This is a copy of a message I left for a e-business person selling,
um, Anti-Republican buttons and stickers. The name of the site, BTW,
is pink0buttons.com and the owner, I think, is named Mo Cahill. Here
goes:
Would you rather another WTC fly-by or perhaps a suicide bomber at the
Superbowl? I don't think this war is good, but it's better than the
alternative, which is America sitting on its hands and waiting for
another terrorist attack, shivering with fear in the corner. It's a
dirty job, but who's gonna do it? France? These 'peace-loving
Muslims' would just as soon bomb the youth center in your town as look
at you, whether you support the war or not. George Bush and the
United States of America have a duty to protect themselves. You can
vote, and attend peace marches, and sell your buttons (BTW, that seems
a bit like what we call carpetbagging where I come from) by the
millions, and if you're successful some other servant of Allah will
blast your loved ones to smithereens.
Good luck with that.
-Phil Crow
Like Captain Kirk used to say. . ."Got a better idea?. . .now's the time!"
--
SwampBug
- - - - - - - - - - - -
"Richard & Shannon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This sentiment could hold some water if Iraq had anything to do with the
> 9-11 attacks.
>
> It is our governments and our duty to protect us and our own, but killing
> the innocent and exposing our brave soldiers to unnecesary danger is not
the
> way to do it.
>
> I don't know the answer, but I wish these idiots in the White House and
the
> Congress could engage in constructive debate to arrive at a productive
> agenda, not one based on fear and revenge.
>
>
> Richard
>
> "Phil Crow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This is a copy of a message I left for a e-business person selling,
> > um, Anti-Republican buttons and stickers. The name of the site, BTW,
> > is pink0buttons.com and the owner, I think, is named Mo Cahill. Here
> > goes:
> >
> > Would you rather another WTC fly-by or perhaps a suicide bomber at the
> > Superbowl? I don't think this war is good, but it's better than the
> > alternative, which is America sitting on its hands and waiting for
> > another terrorist attack, shivering with fear in the corner. It's a
> > dirty job, but who's gonna do it? France? These 'peace-loving
> > Muslims' would just as soon bomb the youth center in your town as look
> > at you, whether you support the war or not. George Bush and the
> > United States of America have a duty to protect themselves. You can
> > vote, and attend peace marches, and sell your buttons (BTW, that seems
> > a bit like what we call carpetbagging where I come from) by the
> > millions, and if you're successful some other servant of Allah will
> > blast your loved ones to smithereens.
> >
> > Good luck with that.
> >
> > -Phil Crow
>
>
> Would you rather another WTC fly-by or perhaps a suicide bomber at the
> Superbowl? I don't think this war is good, but it's better than the
> alternative, which is America sitting on its hands and waiting for
> another terrorist attack, shivering with fear in the corner. It's a
> dirty job, but who's gonna do it? France? These 'peace-loving
> Muslims' would just as soon bomb the youth center in your town as look
> at you, whether you support the war or not.
I guess you don't understand the root cause of "terrorism".
> George Bush and the
> United States of America have a duty to protect themselves.
Given the controversy surrounding just how much the White House knew about
the pending attacks, the Bush Admin stonewalling of the 9-11 inquiry, the
unelected president who sat listening to schoolgirls talk about pet goats
with the full knowledge that the country is being attacked, how well do you
really think George Bush has protected you?
> > Given the controversy surrounding just how much the White House knew
about
> > the pending attacks, the Bush Admin stonewalling of the 9-11 inquiry,
the
> > unelected president who sat listening to schoolgirls talk about pet
goats
> > with the full knowledge that the country is being attacked, how well do
you
> > really think George Bush has protected you?
> >
>
> You forgot the black helicopters and John Ashcroft's personal imperial
> star-trooper squadron.
Now now, you're just making that up. Let's stick to the facts.
> >Now now, you're just making that up. Let's stick to the facts.
> >
> If you want to stick to facts, you could start by acknowledging that
President
> Bush was, in fact, lawfully elected, despite the strenuous efforts of
Florida
> Democrats to steal the election, in violation of both state and Federal
> election laws.
50,000 eligible-to-vote Florida Democrats whose names Jeb removed from the
voter lists would beg to differ with you.
> > Given the controversy surrounding just how much the White House knew
about
> > the pending attacks, the Bush Admin stonewalling of the 9-11 inquiry,
the
> > unelected president who sat listening to schoolgirls talk about pet
goats
> > with the full knowledge that the country is being attacked, how well do
> you
> > really think George Bush has protected you?
>
> Do you regular Reynolds aluminum foil or the heavy duty stuff on the
inside
> of your helmet to prevent government mind control?
Don't be silly. This is a woodworking group. I use a veneer helmet.
> Iraq was an issue that was going to have to be dealt with,
What issue? Surely you're not referring to the imaginary WMD's, the alleged
and unsubstantiated link to the Bin Ladens, business partners of the Bush
family, or the balsa wood and gaffer tape weed-whacker motored UAV's that
"threatened" to destroy the US eastern seaboard?
Maybe you're referring to the aluminum tubes that could not be used to
enrich the uranium that Iraq didn't have and didn't attempt to buy from
Niger.
No, wait. You must be referring to the truck-mounted mobile labs. The ones
that Bush/Blair said were used to brew anthrax from American anthrax seed
stock the Reagan administration approved for export to Iraq.
No, that can't be either, as Blair later said "oops, sorry". Those trucks
were carrying British manufactured and supplied helium generators used to
inflate balloons.
Aha! I now know what was going on. Iraq was secretly developing Balloons of
Mass Destruction (BMD's) which, according to Bush, threatened not only the
security of the US, but the entire US balloon industry.
I knew it. The invasion was never about oil or oil politics (and the control
of world oil resources). It wasn't about non-existent WMD's or any of the
other Bush/Blair falsified evidence or Israeli mis-information. It was all
about balloons, balloon politics, and boosting domestic sales of gaffers
tape.
I'm glad we got that all sorted out now.
> > What issue? Surely you're not referring to the imaginary WMD's, the
alleged
> > and unsubstantiated link to the Bin Ladens, business partners of the
Bush
> > family, or the balsa wood and gaffer tape weed-whacker motored UAV's
that
> > "threatened" to destroy the US eastern seaboard?
> >
>
> OK, I know this is hopeless, but I'm going to try again, real slow this
> time.
>
> 1. When hostilities with Iraq ended in 1991 (remember when IRAQ invaded
> Kuwait?). Iraq agreed to a number of terms as a condition of the cease-
> fire. (i.e. "please stop pounding our army and we will abide by these
> conditions).
There were several issues involving the Iraq and Kuwaiti conflict. One of
them being Kuwait openly angle drilling into Iraq's southern Rumalia
oilfields. Another being that Kuwait, at that time (1990) was overproducing
at a time when oil prices were low.
Saddam met with April Glaspie on April 25th, 1990. The folllowing clips are
from a transcript of their meeting.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "I have direct instructions from President Bush to
improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your
quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with
Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your
extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We
understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to
rebuild your country. (pause)"
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts,
such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has
directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's,
that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
In other words, the US suckered Saddam by telling him to go ahead, deal with
Kuwait. We don't care. Next thing you know the US is leading the rush to
war.
> 2. Among those agreements were: a) complete abandonment of WMD programs,
> including nuclear, biological and chemical weapon development, b)
There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq had anything of significance,
neither then nor now and not even a dust speck of the millions pounds of
chemical and biolgical agents Bush spoke about in his state-of-the-nation
address. How do you hide a million pounds of biological agent?
Not much of anything was left after the first round of inspectors did their
job. Most of the inspectors work involved dismantling the few remaining scud
missiles.
> Destruction of all existing stores and means of making those weapons, c)
> free and unfettered access of inspectors to verigy (b), d) agreement not
> to fly fixed wing aircraft (Schwartzkopf later admitted he got snookered
> when he agreed to allow rotary wing flights) in certain areas to the
> north and south of the country -- the so-called "no fly zones", and d)
> allowing the coalition to patrol those no-fly zones, no surface to air
> missile sites or other actions hostile to the coalition aircraft were to
> occur in those zones.
The no-fly zones were not authorized by the UN nor were they sanctioned by
the Security Council. The no-fly zones were not part of any cease-fire
agreement with Iraq, and were implemented after the war ended. Seems to me
the Iraqi's were within their rights to shoot at enemy aircraft flying in
their airspace.
> Note before continuing -- none of the above items reference terrorism,
> Al Queada or 9/11 -- these were the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire,
> terms to which Hussein agreed.
