On 7 Nov 2004 17:01:47 -0800, "Scott" <swhitman@swhitman.com> wrote:

>First of all to the jack-off that started this topic. ---- You!!! The
>Middle East will always be ----ed up because they are a bunch of towel
>heads that think like their anciestors did 3000 years ago. Same ----,
>just a different century..."Oh, let me blow my *** up in the name of
>god." I'll personally bring them some ---- to strap around their ***
>and blow themselves up. Hell, one less to worry about getting in the
>glorious USA. And futher more, does Peru even have an army? Maybe a
>Cub Scout troop or two?
>Since you started this enjoy the next four years. And for your dicked
>up poem, ---- Ali, ---- Mohammad and ---- You!!!
>Best Regards
>Proud American
>
>Oh, P.S. ---- you again!!!
Well said

 

To all the Stupid Americans and Stupid Europeans, can you please stop
proving each other's point, and get back to cars.

Thanks

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Rev Turd Fredericks" <nick_ballsack@forcedshaving.com> wrote in message
news:m56uo098dl1vuio8d6g3r109pct32h9sqp@4ax.com...
> On 7 Nov 2004 17:01:47 -0800, "Scott" <swhitman@swhitman.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all to the jack-off that started this topic. ---- You!!! The

 

To all the Stupid Americans and Stupid Europeans, can you please stop
proving each other's point, and get back to cars.

Thanks

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Rev Turd Fredericks" <nick_ballsack@forcedshaving.com> wrote in message
news:m56uo098dl1vuio8d6g3r109pct32h9sqp@4ax.com...
> On 7 Nov 2004 17:01:47 -0800, "Scott" <swhitman@swhitman.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all to the jack-off that started this topic. ---- You!!! The

 

"Karl" <aufever@prodigy.net> wrote:

>If you guys think Saddam is innocent, you may want to read this:

I don't consider him innocent of "crimes"; don't change the topic.

But I do consider Saddam innocent of the criteria for war as outlined by
president Bush himself on Jan. 29, 2003
(http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ranscript.8/):

1. 500 ton of yellow cake uranium.
- never found. The ties to Nigeria were proven false.
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

2. All the WMDs claimed they had "absolute and clear proof on" were never
found.


So all that's left, like you said, was "Saddam is a bad man"... Given
just that, is that a reason to invade the sovereignty of another nation?

While we're at it, let's invade Cuba, too. Why stop with the mid-east?
Screw sovereignty and the UN and even the Geneva Convention. That's the
Bush way.. Bush to an oath to uphold the constitution, yet the "patriot
act" denies article four in favor of illegal search and seizure.

So where was the immediate threat? I'll tell ya.. The threat is a
president who lies to the world using hearsay as "proof". Look at the
trouble Blair is in in England. Can Bush blame his cabinet, CIA, and FBI
or the bad info? Probably, but where does it all stop? With Bush
himself for not taking the responsibility to verify the information. The
buck stops there. And that's where the ousting begins, too. His
arrogance is not his strength in action.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
--
David Gravereaux <davygrvy@pobox.com>
[species: human; planet: earth,milkyway(western spiral arm),alpha sector]

 

"Karl" <aufever@prodigy.net> wrote:

>If you guys think Saddam is innocent, you may want to read this:

I don't consider him innocent of "crimes"; don't change the topic.

But I do consider Saddam innocent of the criteria for war as outlined by
president Bush himself on Jan. 29, 2003
(http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ranscript.8/):

1. 500 ton of yellow cake uranium.
- never found. The ties to Nigeria were proven false.
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

2. All the WMDs claimed they had "absolute and clear proof on" were never
found.


So all that's left, like you said, was "Saddam is a bad man"... Given
just that, is that a reason to invade the sovereignty of another nation?

While we're at it, let's invade Cuba, too. Why stop with the mid-east?
Screw sovereignty and the UN and even the Geneva Convention. That's the
Bush way.. Bush to an oath to uphold the constitution, yet the "patriot
act" denies article four in favor of illegal search and seizure.

So where was the immediate threat? I'll tell ya.. The threat is a
president who lies to the world using hearsay as "proof". Look at the
trouble Blair is in in England. Can Bush blame his cabinet, CIA, and FBI
or the bad info? Probably, but where does it all stop? With Bush
himself for not taking the responsibility to verify the information. The
buck stops there. And that's where the ousting begins, too. His
arrogance is not his strength in action.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
--
David Gravereaux <davygrvy@pobox.com>
[species: human; planet: earth,milkyway(western spiral arm),alpha sector]

 

It amazes me how obtuse some can be about this, when facts are
so easily found which pop the bubble of inuendo, accusation and
vehement assertion that "Bush is a moron".

