest? You
obviously have a beef, just want to know the specifics. Your answer
spoke volumes.

Tom Watson wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:19:12 -0500, Phil wrote:

Ok, Tom enlighten me, specifics on:

1. Raping and Pilaging
2. Damage to the enviornment
3. Impact on social structure


http://www.washingtonpost.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/

Regards, Tom
Tom Watson - Woodworker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
om...
"brian hughes" wrote in message
ink.net...

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

I guess when President Clinton ordered the bombing of Baghdad during his
impeachment hearings a few years back (the reason given was to rid Sadam
of
WMD), the military must have destroyed them all!

If you mean the cruise missiles that were launched on Aug 20 during
Lewinskygate, those missiles were launched at the Sudan and
Afghanistan, not Iraq. See
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...api/index.html


No, just like I said, I mean the bombing campaign ordered by Clinton for not
destroying his WMD. This bombing campaign was conducted over Baghdad during
his impeachment hearings. These bombing raids started on 17 Dec 98 and
continuing on for about 4 days. The weapon delivery systems were mostly
aircraft, included B-1s (first combat sorties ever for the Lancer). Don't
you remember little Dickey Gephart standing on the capital steps saying "How
can we be holding these hearings [impeachment] when our servicemen are in
danger?"

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
om...
"brian hughes" wrote in message
ink.net...

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

I guess when President Clinton ordered the bombing of Baghdad during his
impeachment hearings a few years back (the reason given was to rid Sadam
of
WMD), the military must have destroyed them all!

If you mean the cruise missiles that were launched on Aug 20 during
Lewinskygate, those missiles were launched at the Sudan and
Afghanistan, not Iraq. See
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...api/index.html

An interesting read, especially in the context of what Bin Laden did
after those missiles failed to knock him out.

Yep, too bad those cruise missiles didn't take them out. Anyway, let me
re-submit my last post for clarification.

No, just like I said, I mean the bombing campaign ordered by Clinton to
punish Sadam for not destroying his WMD (that was the reason given for the
bombing campaign). This bombing campaign was conducted over Baghdad during
Clinton's impeachment hearings. The bombing raids started on 17 Dec 98 and
continued for about 4 days (nights mostly). The weapon delivery systems
were mostly aircraft, even included the B-1s (I believe these were the first
combat sorties ever flown by B1-B Lancers). Don't you remember little
Dickey Gephart standing on the capital steps saying "How can we be holding
these hearings [impeachment] when our servicemen are in danger?"

Phil wrote:
Ask for a description of oak, and you say look at the rain forrest? You
obviously have a beef, just want to know the specifics. Your answer
spoke volumes.

Tom Watson wrote:


On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:19:12 -0500, Phil wrote:


Ok, Tom enlighten me, specifics on:

1. Raping and Pilaging
2. Damage to the enviornment
3. Impact on social structure


http://www.washingtonpost.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/

Giving such a biased and unrealiable source of information as the New
York Times just really doesn't cut it.



http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/

In article ,
says...
In article m,
says...

Giving such a biased and unrealiable source of information as the New
York Times just really doesn't cut it.

You'd maybe prefer Fox news? grin



No one as yet has found any stories that were made up on Fox News,
can't say the same thing for the NYT

In article m,
says...
In article ,
says...
In article m,
says...

Giving such a biased and unrealiable source of information as the New
York Times just really doesn't cut it.

You'd maybe prefer Fox news? grin



No one as yet has found any stories that were made up on Fox News,
can't say the same thing for the NYT

You've GOT to be kidding! I keep expecting the Fox people to put on
cheerleading outfits with "Yea war" written on them.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

todd wrote:


: I see. So preemptive attacks are OK?

According to the Bush Doctrine, yes. For the first time in American history.
And the Al Quaeda attacks of 9/11 were justified on exactly the same grounds.

So, Bush is on the same moral ground as the 9/11 attackers. Nice!

-- Andy Barss

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 06:15:08 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:

todd wrote:


: I see. So preemptive attacks are OK?

According to the Bush Doctrine, yes. For the first time in American history.
And the Al Quaeda attacks of 9/11 were justified on exactly the same grounds.

So, Bush is on the same moral ground as the 9/11 attackers. Nice!


Who was it who preemptively sent a Tomahawk missile into an aspirin
factory?

-Doug

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
todd wrote:


: I see. So preemptive attacks are OK?

According to the Bush Doctrine, yes. For the first time in American
history.
And the Al Quaeda attacks of 9/11 were justified on exactly the same
grounds.

So, Bush is on the same moral ground as the 9/11 attackers. Nice!

-- Andy Barss

If you equate the deliberate murder of 3000 innocent people with the ouster
of a brutal dictator, then, yes, that would be the same moral ground. I
guess you see them as the same thing. You make it sound like Saddam has
been sitting around for the past 12 years minding his own business. I don't
even consider what we did in Iraq to be preemptive. The first Iraq war
ended based on a number of agreements that Iraq made. Iraq didn't live up
to their agreements, and a resumption of hostilities ensued.

todd

In article , "Todd" wrote:

If you equate the deliberate murder of 3000 innocent people with the ouster
of a brutal dictator, then, yes, that would be the same moral ground. I
guess you see them as the same thing. You make it sound like Saddam has
been sitting around for the past 12 years minding his own business. I don't
even consider what we did in Iraq to be preemptive. The first Iraq war
ended based on a number of agreements that Iraq made. Iraq didn't live up
to their agreements, and a resumption of hostilities ensued.

Just one minor nit to pick: the "first" Iraq war never ended. There was a
cease-fire agreement, but no surrender. Hence your reference to "resumption of
hostilities" is entirely correct, and the "first" Iraq war continued.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

CW wrote:
: The UN has a long history of not doing anything about anything.

Hmmm. Wasn't it a UN coalition that threw Hussein out of Kuwait?

When they do
: decide to do something, it's always "hey US, take care of this ".

Yawn.

: There was
: nothing preemptive about Iraq. It was enforcement.


No, it wasn't. Enforcement of what, exactly? The UN resolutions?
The US can't enforce a UN resolution. Only the UN can.

-- Andy Barss

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...



No, it wasn't. Enforcement of what, exactly?

Enforcement of the cease fire agreements. Try to Keep up Andy.



The US can't enforce a UN resolution. Only the UN can.

I think Sadaam might disagree with you.

Now, about that $50.00...

In article , Andrew Barss wrote:
CW wrote:
: The UN has a long history of not doing anything about anything.

Hmmm. Wasn't it a UN coalition that threw Hussein out of Kuwait?

When they do
: decide to do something, it's always "hey US, take care of this ".

Yawn.

: There was
: nothing preemptive about Iraq. It was enforcement.


No, it wasn't. Enforcement of what, exactly? The UN resolutions?
The US can't enforce a UN resolution. Only the UN can.

Obviously incorrect, on many grounds.

1) The UN has no armed force with which it can enforce anything. UN forces are
contributed by its member nations, and it is by the armed forces of the
individual member nations that UN resolutions can be enforced.

2) The UN has repeatedly demonstrated its total inability to enforce anything.
This was most recently evident with respect to the multiple resolutions which
followed the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire.

3) The US obviously can, and did, enforce those resolutions.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)