> 3. During the 1990's and beyond, a) Hussein harrassed, kicked out, and
> was generally uncooperative with the weapons inspectors to the extent
> that even your hero Bill Clinton
Saddam didn't kick out the inspectors. Clinton (who is not my hero BTW, nor
am I a democrat) told Butler to pull his team out lest they get smoked in
the latest volley of US bombs. Butler had no choice but to immediately pull
his team out. This was Clinton's doing, not Saddams.
> as late as 2000 was indicating that
> Iraq was building and deploying WMD's. i.e, the lack of cooperation by
> the Iraqi government in confirming its agreement led intelligence
> analysts to conclude that very likely Iraq was continuing its WMD
> program as a covert program. Hussein's actions did nothing to dispel,
> and b) Iraq deployed and re-enforced Surface to Air Missile sites in the
> southern and norther no-fly zones, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CEASE-FIRE
> TERMS!.
Those were not part of the cease fire terms.
> Coalition aircraft were patrolling and dropping weapons on
> almost a daily basis throughout that period of time to continue to
> neutralize the SA sites being re-built and re-netted. It was only a
> matter of time before the Iraqis were going to get lucky and shoot down
> an aircraft.
Your use of the term coalition is a bit misleading. The no-fly zones were
patrolled only by the US, the Brits, and France. France pulled out after the
US arbritarily extended the no-fly zone north to the 33rd parallel, very
close to Bagdhad. The daily bombing throughout that period is considering by
many to be in violation of international law.
> 4. SH was supporting middle-east terrorists openly by paying stipends to
> the families of homicide bombers. There is no reason to believe he
> would not support other terrorist organizations.
It has been reported (but not proven) that he gave money to the families of
the bombers, not the bombers themselves nor any terror organizations. Any
suggestions that the did otherwise are only that, suggestions. Innuendos and
rumours don't justify a war.
> 5. The continued violation of the terms of cease-fire were an issue that
> were going to need to be dealt with, regardless of the subsequent
> actions of other terrorist groups. The continued expenditure of
> personnel and material in patrolling the no-fly zones was not a
> condition that could continue in perpetuity -- eventually something was
> going to have to be done to enforce the terms of the cease-fire.
The Bush administration has no authority to enforce any UN resolutions. Any
enforcement must be sanctioned by the Secury Council.
> Therefore, it made perfect sense for the administration to have its
> planners review various plans for an invasion of Iraq at the beginning
> of its term. Lobbing a few cruise missiles every few months a-la
> Clinton was not going to resolve the stalemate. Even if the execution
> of such an invasion never occurred, it would be irresponsible for any
> administration not to identify global hotspots and make contingency
> plans for military action for those hotspots.
Trouble is, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are global hotspots. Both countries
are poor, destitute, and defenceless.
> >There were several issues involving the Iraq and Kuwaiti conflict. One of
> >them being Kuwait openly angle drilling into Iraq's southern Rumalia
> >oilfields.
>
> Can you cite any source _other_than_ Saddam Hussein for that claim?
April Glaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq at the time, was well aware of the
issues.
> Ever hear of the free market? It's their oil. They can sell it at any
price
> they damn please.
Yeah, but Bush now thinks it's his oil. Regardless, oil prices are indeed
set by the free market. OPEC member nations agree amongst themselves to
production limit quotas in order to maintain oil prices at a certain level.
With Kuwait overproducing oil, it affected world oil pricing, and Iraq's
ability to recover after the war with Iran. I'm not offering an opinion
either way on free market vs OPEC or whatever, but pointing out the Kuwaiti
overproduction was one of the concerns Saddam expressed to the US
Ambassador.
> >In other words, the US suckered Saddam by telling him to go ahead, deal
with
> >Kuwait. We don't care. Next thing you know the US is leading the rush to
> >war.
>
> Pretty hard to construe that as having given him permission to invade
another
> nation.
I don't think Saddam was asking for permission, as it's not for the US (or
any other nation) to give it. He wanted to know how the US felt about the
Iraq-Kuwait issues, and April Glaspie told him the US sympathizes with his
"quest for higher oil prices", and "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab
conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait."
> >There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq had anything of significance,
> >neither then nor now and not even a dust speck of the millions pounds of
> >chemical and biolgical agents Bush spoke about in his state-of-the-nation
> >address. How do you hide a million pounds of biological agent?
>
> THEY ADMITTED IT. What more evidence do you need?
Iraq had some stuff in the 80's, thanks to help from the US, Britain, and
Germany. Anything that they had after that was outdated and unusable, as
documented by the first round of weapons inspectors. There is no evidence
that Iraq had any of the one million pounds of WMD's nor any active WMD
programs after the early 90's, regardless of what Bush or Fox News says.
> If there was nothing left, why did Saddam continue to refuse inspectors
access
> to suspect sites? For TWELVE YEARS!
Not entirely true. Saddam did eventually allow inspectors access, but did so
only under pressure. It's hard to know exactly what went on, but it is known
that Saddam objected to allowing CIA spies posing as inspectors access to
his inner workings.
> >The no-fly zones were not part of any cease-fire
> >agreement with Iraq, and were implemented after the war ended. Seems to
me
> >the Iraqi's were within their rights to shoot at enemy aircraft flying in
> >their airspace.
>
> And the aircraft were within their rights in shooting back. Cease-fire
means
> just that. And if the Iraqis keep shooting, they should expect return
fire.
The trouble with your reasoning is that the cease-fire agreement did not
include anything about the no-fly zone.
> > Clinton (who is not my hero BTW, nor
> >am I a democrat) told Butler to pull his team out lest they get smoked in
> >the latest volley of US bombs. Butler had no choice but to immediately
pull
> >his team out. This was Clinton's doing, not Saddams.
>
> One time, yes. Other times, they were ejected by Saddam.
Which other times?
>> >> 4. SH was supporting middle-east terrorists openly by paying stipends
to
> >> the families of homicide bombers. There is no reason to believe he
> >> would not support other terrorist organizations.
> >
> >It has been reported (but not proven) that he gave money to the families
of
> >the bombers, not the bombers themselves nor any terror organizations. Any
> >suggestions that the did otherwise are only that, suggestions. Innuendos
and
> >rumours don't justify a war.
>
> Saddam made the offer publicly. Evidently, that doesn't constitute "proof"
on
> whatever planet it is on which you live.
Giving money to the families is not proof that he supported terrorist
organizations, nor is it proof that he was linked to Al-Queida.
> >The Bush administration has no authority to enforce any UN resolutions.
Any
> >enforcement must be sanctioned by the Secury Council.
>
> Such sanction was given. Or weren't you paying attention?
No, you're wrong. We're talking about the recent conflict here.
> >April Glaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq at the time, was well aware of the
> >issues.
>
> And she became aware of those "issues" exactly how? Other than the Iraqi
> government, I mean. I repeat: can you cite any source other than Saddam
for
> that claim? Everyone knows that Iraq claimed Kuwait was angle-drilling.
Kuwait
> denies it. *You* state it as though it were an established fact.
>
> It's not.
It's an established fact that the US was aware of the issues, exactly as I
stated.
> >Regardless, oil prices are indeed
> >set by the free market. OPEC member nations agree amongst themselves to
> >production limit quotas in order to maintain oil prices at a certain
level.
>
> Hellooooooo.... that's NOT a free market. That's price fixing.
I'd agree with that.
> >With Kuwait overproducing oil, it affected world oil pricing, and Iraq's
> >ability to recover after the war with Iran.
>
> So? What business is it of Iraq, or anyone else, what price the Kuwaitis
> decide to ask for their own oil?
I have no opinion on who prices what for how much. I was simply relaying the
some issues of concern between Iraq and Kuwait.
> >I'm not offering an opinion
> >either way on free market vs OPEC or whatever, but pointing out the
Kuwaiti
> >overproduction was one of the concerns Saddam expressed to the US
> >Ambassador.
>
> That in no way justifies an invasion of a sovereign nation.
Many people would say the same about the fake and falsified "evidence" of
Iraq's ficticious WMD programs.
> The Iran-Iraq war
> was not the fault of Kuwait.
Now you're opening up a whole new can of worms. There's a very heavy US
involvement with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and that's something I don't
care to explore in the context of this discussion.
> >I don't think Saddam was asking for permission, as it's not for the US
(or
> >any other nation) to give it. He wanted to know how the US felt about the
> >Iraq-Kuwait issues, and April Glaspie told him the US sympathizes with
his
> >"quest for higher oil prices",
>
> Bullshit. Higher oil prices are not now, and never have been, in the
national
> interest of the United States. To suggest that the government of the US
would
> be sympathetic to a "quest for higher oil prices" is to dwell in a fantasy
> land.