David Gravereaux wrote:
> "Karl" <aufever@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>If you guys think Saddam is innocent, you may want to read this:
>
> I don't consider him innocent of "crimes"; don't change the topic.

But Hussein's crimes are not enough to warrant an invasion of
his country, eh? How delightfully tolerant you are of other
cultures....

> But I do consider Saddam innocent of the criteria for war as outlined by
> president Bush himself on Jan. 29, 2003
> (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ranscript.8/):

Nothing in this article is damning of President Bush.

When Blix addressed the U.N. he said: "...Hussein had failed to
account for 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum
toxin and material for 500 tons of sarin, mustard agent and VX
nerve agent." (See
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_97874290)

Iraq had used WMDs on at least three occasions: against the people
living in the marsh regions to the south, against the Kurds to the
north, and against Iran.

> 1. 500 ton of yellow cake uranium.
> - never found. The ties to Nigeria were proven false.
> http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

United Nations weapons inspectors visually accounted for several
tons of WMDs as of 1998 when they were kicked out by Hussein.

We did find 500 tons of uranium:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...22uranium.html

....and at least 1.8 tons of enriched uranium (yellow cake):
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld...aq/9101541.htm

And coalition forces have encountered sarin and mustard gas:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

If President Bush is at fault, it is for wasting 14 months with
the United Nations trying to get them to put teeth into their
resolutions against Iraq.

Now, of course, we know why: U.N. officials were deeply entrenched
in the Oil-for-Food scandal which involved many governments, among
them those vehemently opposed to the U.S. See:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ons/bg1748.cfm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156004/posts

I confess to being at a loss how you can ignore what Bush said vis
a vis what Hussein had done and what U.N. inspectors found, yet you
regurgitate unfounded vitriol against Bush and declare yourself an
intellectual. What are your thoughts on the U.N. and their now-open
corruption? Does it surprise you that France opposed the U.S. when
they were secretly dealing with Hussein? Does it bother you?

If you hate America and Americans, that's fine. Say so, and then
we all know who we're dealing with. If you're interested in justice
and a peaceful world then you will have to improve your arguments
if you wish to cast Bush and the U.S. in a bad light.

> 2. All the WMDs claimed they had "absolute and clear proof on" were never
> found.

1) We know Hussein had them, as they were visually accounted for in
the late 1990's.

2) We know Hussein had no qualms about using them.

3) We know Hussein hated the U.S., that he had ties with terrorists
in general and al Qaeda in particular.

Do the math.

> So all that's left, like you said, was "Saddam is a bad man"... Given
> just that, is that a reason to invade the sovereignty of another nation?

Did you whinge similarly when Bosnia was invaded and Milosovec was
deposed?

> While we're at it, let's invade Cuba, too. Why stop with the mid-east?
> Screw sovereignty and the UN and even the Geneva Convention. That's the
> Bush way.. Bush to an oath to uphold the constitution, yet the "patriot
> act" denies article four in favor of illegal search and seizure.

I'm detecting a very low wattage....

The U.N. breaks its own laws. France, Germany, Russia and China all
trade with Iraq against U.N. resolutions, but that's okay. We get hit
in the world's worst --------- attack, and somehow we're the bad guys
for fighting back against regimes known to sponsor terrorism. Riiiight!

You must be in profound dismay to learn there are so many stupid
Americans that Bush got elected with such a majority.

Regards,

Brian

 

It amazes me how obtuse some can be about this, when facts are
so easily found which pop the bubble of inuendo, accusation and
vehement assertion that "Bush is a moron".

David Gravereaux wrote:
> "Karl" <aufever@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>If you guys think Saddam is innocent, you may want to read this:
>
> I don't consider him innocent of "crimes"; don't change the topic.

But Hussein's crimes are not enough to warrant an invasion of
his country, eh? How delightfully tolerant you are of other
cultures....

> But I do consider Saddam innocent of the criteria for war as outlined by
> president Bush himself on Jan. 29, 2003
> (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ranscript.8/):

Nothing in this article is damning of President Bush.

When Blix addressed the U.N. he said: "...Hussein had failed to
account for 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum
toxin and material for 500 tons of sarin, mustard agent and VX
nerve agent." (See
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_97874290)

Iraq had used WMDs on at least three occasions: against the people
living in the marsh regions to the south, against the Kurds to the
north, and against Iran.

