Matt Wiser
March 18th 04, 03:17 PM
I'll go along with Kevin on this. With no use whatsoever for Saddam apologists,
and until the UN gets some backbone and cleans up its own house, I won't
trust the UN to do anything useful in Iraq anytime soon. And thanks to captured
documents, it's being found that the whole oil-for-food program was being
used as a cash cow for Saddam and his cronies; that kickbacks were being
paid to supporters of Saddam in France, Germany, Russia, a certain British
Member of Parliment who was a frequent apologist for Saddam, and so forth.
I'd like to see what Saddam's apologists say about the mass graves that keep
turning up, and who was filling them. So what if the U.S. and its partners
haven't found any "traditional WMD"
in Iraq? Saddam, his ******* sons, his cronies like Chemical Ali, were WMDs.
Goodbye and good riddance to them and their ilk.
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
>"Vince Brannigan" > wrote
>in message
.. .
>>
>>
>> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>> > "Vince Brannigan" >
>wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Stephen Harding wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Timothy-Allen Albertson wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Living In Fear Abroad
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Elizabeth Scanlon Thomas
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>[...]
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>So this is the safer world that Bush and
>Blair promised us?
>> >>>>© 2004 Chicago Tribune"
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Wonder what Elizabeth would have thought
>of FDR
>> >>>and Churchill in 1942?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Its not analogous. This was a preemptive
>war. We were not attacked by
>> >>Iraq. We claimed at most that they coudl
>become a threat in the future.
>> >
>> >
>> > Not attacked? Let's see...one assasination
>attempt on a former US
>President
>> > (which I guess you don't count bein' as
>he was just a danged
>Republican),
>>
>> You mean during a prior war?
>
>No, afterwards--the attack was planned to occur
>during Bush's post-office
>visit to Kuwait.
>
>>
>>
>> > and repeated (and failed) attacks against
>aircraft monitoring the No-Fly
>> > Zone.
>>
>> Theya re not attacks on the united states
>
>Attacking USAF and USN aircraft is not an attack
>on the US? Then I guess you
>consider Pearl Harbor the same way--after all,
>the Japanese were attacking
>only ships and aircraft, and a few facilities
>located in what was then
>merely a US territory, huh? Or maybe the attack
>by AQ on the USS Cole was
>also "not an attack on the US"? For a lawyer,
>your reasoning often leaves a
>lot to be desired.
>
>>
>> Not to mention one attack into Kuwait that
>started the whole affair
>> > up,
>>
>> not us
>
>A US interest. Good enough, unless you are now
>claiming that the first Gulf
>War was also a terrible mistake?
>
>>
>> and another feint in that direction that
>led to beefing up the US ground
>> > force in Kuwait for a couple of years before
>this last excursion. A
>brutal
>> > dictator who conducted genocidal operations
>against elements of his own
>> > population. A group of nations that think
>appeasement is the best course
>of
>> > action. Gee, it appears that analogy is
>not that far off after all.
>
>What, no outlandish answers to these?
>
>> >
>> > Vkince, why do you like Saddam so much?
>>
>> OFCS
>>
>> Do you get a thrill out of that type of personal
>abuse?
>> Does it make you feel "macho" ?
>> I just think its silly
>
>No, it is just that you continually defend him
>and his interests. I note
>above that you seem to think that his overrunning
>Kuwait now was not
>sufficient causus belli?
>
>>
>> Hitler was a slime but he did not attack the
>USA either. We had to lie
>> about the Greer incident to make it appear
>that he did.
>
>Actually, in the end he declared war on the
>US first. Kind of made things a
>bit easier for us in the end. Your history knowledge
>is apparently about as
>flawed as your "expertise" in tilt-wing aircraft
>design and operations.
>
>>
>> Iraq was not a threat to the united states
>unless it had WMDs
>
>Really? So Saddam's continued bellicosity towards
>his neighbors, and the
>fact that a goodly portion of the world's oil
>supplies come from that area,
>did not pose a threat, nor did his support of
>folks like Abu Nidal, Abbu
>Abbas, etc.? Again, odd how you go so far to
>defend Saddam; what is your
>take on his mass graves? Maybe he just was trying
>to economize on burial
>expenses for his beloved followers?
>
>That was
>> the whoel claim for the war.
>
>No, it was not. His continued refusal to comply
>with the terms that had been
>laid down for him at the cessation of hostilities
>the first go-around was
>the root cause, largely manifested in his game-playing
>in the WMD arena, and
>also in the TBM field, where he did indeed violate
>the range cap.
>
>>
>> everythign else you mention is a matter for
>the UN not the US.