Oil politics are more complicated than you insinuate. The US needs to
cooperate as much as possible with OPEC member nations, and low oil prices,
while good for the consumer, mean lower profits for the US oil industry,
who, by the way, are major campaign contributors to the Bush cartel.
> >Iraq had some stuff in the 80's, thanks to help from the US, Britain, and
> >Germany. Anything that they had after that was outdated and unusable, as
> >documented by the first round of weapons inspectors. There is no evidence
> >that Iraq had any of the one million pounds of WMD's nor any active WMD
> >programs after the early 90's, regardless of what Bush or Fox News says.
>
> I repeat: they admitted it. In the 90s. What more evidence do you need?
The latest Iraqi invasion was not about what Iraq had in the 80's or early
90's.
Out of all the claims about Iraq's WMD arsenal and WMD programs that Bush
and Blair presented to the world, and even that which Colin Powell included
in his address to the UN, how much of that "evidence" has proven to be true?
How much? 100%? 50%? 25%? Unless you can prove otherwise, the answer is 0%.
> >Not entirely true. Saddam did eventually allow inspectors access, but did
so
> >only under pressure. It's hard to know exactly what went on, but it is
known
> >that Saddam objected to allowing CIA spies posing as inspectors access to
> >his inner workings.
>
> On what planet is it, exactly, that United Nations inspectors are CIA
spies?
> Nobody except you and Saddam believes that.
You're forgetting about Scott Ritter, who headed the UN inspection team.
He's in a much better position to know what really happened than you or I.
He has publicly stated, many times, that the inspection team, Unscom, was a
nest of US spies and that Iraq was disarmed long ago. In his book Endgame
(published in 1999) he states that Unscom's mission had been compromised by
Washington's use of inspections to spy on the Iraqis.
> It's evidently escaped your notice
> that the interests of the United Nations rarely coincide with those of the
> United States.
No, it's quite evident actually.
> >The trouble with your reasoning is that the cease-fire agreement did not
> >include anything about the no-fly zone.
>
> So what?
If you can't understand that then there's no need for me to elaborate any
further.
> >Giving money to the families is not proof that he supported terrorist
> >organizations, nor is it proof that he was linked to Al-Queida.
>
> What more proof do you want, anyway?
Perhaps proof that he supported terrorist organizations or that he had links
to Al-Queida.
> >No, you're wrong. We're talking about the recent conflict here.
> >
>
> I know perfectly well which conflict we're talking about. You obviously
> haven't read the UN resolutions of 2001 and 2002. Go look them up.
I've already read them. They call for cooperation with weapons inspectors
and disarmament only (both of which Saddam agreed to before the invasion).
Any enforcement of UN Resolutions can only be sanctioned by the UN Security
Council, and as you (hopefully) already know, this clearly did not happen.
[email protected] (Phil Crow) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> This is a copy of a message I left for a e-business person selling,
> um, Anti-Republican buttons and stickers. The name of the site, BTW,
> is pink0buttons.com and the owner, I think, is named Mo Cahill. Here
> goes:
(snip)
Take it to a more appropriate NG.
Dick Durbin
In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > What issue? Surely you're not referring to the imaginary WMD's, the
>alleged
>> > and unsubstantiated link to the Bin Ladens, business partners of the
>Bush
>> > family, or the balsa wood and gaffer tape weed-whacker motored UAV's
>that
>> > "threatened" to destroy the US eastern seaboard?
>> >
>>
>> OK, I know this is hopeless, but I'm going to try again, real slow this
>> time.
>>
>> 1. When hostilities with Iraq ended in 1991 (remember when IRAQ invaded
>> Kuwait?). Iraq agreed to a number of terms as a condition of the cease-
>> fire. (i.e. "please stop pounding our army and we will abide by these
>> conditions).
>
>There were several issues involving the Iraq and Kuwaiti conflict. One of
>them being Kuwait openly angle drilling into Iraq's southern Rumalia
>oilfields.
Can you cite any source _other_than_ Saddam Hussein for that claim?
>Another being that Kuwait, at that time (1990) was overproducing
>at a time when oil prices were low.
Ever hear of the free market? It's their oil. They can sell it at any price
they damn please.
>Saddam met with April Glaspie on April 25th, 1990. The folllowing clips are
>from a transcript of their meeting.
>
>U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "I have direct instructions from President Bush to
>improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your
>quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with
>Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your
>extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We
>understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to
>rebuild your country. (pause)"
>
>U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts,
>such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has
>directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's,
>that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
>
>In other words, the US suckered Saddam by telling him to go ahead, deal with
>Kuwait. We don't care. Next thing you know the US is leading the rush to
>war.
Pretty hard to construe that as having given him permission to invade another
nation.
>
>
>> 2. Among those agreements were: a) complete abandonment of WMD programs,
>> including nuclear, biological and chemical weapon development, b)
>
>There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq had anything of significance,
>neither then nor now and not even a dust speck of the millions pounds of
>chemical and biolgical agents Bush spoke about in his state-of-the-nation
>address. How do you hide a million pounds of biological agent?
THEY ADMITTED IT. What more evidence do you need?
>
>Not much of anything was left after the first round of inspectors did their
>job. Most of the inspectors work involved dismantling the few remaining scud
>missiles.
If there was nothing left, why did Saddam continue to refuse inspectors access
to suspect sites? For TWELVE YEARS!
>> Destruction of all existing stores and means of making those weapons, c)
>> free and unfettered access of inspectors to verigy (b), d) agreement not
>> to fly fixed wing aircraft (Schwartzkopf later admitted he got snookered
>> when he agreed to allow rotary wing flights) in certain areas to the
>> north and south of the country -- the so-called "no fly zones", and d)
>> allowing the coalition to patrol those no-fly zones, no surface to air
>> missile sites or other actions hostile to the coalition aircraft were to
>> occur in those zones.
>
>The no-fly zones were not authorized by the UN nor were they sanctioned by
>the Security Council.
So what?
>The no-fly zones were not part of any cease-fire
>agreement with Iraq, and were implemented after the war ended. Seems to me
>the Iraqi's were within their rights to shoot at enemy aircraft flying in
>their airspace.
And the aircraft were within their rights in shooting back. Cease-fire means
just that. And if the Iraqis keep shooting, they should expect return fire.
>
>> Note before continuing -- none of the above items reference terrorism,
>> Al Queada or 9/11 -- these were the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire,
>> terms to which Hussein agreed.
>
>> 3. During the 1990's and beyond, a) Hussein harrassed, kicked out, and
>> was generally uncooperative with the weapons inspectors to the extent
>> that even your hero Bill Clinton
>
>Saddam didn't kick out the inspectors.
False. At least partly so.
> Clinton (who is not my hero BTW, nor
>am I a democrat) told Butler to pull his team out lest they get smoked in
>the latest volley of US bombs. Butler had no choice but to immediately pull
>his team out. This was Clinton's doing, not Saddams.
One time, yes. Other times, they were ejected by Saddam.
>
>> as late as 2000 was indicating that
>> Iraq was building and deploying WMD's. i.e, the lack of cooperation by
>> the Iraqi government in confirming its agreement led intelligence
>> analysts to conclude that very likely Iraq was continuing its WMD
>> program as a covert program. Hussein's actions did nothing to dispel,
>> and b) Iraq deployed and re-enforced Surface to Air Missile sites in the
>> southern and norther no-fly zones, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CEASE-FIRE
>> TERMS!.
>
>Those were not part of the cease fire terms.
Cite.
>
>> Coalition aircraft were patrolling and dropping weapons on
>> almost a daily basis throughout that period of time to continue to
>> neutralize the SA sites being re-built and re-netted. It was only a
>> matter of time before the Iraqis were going to get lucky and shoot down
>> an aircraft.
>
>Your use of the term coalition is a bit misleading. The no-fly zones were
>patrolled only by the US, the Brits, and France.
That's not a coalition?!
> France pulled out after the
>US arbritarily extended the no-fly zone north to the 33rd parallel, very
>close to Bagdhad. The daily bombing throughout that period is considering by
many to be in violation of international law.
And Saddam's invasion of Kuwait wasn't??
If you're gonna start a war, you'd better be prepared to accept the
consequenced if you lose.
>
>> 4. SH was supporting middle-east terrorists openly by paying stipends to
>> the families of homicide bombers. There is no reason to believe he
>> would not support other terrorist organizations.
>
>It has been reported (but not proven) that he gave money to the families of
>the bombers, not the bombers themselves nor any terror organizations. Any
>suggestions that the did otherwise are only that, suggestions. Innuendos and
>rumours don't justify a war.