> 1. 500 ton of yellow cake uranium.
> - never found. The ties to Nigeria were proven false.
> http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

United Nations weapons inspectors visually accounted for several
tons of WMDs as of 1998 when they were kicked out by Hussein.

We did find 500 tons of uranium:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...22uranium.html

....and at least 1.8 tons of enriched uranium (yellow cake):
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld...aq/9101541.htm

And coalition forces have encountered sarin and mustard gas:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

If President Bush is at fault, it is for wasting 14 months with
the United Nations trying to get them to put teeth into their
resolutions against Iraq.

Now, of course, we know why: U.N. officials were deeply entrenched
in the Oil-for-Food scandal which involved many governments, among
them those vehemently opposed to the U.S. See:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ons/bg1748.cfm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156004/posts

I confess to being at a loss how you can ignore what Bush said vis
a vis what Hussein had done and what U.N. inspectors found, yet you
regurgitate unfounded vitriol against Bush and declare yourself an
intellectual. What are your thoughts on the U.N. and their now-open
corruption? Does it surprise you that France opposed the U.S. when
they were secretly dealing with Hussein? Does it bother you?

If you hate America and Americans, that's fine. Say so, and then
we all know who we're dealing with. If you're interested in justice
and a peaceful world then you will have to improve your arguments
if you wish to cast Bush and the U.S. in a bad light.

> 2. All the WMDs claimed they had "absolute and clear proof on" were never
> found.

1) We know Hussein had them, as they were visually accounted for in
the late 1990's.

2) We know Hussein had no qualms about using them.

3) We know Hussein hated the U.S., that he had ties with terrorists
in general and al Qaeda in particular.

Do the math.

> So all that's left, like you said, was "Saddam is a bad man"... Given
> just that, is that a reason to invade the sovereignty of another nation?

Did you whinge similarly when Bosnia was invaded and Milosovec was
deposed?

> While we're at it, let's invade Cuba, too. Why stop with the mid-east?
> Screw sovereignty and the UN and even the Geneva Convention. That's the
> Bush way.. Bush to an oath to uphold the constitution, yet the "patriot
> act" denies article four in favor of illegal search and seizure.

I'm detecting a very low wattage....

The U.N. breaks its own laws. France, Germany, Russia and China all
trade with Iraq against U.N. resolutions, but that's okay. We get hit
in the world's worst --------- attack, and somehow we're the bad guys
for fighting back against regimes known to sponsor terrorism. Riiiight!

You must be in profound dismay to learn there are so many stupid
Americans that Bush got elected with such a majority.

Regards,

Brian

 

Brian Talley <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>3) We know Hussein hated the U.S., that he had ties with terrorists
>in general and al Qaeda in particular.
>
>Do the math.

Untrue. No ties to Bin Ladden were found.

All in all the specifics for WMDs that Bush told the public were false.
He has yet to make good on those mistakes.
--
David Gravereaux <davygrvy@pobox.com>
[species: human; planet: earth,milkyway(western spiral arm),alpha sector]

 

Brian Talley <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>3) We know Hussein hated the U.S., that he had ties with terrorists
>in general and al Qaeda in particular.
>
>Do the math.

Untrue. No ties to Bin Ladden were found.

All in all the specifics for WMDs that Bush told the public were false.
He has yet to make good on those mistakes.
--
David Gravereaux <davygrvy@pobox.com>
[species: human; planet: earth,milkyway(western spiral arm),alpha sector]

 

David Gravereaux wrote:
> Brian Talley <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>3) We know Hussein hated the U.S., that he had ties with terrorists
>>in general and al Qaeda in particular.
>>
>>Do the math.
>
>
> Untrue. No ties to Bin Ladden were found.

First, bin Laden is not all of al Qaeda; the group is somewhat
larger than one man. Second, bin Laden most certainly did try
to work with Iraqi officials. Third, al Zawahiri, bin Laden's
right-hand man, maintained a residence in Baghdad. Fourth, Iraq
gave safe harbor to many terrorists and helped fund and tain
them.

> All in all the specifics for WMDs that Bush told the public were false.
> He has yet to make good on those mistakes.

None of what President Bush told the public re WMDs in Iraq
was false given the intelligence he had from the CIA, U.N.,
European, Russian and ME sources.

Hate him if you like, but try to do it for valid reasons.