>
>That would be the same UN that is now coming
>under increasing fire for
>alleged corruption and mishandling of the pre-war
>"oil for food/medicine"
>program? Or the same UN that, despite repeated
>resolutions and inspections,
>could not get a real handle on the WMD status,
>and only caught onto the TBM
>situation at the very end? The same UN that
>botched the Somalia operation? I
>don't think so.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> Vince
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
and until the UN gets some backbone and cleans up its own house, I won't
trust the UN to do anything useful in Iraq anytime soon. And thanks to captured
documents, it's being found that the whole oil-for-food program was being
used as a cash cow for Saddam and his cronies; that kickbacks were being
paid to supporters of Saddam in France, Germany, Russia, a certain British
Member of Parliment who was a frequent apologist for Saddam, and so forth.
I'd like to see what Saddam's apologists say about the mass graves that keep
turning up, and who was filling them. So what if the U.S. and its partners
haven't found any "traditional WMD"
in Iraq? Saddam, his ******* sons, his cronies like Chemical Ali, were WMDs.
Goodbye and good riddance to them and their ilk.
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
>"Vince Brannigan" > wrote
>in message
.. .
>>
>>
>> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>> > "Vince Brannigan" >
>wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Stephen Harding wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Timothy-Allen Albertson wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Living In Fear Abroad
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Elizabeth Scanlon Thomas
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>[...]
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>So this is the safer world that Bush and
>Blair promised us?
>> >>>>© 2004 Chicago Tribune"
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Wonder what Elizabeth would have thought
>of FDR
>> >>>and Churchill in 1942?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Its not analogous. This was a preemptive
>war. We were not attacked by
>> >>Iraq. We claimed at most that they coudl
>become a threat in the future.
>> >
>> >
>> > Not attacked? Let's see...one assasination
>attempt on a former US
>President
>> > (which I guess you don't count bein' as
>he was just a danged
>Republican),
>>
>> You mean during a prior war?
>
>No, afterwards--the attack was planned to occur
>during Bush's post-office
>visit to Kuwait.
>
>>
>>
>> > and repeated (and failed) attacks against
>aircraft monitoring the No-Fly
>> > Zone.
>>
>> Theya re not attacks on the united states
>
>Attacking USAF and USN aircraft is not an attack
>on the US? Then I guess you
>consider Pearl Harbor the same way--after all,
>the Japanese were attacking
>only ships and aircraft, and a few facilities
>located in what was then
>merely a US territory, huh? Or maybe the attack
>by AQ on the USS Cole was
>also "not an attack on the US"? For a lawyer,
>your reasoning often leaves a
>lot to be desired.
>
>>
>> Not to mention one attack into Kuwait that
>started the whole affair
>> > up,
>>
>> not us
>
>A US interest. Good enough, unless you are now
>claiming that the first Gulf
>War was also a terrible mistake?
>
>>
>> and another feint in that direction that
>led to beefing up the US ground
>> > force in Kuwait for a couple of years before
>this last excursion. A
>brutal
>> > dictator who conducted genocidal operations
>against elements of his own
>> > population. A group of nations that think
>appeasement is the best course
>of
>> > action. Gee, it appears that analogy is
>not that far off after all.
>
>What, no outlandish answers to these?
>
>> >
>> > Vkince, why do you like Saddam so much?
>>
>> OFCS
>>
>> Do you get a thrill out of that type of personal
>abuse?
>> Does it make you feel "macho" ?
>> I just think its silly
>
>No, it is just that you continually defend him
>and his interests. I note
>above that you seem to think that his overrunning
>Kuwait now was not
>sufficient causus belli?
>
>>
>> Hitler was a slime but he did not attack the
>USA either. We had to lie
>> about the Greer incident to make it appear
>that he did.
>
>Actually, in the end he declared war on the
>US first. Kind of made things a
>bit easier for us in the end. Your history knowledge
>is apparently about as
>flawed as your "expertise" in tilt-wing aircraft
>design and operations.
>
>>
>> Iraq was not a threat to the united states
>unless it had WMDs
>
>Really? So Saddam's continued bellicosity towards
>his neighbors, and the
>fact that a goodly portion of the world's oil
>supplies come from that area,
>did not pose a threat, nor did his support of
>folks like Abu Nidal, Abbu
>Abbas, etc.? Again, odd how you go so far to
>defend Saddam; what is your
>take on his mass graves? Maybe he just was trying
>to economize on burial
>expenses for his beloved followers?
>
>That was
>> the whoel claim for the war.
>
>No, it was not. His continued refusal to comply
>with the terms that had been
>laid down for him at the cessation of hostilities
>the first go-around was
>the root cause, largely manifested in his game-playing
>in the WMD arena, and
>also in the TBM field, where he did indeed violate
>the range cap.
>
>>
>> everythign else you mention is a matter for
>the UN not the US.
>
>That would be the same UN that is now coming
>under increasing fire for
>alleged corruption and mishandling of the pre-war
>"oil for food/medicine"
>program? Or the same UN that, despite repeated
>resolutions and inspections,
>could not get a real handle on the WMD status,
>and only caught onto the TBM
>situation at the very end? The same UN that
>botched the Somalia operation? I
>don't think so.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> Vince
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!