Saddam made the offer publicly. Evidently, that doesn't constitute "proof" on
whatever planet it is on which you live.
>
>> 5. The continued violation of the terms of cease-fire were an issue that
>> were going to need to be dealt with, regardless of the subsequent
>> actions of other terrorist groups. The continued expenditure of
>> personnel and material in patrolling the no-fly zones was not a
>> condition that could continue in perpetuity -- eventually something was
>> going to have to be done to enforce the terms of the cease-fire.
>
>The Bush administration has no authority to enforce any UN resolutions. Any
>enforcement must be sanctioned by the Secury Council.
Such sanction was given. Or weren't you paying attention?
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
In article <[email protected]>, one-if-
[email protected] says...
... snip
> > himself in his home and told people he was armed and ready to "inflict
> > the pain of death" upon anyone who came near his house or his property
> > or "supported that awful [insert minority] guy down the street by
> > visiting him" and refused to peacefully surrender.
>
> Has the neighbor actually harmed anyone?
>
All analogies limp in some places, but then I think you know what my
intent was here. The person in this analogy has publicly threatened
people and described the means and circumstances of intended violence.
ie. the person in this analogy is not a quiet, simple person, but
someone actually making threats.
> Even if it was later
> > learned that the person in question really was completely unarmed, you
> > would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the police because of the
> > threats and apparent actions the offender had taken.
>
> There's something wrong with this boys circuit board.
> Yes, Mark, I have a real problem with people like you that believe a police
> agency has the right to storm a residence when no harm has been produced or
> even any tangible proof of a threat. My hope is for people that think this
> way to become victims of their own device.
You have no idea how averse I am to police interference with private
lives. That was not the intent of my analogy. But then, you knew that.
> Clue: Lay off the coffee, turn off the goddamn TV and practice the ancient
> art of *thinking* for yourself.
>
>
>
ad hominem noted, I'm done with this thread.
"Richard & Shannon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> This sentiment could hold some water if Iraq had anything to do with the
> 9-11 attacks.
>
> It is our governments and our duty to protect us and our own, but killing
> the innocent and exposing our brave soldiers to unnecesary danger is not the
> way to do it.
>
> I don't know the answer, but I wish these idiots in the White House and the
> Congress could engage in constructive debate to arrive at a productive
> agenda, not one based on fear and revenge.
>
>
> Richard
>
> "Phil Crow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This is a copy of a message I left for a e-business person selling,
> > um, Anti-Republican buttons and stickers. The name of the site, BTW,
> > is pink0buttons.com and the owner, I think, is named Mo Cahill. Here
> > goes:
> >
> > Would you rather another WTC fly-by or perhaps a suicide bomber at the
> > Superbowl? I don't think this war is good, but it's better than the
> > alternative, which is America sitting on its hands and waiting for
> > another terrorist attack, shivering with fear in the corner. It's a
> > dirty job, but who's gonna do it? France? These 'peace-loving
> > Muslims' would just as soon bomb the youth center in your town as look
> > at you, whether you support the war or not. George Bush and the
> > United States of America have a duty to protect themselves. You can
> > vote, and attend peace marches, and sell your buttons (BTW, that seems
> > a bit like what we call carpetbagging where I come from) by the
> > millions, and if you're successful some other servant of Allah will
> > blast your loved ones to smithereens.
> >
> > Good luck with that.
> >
> > -Phil Crow
Watch "60 Minutes" tonight and you will hear Paul O'Neil, Dubya's
fired Fed Chief, tell how the White House was planning the invasion of
Iraq weeks after the Supreme Court put him in office. The invasion of
Iraq had nothing to do with the so called "War On Terror". While we
spend billions of tax payer dollars lining the pockets of US
corporations to rebuild Iraq places like Afghanistan slip back into
chaos. It is absurd. George W. Bush is the worst President this
country has ever had.
Greg
Lets say for a minute that you're right. That Bush was going to war in
Iraq because Iraq had not met the terms of the sease fire from the
first Gulf War. If that is true then why did Predident Bush lie to the
American people about the reasons for going to war? Why make up all of
the false and misleading information about WMDs, chem weapons labs,
and the rest? The UN had weapons inspectors on the ground doing their
job. They weren't finding anything. Saddam Hussien wasn't going
anywhere. Why spend the billions of dollars and all of the lives of
American and British soldiers, and the coutless lives of Iraqies to
"solve a problem" that wasn't a real problem in "The War on Terror".
The only reason I can think of is oil and money. The Cheney/Rove
Presidency uses "President" Bush as a puppet to do the bidding of
corperate America. US GI's are seen as foot soldiers for US
coperations.
In the interview with Paul O'Niel last night he said he was amazed
that in that first meeting 10 days after taking office they were
discussing nation building after Bush campaigned so hard against it in
the election. By January they had maps of how they would devide up the
oil fields. Mr O'Neil said in meetings Bush was like a "Blind man in a
room full of deaf people". He would almost never ask questions and
when he did he would be reigned back in by Carl Rove if the questions
was not "on meesage". Bush even questioned "his" second round of tax
cuts for the wealthy and asked why they weren't give more a break to
the middle class. Rove and Cheney had to riegn him again. Who the hell
is running this country? The White House is a fucking joke.
Greg
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > > Iraq was an issue that was going to have to be dealt with,
> >
> > What issue? Surely you're not referring to the imaginary WMD's, the alleged
> > and unsubstantiated link to the Bin Ladens, business partners of the Bush
> > family, or the balsa wood and gaffer tape weed-whacker motored UAV's that
> > "threatened" to destroy the US eastern seaboard?
> >
>
> OK, I know this is hopeless, but I'm going to try again, real slow this
> time.
>
> 1. When hostilities with Iraq ended in 1991 (remember when IRAQ invaded
> Kuwait?). Iraq agreed to a number of terms as a condition of the cease-
> fire. (i.e. "please stop pounding our army and we will abide by these
> conditions).
> 2. Among those agreements were: a) complete abandonment of WMD programs,
> including nuclear, biological and chemical weapon development, b)
> Destruction of all existing stores and means of making those weapons, c)
> free and unfettered access of inspectors to verigy (b), d) agreement not
> to fly fixed wing aircraft (Schwartzkopf later admitted he got snookered
> when he agreed to allow rotary wing flights) in certain areas to the
> north and south of the country -- the so-called "no fly zones", and d)
> allowing the coalition to patrol those no-fly zones, no surface to air
> missile sites or other actions hostile to the coalition aircraft were to
> occur in those zones.
>
> Note before continuing -- none of the above items reference terrorism,
> Al Queada or 9/11 -- these were the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire,
> terms to which Hussein agreed.
>
> 3. During the 1990's and beyond, a) Hussein harrassed, kicked out, and
> was generally uncooperative with the weapons inspectors to the extent
> that even your hero Bill Clinton as late as 2000 was indicating that
> Iraq was building and deploying WMD's. i.e, the lack of cooperation by
> the Iraqi government in confirming its agreement led intelligence
> analysts to conclude that very likely Iraq was continuing its WMD
> program as a covert program. Hussein's actions did nothing to dispel,
> and b) Iraq deployed and re-enforced Surface to Air Missile sites in the
> southern and norther no-fly zones, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CEASE-FIRE
> TERMS!. Coalition aircraft were patrolling and dropping weapons on
> almost a daily basis throughout that period of time to continue to
> neutralize the SA sites being re-built and re-netted. It was only a
> matter of time before the Iraqis were going to get lucky and shoot down
> an aircraft.
>
> 4. SH was supporting middle-east terrorists openly by paying stipends to
> the families of homicide bombers. There is no reason to believe he
> would not support other terrorist organizations.
>
> 5. The continued violation of the terms of cease-fire were an issue that
> were going to need to be dealt with, regardless of the subsequent
> actions of other terrorist groups. The continued expenditure of
> personnel and material in patrolling the no-fly zones was not a
> condition that could continue in perpetuity -- eventually something was
> going to have to be done to enforce the terms of the cease-fire.
>
>
> Therefore, it made perfect sense for the administration to have its
> planners review various plans for an invasion of Iraq at the beginning
> of its term. Lobbing a few cruise missiles every few months a-la
> Clinton was not going to resolve the stalemate. Even if the execution
> of such an invasion never occurred, it would be irresponsible for any
> administration not to identify global hotspots and make contingency
> plans for military action for those hotspots.
Joe Willmann <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> You of course know that it is the job of the pentagon to continuously
> plan on how to invade and defeat every country on the face of the globe.
> It is what they do, just in case. I would expect there is a plan to
> invade Mexico, Canada, the UK, Iran, Iraq and all the rest.
>
> As far as O'Neil goes, lets see....... His bigest complaint was that
> bush sits in cabinet meetings listening while his advisors give him
> their opinions then goes off and makes decisions? Hmmmmmmm sounds like
> a horrible manager to me (Sarcasim intended). Then the guy is fired
> because he wouldn't go along with the president..... And now he
> publishes a book that bashes Bush...... Hmmmmmmm, believe who you will.
What he was describing was not a Pentagon exercise in war theroy. This
was a White House NSC meeting 10 days in to Bush's Presidency. What he
talked about was an on-going plan at the White House on how to invade
and occupy Iraq, and then on how to manage to oil fields. AND how to
sell it to the American people. What you are talking about goes on in
the corners of the Pentagon by geeks in front of computers.
You picture Bush as The Great Manager and he was describing a man who
is being managed by Carl Rove and Dick Cheney. Whether you love or
hate Bush most agree that he is not a great thinker. Finally, I don't
think Paul O'Neil is going to go out of his way to bash the White
House. He has nothing to gain from it. He has worked in 2 other
Republican administrations and knows how things work in Washington.
Also, Paul O'Neil didn't write or publish the book. He was interviewed
by the author and supplied 19,000 pages of documents to the auther.
Most of the damning information about the Bush administration comes
form the documents not from Paul O'Niel's mouth. If Paul O'Neil simply
wnet on record and said, "Bush is an idiot" no one would really pay
that much attention.
Greg
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:38:21 -0600, todd wrote:
>
>
> >> 50,000 eligible-to-vote Florida Democrats whose names Jeb removed from
the
> >> voter lists would beg to differ with you.
> >
> > cite.
>
> MoveOn.org, Salon.com, whywehatebush.com, etc.
>
> -Doug
And I get assaulted for getting my facts from Fox News....
Let's try this again....cite (from a reputable source). For some reason,
I'm not certain I'm getting accurate information from "whywehatebush.com".
todd
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Would you rather another WTC fly-by or perhaps a suicide bomber at the
> > Superbowl? I don't think this war is good, but it's better than the
> > alternative, which is America sitting on its hands and waiting for
> > another terrorist attack, shivering with fear in the corner. It's a
> > dirty job, but who's gonna do it? France? These 'peace-loving
> > Muslims' would just as soon bomb the youth center in your town as look
> > at you, whether you support the war or not.
>
> I guess you don't understand the root cause of "terrorism".
>
> > George Bush and the
> > United States of America have a duty to protect themselves.
>
> Given the controversy surrounding just how much the White House knew about
> the pending attacks, the Bush Admin stonewalling of the 9-11 inquiry, the
> unelected president who sat listening to schoolgirls talk about pet goats
> with the full knowledge that the country is being attacked, how well do
you
> really think George Bush has protected you?
Do you regular Reynolds aluminum foil or the heavy duty stuff on the inside
of your helmet to prevent government mind control?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6VwMb.25849$P%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > What issue? Surely you're not referring to the imaginary WMD's, the
> >alleged
> >> > and unsubstantiated link to the Bin Ladens, business partners of the
> >Bush
> >> > family, or the balsa wood and gaffer tape weed-whacker motored UAV's
> >that
> >> > "threatened" to destroy the US eastern seaboard?
> >> >
> >>
> >> OK, I know this is hopeless, but I'm going to try again, real slow this
> >> time.
> >>
> >> 1. When hostilities with Iraq ended in 1991 (remember when IRAQ invaded
> >> Kuwait?). Iraq agreed to a number of terms as a condition of the
cease-
> >> fire. (i.e. "please stop pounding our army and we will abide by these
> >> conditions).
> >
> >There were several issues involving the Iraq and Kuwaiti conflict. One of
> >them being Kuwait openly angle drilling into Iraq's southern Rumalia
> >oilfields.
>
> Can you cite any source _other_than_ Saddam Hussein for that claim?
>
> >Another being that Kuwait, at that time (1990) was overproducing
> >at a time when oil prices were low.
>
> Ever hear of the free market? It's their oil. They can sell it at any
price
> they damn please.
>
> >Saddam met with April Glaspie on April 25th, 1990. The folllowing clips
are
> >from a transcript of their meeting.
> >
> >U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "I have direct instructions from President Bush
to
> >improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your
> >quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation
with
> >Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your
> >extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We
> >understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity
to
> >rebuild your country. (pause)"
> >
> >U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab
conflicts,
> >such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has
> >directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the
1960's,
> >that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
> >
> >In other words, the US suckered Saddam by telling him to go ahead, deal
with
> >Kuwait. We don't care. Next thing you know the US is leading the rush to
> >war.
>
> Pretty hard to construe that as having given him permission to invade
another
> nation.
>
> >
> >
> >> 2. Among those agreements were: a) complete abandonment of WMD
programs,
> >> including nuclear, biological and chemical weapon development, b)
> >
> >There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq had anything of significance,
> >neither then nor now and not even a dust speck of the millions pounds of
> >chemical and biolgical agents Bush spoke about in his state-of-the-nation
> >address. How do you hide a million pounds of biological agent?
>
> THEY ADMITTED IT. What more evidence do you need?
You can *admit* to murder too.
But without a body there will be no conviction.
Think.
In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Now now, you're just making that up. Let's stick to the facts.
>
If you want to stick to facts, you could start by acknowledging that President
Bush was, in fact, lawfully elected, despite the strenuous efforts of Florida
Democrats to steal the election, in violation of both state and Federal
election laws. FYI: the Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Florida recounts were
illegal. Not 5-4 as commonly misunderstood by the news media. The 5-4 vote was
over the question of whether the recounts should be allowed to proceed. Yes,
folks, that's correct: two of the seven justices that voted that the recounts
were illegal, later voted that they should be allowed to continue anyway.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >There were several issues involving the Iraq and Kuwaiti conflict. One of
>> >them being Kuwait openly angle drilling into Iraq's southern Rumalia
>> >oilfields.
>>
>> Can you cite any source _other_than_ Saddam Hussein for that claim?
>
>April Glaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq at the time, was well aware of the
>issues.
And she became aware of those "issues" exactly how? Other than the Iraqi
government, I mean. I repeat: can you cite any source other than Saddam for
that claim? Everyone knows that Iraq claimed Kuwait was angle-drilling. Kuwait
denies it. *You* state it as though it were an established fact.
It's not.
>
>> Ever hear of the free market? It's their oil. They can sell it at any
>price
>> they damn please.
>
>Yeah, but Bush now thinks it's his oil.
Huh?
>Regardless, oil prices are indeed
>set by the free market. OPEC member nations agree amongst themselves to
>production limit quotas in order to maintain oil prices at a certain level.
Hellooooooo.... that's NOT a free market. That's price fixing.
>With Kuwait overproducing oil, it affected world oil pricing, and Iraq's
>ability to recover after the war with Iran.
So? What business is it of Iraq, or anyone else, what price the Kuwaitis
decide to ask for their own oil?
>I'm not offering an opinion
>either way on free market vs OPEC or whatever, but pointing out the Kuwaiti
>overproduction was one of the concerns Saddam expressed to the US
>Ambassador.
That in no way justifies an invasion of a sovereign nation. The Iran-Iraq war
was not the fault of Kuwait.
>
>> >In other words, the US suckered Saddam by telling him to go ahead, deal
>with
>> >Kuwait. We don't care. Next thing you know the US is leading the rush to
>> >war.
>>
>> Pretty hard to construe that as having given him permission to invade
>another
>> nation.
>
>I don't think Saddam was asking for permission, as it's not for the US (or
>any other nation) to give it. He wanted to know how the US felt about the
>Iraq-Kuwait issues, and April Glaspie told him the US sympathizes with his
>"quest for higher oil prices",
Bullshit. Higher oil prices are not now, and never have been, in the national
interest of the United States. To suggest that the government of the US would
be sympathetic to a "quest for higher oil prices" is to dwell in a fantasy
land.
[snip]
>
>> >There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq had anything of significance,
>> >neither then nor now and not even a dust speck of the millions pounds of
>> >chemical and biolgical agents Bush spoke about in his state-of-the-nation
>> >address. How do you hide a million pounds of biological agent?
>>
>> THEY ADMITTED IT. What more evidence do you need?
>
>Iraq had some stuff in the 80's, thanks to help from the US, Britain, and
>Germany. Anything that they had after that was outdated and unusable, as
>documented by the first round of weapons inspectors. There is no evidence
>that Iraq had any of the one million pounds of WMD's nor any active WMD
>programs after the early 90's, regardless of what Bush or Fox News says.
I repeat: they admitted it. In the 90s. What more evidence do you need?
>
>> If there was nothing left, why did Saddam continue to refuse inspectors
>access
>> to suspect sites? For TWELVE YEARS!
>
>Not entirely true. Saddam did eventually allow inspectors access, but did so
>only under pressure. It's hard to know exactly what went on, but it is known
>that Saddam objected to allowing CIA spies posing as inspectors access to
>his inner workings.
On what planet is it, exactly, that United Nations inspectors are CIA spies?
Nobody except you and Saddam believes that. It's evidently escaped your notice
that the interests of the United Nations rarely coincide with those of the
United States.
>
>> >The no-fly zones were not part of any cease-fire
>> >agreement with Iraq, and were implemented after the war ended. Seems to
>me
>> >the Iraqi's were within their rights to shoot at enemy aircraft flying in
>> >their airspace.
>>
>> And the aircraft were within their rights in shooting back. Cease-fire
>means
>> just that. And if the Iraqis keep shooting, they should expect return
>fire.
>
>The trouble with your reasoning is that the cease-fire agreement did not
>include anything about the no-fly zone.
So what?
>
>> > Clinton (who is not my hero BTW, nor
>> >am I a democrat) told Butler to pull his team out lest they get smoked in
>> >the latest volley of US bombs. Butler had no choice but to immediately
>pull
>> >his team out. This was Clinton's doing, not Saddams.
>>
>> One time, yes. Other times, they were ejected by Saddam.
>
>Which other times?
You've not been paying attention again, I see.
>
>>> >> 4. SH was supporting middle-east terrorists openly by paying stipends
>to
>> >> the families of homicide bombers. There is no reason to believe he
>> >> would not support other terrorist organizations.
>> >
>> >It has been reported (but not proven) that he gave money to the families
>of
>> >the bombers, not the bombers themselves nor any terror organizations. Any
>> >suggestions that the did otherwise are only that, suggestions. Innuendos
>and
>> >rumours don't justify a war.
>>
>> Saddam made the offer publicly. Evidently, that doesn't constitute "proof"
>on
>> whatever planet it is on which you live.
>
>Giving money to the families is not proof that he supported terrorist
>organizations, nor is it proof that he was linked to Al-Queida.
What more proof do you want, anyway?
>> >The Bush administration has no authority to enforce any UN resolutions.
>Any
>> >enforcement must be sanctioned by the Secury Council.
>>
>> Such sanction was given. Or weren't you paying attention?
>
>No, you're wrong. We're talking about the recent conflict here.
>
I know perfectly well which conflict we're talking about. You obviously
haven't read the UN resolutions of 2001 and 2002. Go look them up.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> "Richard & Shannon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:<[email protected]>...
>> > This sentiment could hold some water if Iraq had anything to do
>> > with the
> ... snip
>> > >
>> > > -Phil Crow
>>
>> Watch "60 Minutes" tonight and you will hear Paul O'Neil, Dubya's
>> fired Fed Chief, tell how the White House was planning the invasion
>> of Iraq weeks after the Supreme Court put him in office.
You of course know that it is the job of the pentagon to continuously
plan on how to invade and defeat every country on the face of the globe.
It is what they do, just in case. I would expect there is a plan to
invade Mexico, Canada, the UK, Iran, Iraq and all the rest.
As far as O'Neil goes, lets see....... His bigest complaint was that
bush sits in cabinet meetings listening while his advisors give him
their opinions then goes off and makes decisions? Hmmmmmmm sounds like
a horrible manager to me (Sarcasim intended). Then the guy is fired
because he wouldn't go along with the president..... And now he
publishes a book that bashes Bush...... Hmmmmmmm, believe who you will.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "Richard & Shannon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > This sentiment could hold some water if Iraq had anything to do with the
... snip
> > >
> > > -Phil Crow
>
> Watch "60 Minutes" tonight and you will hear Paul O'Neil, Dubya's
> fired Fed Chief, tell how the White House was planning the invasion of
> Iraq weeks after the Supreme Court put him in office.
"The supreme court put him in office" --- OK, we know your mindset and
bias.
Of course they were planning war with Iraq shortly after taking
office. WE HAD BEEN PATROLLING THE NO FLY ZONE FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS!
Iraq was an issue that was going to have to be dealt with, even Clinton
acknowledged that, he just didn't have the brazos to do anything more
than uselessly expend a few cruise missiles from time to time.
> The invasion of
> Iraq had nothing to do with the so called "War On Terror". While we
> spend billions of tax payer dollars lining the pockets of US
> corporations to rebuild Iraq places like Afghanistan slip back into
> chaos.
So we have completely abandoned Afghanistan and are not helping it
rebuild? It just isn't making news the way Iraq is.
> It is absurd. George W. Bush is the worst President this
> country has ever had.
>
> Greg
>
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > Iraq was an issue that was going to have to be dealt with,
>
> What issue? Surely you're not referring to the imaginary WMD's, the alleged
> and unsubstantiated link to the Bin Ladens, business partners of the Bush
> family, or the balsa wood and gaffer tape weed-whacker motored UAV's that
> "threatened" to destroy the US eastern seaboard?
>
OK, I know this is hopeless, but I'm going to try again, real slow this
time.
1. When hostilities with Iraq ended in 1991 (remember when IRAQ invaded
Kuwait?). Iraq agreed to a number of terms as a condition of the cease-
fire. (i.e. "please stop pounding our army and we will abide by these
conditions).
2. Among those agreements were: a) complete abandonment of WMD programs,
including nuclear, biological and chemical weapon development, b)
Destruction of all existing stores and means of making those weapons, c)
free and unfettered access of inspectors to verigy (b), d) agreement not
to fly fixed wing aircraft (Schwartzkopf later admitted he got snookered
when he agreed to allow rotary wing flights) in certain areas to the
north and south of the country -- the so-called "no fly zones", and d)
allowing the coalition to patrol those no-fly zones, no surface to air
missile sites or other actions hostile to the coalition aircraft were to
occur in those zones.
Note before continuing -- none of the above items reference terrorism,
Al Queada or 9/11 -- these were the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire,
terms to which Hussein agreed.
3. During the 1990's and beyond, a) Hussein harrassed, kicked out, and
was generally uncooperative with the weapons inspectors to the extent
that even your hero Bill Clinton as late as 2000 was indicating that
Iraq was building and deploying WMD's. i.e, the lack of cooperation by
the Iraqi government in confirming its agreement led intelligence
analysts to conclude that very likely Iraq was continuing its WMD
program as a covert program. Hussein's actions did nothing to dispel,
and b) Iraq deployed and re-enforced Surface to Air Missile sites in the
southern and norther no-fly zones, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CEASE-FIRE
TERMS!. Coalition aircraft were patrolling and dropping weapons on
almost a daily basis throughout that period of time to continue to
neutralize the SA sites being re-built and re-netted. It was only a
matter of time before the Iraqis were going to get lucky and shoot down
an aircraft.
4. SH was supporting middle-east terrorists openly by paying stipends to
the families of homicide bombers. There is no reason to believe he
would not support other terrorist organizations.
5. The continued violation of the terms of cease-fire were an issue that
were going to need to be dealt with, regardless of the subsequent
actions of other terrorist groups. The continued expenditure of
personnel and material in patrolling the no-fly zones was not a
condition that could continue in perpetuity -- eventually something was
going to have to be done to enforce the terms of the cease-fire.
Therefore, it made perfect sense for the administration to have its
planners review various plans for an invasion of Iraq at the beginning
of its term. Lobbing a few cruise missiles every few months a-la
Clinton was not going to resolve the stalemate. Even if the execution
of such an invasion never occurred, it would be irresponsible for any
administration not to identify global hotspots and make contingency
plans for military action for those hotspots.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:27:20 -0600, todd wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:38:21 -0600, todd wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> 50,000 eligible-to-vote Florida Democrats whose names Jeb removed from
> the
>> >> voter lists would beg to differ with you.
>> >
>> > cite.
>>
>> MoveOn.org, Salon.com, whywehatebush.com, etc.
>>
>> -Doug
>
> And I get assaulted for getting my facts from Fox News....
>
> Let's try this again....cite (from a reputable source). For some reason,
> I'm not certain I'm getting accurate information from "whywehatebush.com".
Don't blame me - I'm just giving some sources for this crap.
-Doug
"Greg DeBacker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Watch "60 Minutes" tonight and you will hear Paul O'Neil, Dubya's
> fired Fed Chief ...
Paul H. O'Neill was Treasury Secretary not Fed Chief.
Allan Greenspan was and is still the Fed. Chief.
Dennis Vogel
In article <6VwMb.25849$P%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts,
> >such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has
> >directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's,
> >that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
> >
>
> Pretty hard to construe that as having given him permission to invade another
> nation.
>
You obviously don't speak diplomat. What Glaspie said, translated into
normal English, was that the U.S. didn't care about an "Arab-Arab
conflict". IOW, "do what you want, we don't give a s**t".
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <cCGMb.26201$P%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >Perhaps proof that he supported terrorist organizations or that he had links
> >to Al-Queida.
>
> I guess a public offer of money in exchange for suicide bombings isn't proof
> on your planet.
> >
>
Saddam undoubtedly supported terrorist attacks on Israel. Is there an
Arab nation that doesn't (either openly or clandestinely)?
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>, one-if-
[email protected] says...
>
... snip
> > >
> > >There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq had anything of significance,
> > >neither then nor now and not even a dust speck of the millions pounds of
> > >chemical and biolgical agents Bush spoke about in his state-of-the-nation
> > >address. How do you hide a million pounds of biological agent?
> >
> > THEY ADMITTED IT. What more evidence do you need?
>
> You can *admit* to murder too.
> But without a body there will be no conviction.
> Think.
But if you admit to murder, you will be arrested and tried. i.e. If
you admit to a felony, don't be surprised if you wind up kissing
pavement and having to prove your innocence in court. Iraq admitted to
having WMD's, they made threats regarding use of WMD's. All this in
violation of 17 UN resolutions and agreements to halt the initial Gulf
action. Thus, after MORE THAN 10 YEARS! of this pussy-footing around,
the action was taken to enforce those resolutions. BTW, all the "there
were no WMD" screamers seem to forget that we did find evidence of
development of missiles that exceeded the allowed range in the cease-
fire agreement. Surely you would not see a problem with a police SWAT
team invading the house of one of your neigbors that had barricaded
himself in his home and told people he was armed and ready to "inflict
the pain of death" upon anyone who came near his house or his property
or "supported that awful [insert minority] guy down the street by
visiting him" and refused to peacefully surrender. Even if it was later
learned that the person in question really was completely unarmed, you
would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the police because of the
threats and apparent actions the offender had taken.
In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >April Glaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq at the time, was well aware of the
>> >issues.
>>
>> And she became aware of those "issues" exactly how? Other than the Iraqi
>> government, I mean. I repeat: can you cite any source other than Saddam
>for
>> that claim? Everyone knows that Iraq claimed Kuwait was angle-drilling.
>Kuwait
>> denies it. *You* state it as though it were an established fact.
>>
>> It's not.
>
>It's an established fact that the US was aware of the issues, exactly as I
>stated.
No, that is not "exactly as you stated".
It's an established fact that the US was aware that Iraq *claimed* that Kuwait
was angle drilling. You stated earlier as established fact that Kuwait
actually was doing so; that is *not* an established fact, but rather an
unsupported claim put forward by Saddam Hussein to justify his invasion of
Kuwait.
>
>> >Regardless, oil prices are indeed
>> >set by the free market. OPEC member nations agree amongst themselves to
>> >production limit quotas in order to maintain oil prices at a certain
>level.
>>
>> Hellooooooo.... that's NOT a free market. That's price fixing.
>
>I'd agree with that.
IOW you disagree with yourself... LOL
>
>> >With Kuwait overproducing oil, it affected world oil pricing, and Iraq's
>> >ability to recover after the war with Iran.
>>
>> So? What business is it of Iraq, or anyone else, what price the Kuwaitis
>> decide to ask for their own oil?
>
>I have no opinion on who prices what for how much. I was simply relaying the
>some issues of concern between Iraq and Kuwait.
Oh, garbage. You were presenting Saddam's case.
>> >I'm not offering an opinion
>> >either way on free market vs OPEC or whatever, but pointing out the
>Kuwaiti
>> >overproduction was one of the concerns Saddam expressed to the US
>> >Ambassador.
>>
>> That in no way justifies an invasion of a sovereign nation.
>
>Many people would say the same about the fake and falsified "evidence" of
>Iraq's ficticious WMD programs.
Helloooooo.... the Iraqi government ADMITTED to having WMD programs. Nothing
fictitious about it. If there wasn't anything there, why did Saddam try so
hard to conceal it?
BTW, in case you missed it, a shipment containing some of those Iraqi WMDs was
intercepted in Kuwait last fall, thought to be destined for somewhere in
Europe.
>> The Iran-Iraq war
>> was not the fault of Kuwait.
>
>Now you're opening up a whole new can of worms. There's a very heavy US
>involvement with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and that's something I don't
>care to explore in the context of this discussion.
I'm not opening up a can of worms -- you're trying to change the subject. You
attempted to justify Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on the basis of the debt Iraq
incurred during its war with Iran. And now when I point out that such
"justification" is nonsense, you shift to blaming the US for it.
>
>> >I don't think Saddam was asking for permission, as it's not for the US
>(or
>> >any other nation) to give it. He wanted to know how the US felt about the
>> >Iraq-Kuwait issues, and April Glaspie told him the US sympathizes with
>his
>> >"quest for higher oil prices",
>>
>> Bullshit. Higher oil prices are not now, and never have been, in the
>national
>> interest of the United States. To suggest that the government of the US
>would
>> be sympathetic to a "quest for higher oil prices" is to dwell in a fantasy
>> land.
>
>Oil politics are more complicated than you insinuate. The US needs to
>cooperate as much as possible with OPEC member nations, and low oil prices,
>while good for the consumer, mean lower profits for the US oil industry,
>who, by the way, are major campaign contributors to the Bush cartel.
It's a lot less complicated in the real world than in your conspiracy-driven
fantasy world. High oil prices raise the cost of doing business for nearly
every industry, and hence are damaging to the economy, and thus the national
security, of the United States. You live in a fantasyland if you think that it
would ever be in our interest to promote high oil prices.
>
>
>> >Iraq had some stuff in the 80's, thanks to help from the US, Britain, and
>> >Germany. Anything that they had after that was outdated and unusable, as
>> >documented by the first round of weapons inspectors. There is no evidence
>> >that Iraq had any of the one million pounds of WMD's nor any active WMD
>> >programs after the early 90's, regardless of what Bush or Fox News says.
>>
>> I repeat: they admitted it. In the 90s. What more evidence do you need?
>
>The latest Iraqi invasion was not about what Iraq had in the 80's or early
>90's.
No, it was about what Iraq *still* had in the *late* 90s and early 00s -- and
about Iraq's persistent refusal to abide by over a dozen UN Security Council
resolutions requiring the accounting for, and disposal of, same.
>
>Out of all the claims about Iraq's WMD arsenal and WMD programs that Bush
>and Blair presented to the world, and even that which Colin Powell included
>in his address to the UN, how much of that "evidence" has proven to be true?
>How much? 100%? 50%? 25%? Unless you can prove otherwise, the answer is 0%.
On my planet, "not [yet] proven true" does not mean the same thing as "proven
not true". Apparently it does on yours.
>
>> >Not entirely true. Saddam did eventually allow inspectors access, but did
>so
>> >only under pressure. It's hard to know exactly what went on, but it is
>known
>> >that Saddam objected to allowing CIA spies posing as inspectors access to
>> >his inner workings.
>>
>> On what planet is it, exactly, that United Nations inspectors are CIA
>spies?
>> Nobody except you and Saddam believes that.
>
>You're forgetting about Scott Ritter, who headed the UN inspection team.
>He's in a much better position to know what really happened than you or I.
>He has publicly stated, many times, that the inspection team, Unscom, was a
>nest of US spies and that Iraq was disarmed long ago. In his book Endgame
>(published in 1999) he states that Unscom's mission had been compromised by
>Washington's use of inspections to spy on the Iraqis.
Sorry. Nobody except you, Saddam, and Beam-me-up-Scotty Ritter believes that.
>
>> It's evidently escaped your notice
>> that the interests of the United Nations rarely coincide with those of the
>> United States.
>
>No, it's quite evident actually.
And yet you think that the UN inspection teams were cooperating with US
intelligence services.
>
>> >The trouble with your reasoning is that the cease-fire agreement did not
>> >include anything about the no-fly zone.
>>
>> So what?
>
>If you can't understand that then there's no need for me to elaborate any
>further.
Ad hominem argument. Too bad you don't have anything better.
>
>> >Giving money to the families is not proof that he supported terrorist
>> >organizations, nor is it proof that he was linked to Al-Queida.
>>
>> What more proof do you want, anyway?
>
>Perhaps proof that he supported terrorist organizations or that he had links
>to Al-Queida.
I guess a public offer of money in exchange for suicide bombings isn't proof
on your planet.
>
>> >No, you're wrong. We're talking about the recent conflict here.
>> >
>>
>> I know perfectly well which conflict we're talking about. You obviously
>> haven't read the UN resolutions of 2001 and 2002. Go look them up.
>
>I've already read them. They call for cooperation with weapons inspectors
>and disarmament only (both of which Saddam agreed to before the invasion).
>Any enforcement of UN Resolutions can only be sanctioned by the UN Security
>Council, and as you (hopefully) already know, this clearly did not happen.
Go back and read them again.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
... snip
>
> > George Bush and the
> > United States of America have a duty to protect themselves.
>
> Given the controversy surrounding just how much the White House knew about
> the pending attacks, the Bush Admin stonewalling of the 9-11 inquiry, the
> unelected president who sat listening to schoolgirls talk about pet goats
> with the full knowledge that the country is being attacked, how well do you
> really think George Bush has protected you?
>
You forgot the black helicopters and John Ashcroft's personal imperial
star-trooper squadron.
Rant on McDuff.
On 10 Jan 2004 12:50:36 -0800, [email protected] (Phil Crow)
wrote:
>This is a copy of a message I left for a e-business person selling,
>um, Anti-Republican buttons and stickers. The name of the site, BTW,
>is pink0buttons.com and the owner, I think, is named Mo Cahill. Here
>goes:
>
>Would you rather another WTC fly-by or perhaps a suicide bomber at the
>Superbowl? I don't think this war is good, but it's better than the
>alternative, which is America sitting on its hands and waiting for
>another terrorist attack, shivering with fear in the corner. It's a
>dirty job, but who's gonna do it? France? These 'peace-loving
>Muslims' would just as soon bomb the youth center in your town as look
>at you, whether you support the war or not. George Bush and the
>United States of America have a duty to protect themselves. You can
>vote, and attend peace marches, and sell your buttons (BTW, that seems
>a bit like what we call carpetbagging where I come from) by the
>millions, and if you're successful some other servant of Allah will
>blast your loved ones to smithereens.
>
>Good luck with that.
Short on logic, long on inappropriate venue.
Plonk.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Juanita wrote:
> So we have completely abandoned Afghanistan and are not helping it
>rebuild? It just isn't making news the way Iraq is.
Actually I saw a piece on the news just in the last day or
three. It was about the US funds for re-building that had
dried up and the Marshall Plan that never materialized.
UA100
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Do you regular Reynolds aluminum foil or the heavy duty stuff on the
> inside
> > of your helmet to prevent government mind control?
>
> Do you get your "facts" from Fox news?
That was my only posting in this thread, and I asked a question. I did not
state any facts. I guess you pay attention to threads about as well as you
do to facts. Get over it. Your guy didn't win Florida. The Supreme Court
affirmed the State of Florida certification of the results. If you'd like
to let me pick and choose which Supreme Court decisions we can listen to and
which ones we can ignore, I've got a list ready.
todd
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, one-if-
> [email protected] says...
> >
> ... snip
> > > >
> > > >There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq had anything of
significance,
> > > >neither then nor now and not even a dust speck of the millions pounds
of
> > > >chemical and biolgical agents Bush spoke about in his
state-of-the-nation
> > > >address. How do you hide a million pounds of biological agent?
> > >
> > > THEY ADMITTED IT. What more evidence do you need?
> >
> > You can *admit* to murder too.
> > But without a body there will be no conviction.
> > Think.
>
> But if you admit to murder, you will be arrested and tried. i.e.
You can be arrested and tried even if you *didn't* admit murder.
If
> you admit to a felony, don't be surprised if you wind up kissing
> pavement and having to prove your innocence in court.
The same is true if you don't admit to anything.
Iraq admitted to
> having WMD's, they made threats regarding use of WMD's.
Then their should be no problem in providing proof of the WMD's, ya got any?
Or are you suggesting an *admission* is all that's required to enter a
country and lay waste?
All this in
> violation of 17 UN resolutions and agreements to halt the initial Gulf
> action. Thus, after MORE THAN 10 YEARS! of this pussy-footing around,
> the action was taken to enforce those resolutions.
Who made the US the global police force?
BTW, all the "there
> were no WMD" screamers seem to forget that we did find evidence of
> development of missiles that exceeded the allowed range in the cease-
> fire agreement. Surely you would not see a problem with a police SWAT
> team invading the house of one of your neigbors that had barricaded
Define *barricaded*.
> himself in his home and told people he was armed and ready to "inflict
> the pain of death" upon anyone who came near his house or his property
> or "supported that awful [insert minority] guy down the street by
> visiting him" and refused to peacefully surrender.
Has the neighbor actually harmed anyone?
Even if it was later
> learned that the person in question really was completely unarmed, you
> would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the police because of the
> threats and apparent actions the offender had taken.
There's something wrong with this boys circuit board.
Yes, Mark, I have a real problem with people like you that believe a police
agency has the right to storm a residence when no harm has been produced or
even any tangible proof of a threat. My hope is for people that think this
way to become victims of their own device.
Clue: Lay off the coffee, turn off the goddamn TV and practice the ancient
art of *thinking* for yourself.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, one-if-
> [email protected] says...
> ... snip
> > > himself in his home and told people he was armed and ready to "inflict
> > > the pain of death" upon anyone who came near his house or his property
> > > or "supported that awful [insert minority] guy down the street by
> > > visiting him" and refused to peacefully surrender.
> >
> > Has the neighbor actually harmed anyone?
> >
>
> All analogies limp in some places, but then I think you know what my
> intent was here. The person in this analogy has publicly threatened
> people and described the means and circumstances of intended violence.
> ie. the person in this analogy is not a quiet, simple person, but
> someone actually making threats.
They are just words (remember the 1st Amend.?) until he actually performs.
> > Even if it was later
> > > learned that the person in question really was completely unarmed, you
> > > would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the police because of
the
> > > threats and apparent actions the offender had taken.
> >
> > There's something wrong with this boys circuit board.
> > Yes, Mark, I have a real problem with people like you that believe a
police
> > agency has the right to storm a residence when no harm has been produced
or
> > even any tangible proof of a threat. My hope is for people that think
this
> > way to become victims of their own device.
>
> You have no idea how averse I am to police interference with private
> lives.
Yet you think the cops should storm someones residence on *heresy*?
That was not the intent of my analogy. But then, you knew that.
>
I knew exactly what you typed, Mark.
> > Clue: Lay off the coffee, turn off the goddamn TV and practice the
ancient
> > art of *thinking* for yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> ad hominem noted, I'm done with this thread.
Of course you are, for I made you *think* for a change.
Best to ya.
This sentiment could hold some water if Iraq had anything to do with the
9-11 attacks.
It is our governments and our duty to protect us and our own, but killing
the innocent and exposing our brave soldiers to unnecesary danger is not the
way to do it.
I don't know the answer, but I wish these idiots in the White House and the
Congress could engage in constructive debate to arrive at a productive
agenda, not one based on fear and revenge.
Richard
"Phil Crow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is a copy of a message I left for a e-business person selling,
> um, Anti-Republican buttons and stickers. The name of the site, BTW,
> is pink0buttons.com and the owner, I think, is named Mo Cahill. Here
> goes:
>
> Would you rather another WTC fly-by or perhaps a suicide bomber at the
> Superbowl? I don't think this war is good, but it's better than the
> alternative, which is America sitting on its hands and waiting for
> another terrorist attack, shivering with fear in the corner. It's a
> dirty job, but who's gonna do it? France? These 'peace-loving
> Muslims' would just as soon bomb the youth center in your town as look
> at you, whether you support the war or not. George Bush and the
> United States of America have a duty to protect themselves. You can
> vote, and attend peace marches, and sell your buttons (BTW, that seems
> a bit like what we call carpetbagging where I come from) by the
> millions, and if you're successful some other servant of Allah will
> blast your loved ones to smithereens.
>
> Good luck with that.
>
> -Phil Crow
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >Now now, you're just making that up. Let's stick to the facts.
> > >
> > If you want to stick to facts, you could start by acknowledging that
> President
> > Bush was, in fact, lawfully elected, despite the strenuous efforts of
> Florida
> > Democrats to steal the election, in violation of both state and Federal
> > election laws.
>
> 50,000 eligible-to-vote Florida Democrats whose names Jeb removed from the
> voter lists would beg to differ with you.
cite.
todd