| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"papa jack" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2004 03:50:04 PM |
| Object: |
Saddam Shipped WMDs Before and After War Began |
On June 11, 2004, the World Tribune.com posted an article titled:
"UN Inspectors: Saddam Shipped Out WMD Before War and After."
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html
______________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein
shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well
as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and
after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.
"The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commis-
sion briefed the Security Council on new findings that
could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile
and WMD program.
"The briefing contained satellite photographs that dem-
onstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his
missile and WMD sites before and during the war...
[...]
"'The removal of these materials from Iraq raises con-
cerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos
told the council. Perricos also reported that inspec-
tors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped
abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.
"He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent
both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate
of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destinations
included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.
[...]
"The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled
and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Nether-
lands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an
SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was
discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In
Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as
components for solid-fuel for missiles.
[...]
"In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-
general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi
nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the
country."
______________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Now remember all the radical liberals, including Kerry,
who've accused President Bush of purposely lying about
the WMDs.
The Dim Dems are ONLY interested in dragging Bush down
so they can win the election. The very real possibility
that these fearful components will find their way to the
terrorists is the least of their concerns.
Immediate attention must be given to locating these
dangerous WMD components and making sure they are either
totally destroyed or moved to safe hands.
It's time to quit playing politics with the safety of
our nation.
.
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
17 Jun 2004 07:10:54 PM |
|
|
In article <6tudnb7_sIXhvE_dRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
news:170620041540199725%anto@sales.com...
In article <lK6dnd1Zb9h0L0zdRVn-jA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:170620040743272035%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <xMednZCWgpvjCUzdRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"The True AntiLiberal" <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote
in
message
news:1f3b80af.0406161545.3b45d16d@posting.google.com...
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
message
news:<160620040806028575%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article
<1f3b80af.0406160603.70d4038b@posting.google.com>,
The
True
AntiLiberal <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
After 9/11, Bush said that he would attack
preemptively
against
future
threats.
Do you disagree with his doctrine or do you feel
that
Iraq
wasn't a
future threat?
It wasn't, and Bush's doctrine is a direct violation
of
several
international treaties that the US is a signatory
of -
Hussein's regime was obligated to comply with the
removal
of
WMD.
NO which he didn't. He was supposed to not only remove
them, he
was
supposed to document their destruction, not just say, their
destroyed.
Hussein was responsible for complying with that order.
If
Hussien
HAD
complied with that decree, then the US would have been
in
violation
for engaging in hostilities.
Is that the excuse this week? Besides, that is a NATO
Issue.
How is it a NATO issue?
President Clinton signed into law the removal of
Hussein's
regime.
This has been US policy since 1998. I don't recall any
objects
to
that
law based on a conflict of international treaties.
It is a violation of international law.
including the Geneva Convention.
Isn't it odd how the US was willing to invoke the GC
against
Hussein's
regime, yet is also entirely willing to break it?
The Geneva Convention applies to a specific regime.
And we violate it.
They violated the Geneva convention during the war, how?
Saddam Hussein's
regime was defeated, and it ceased to exist. The
insurgents
aren't
representing the iraqi people in their fighting or
Hussein's
regime,
they are simply killing people independently.
Therefore,
any
insurgents fighting in Iraq are not fighting for any
regime,
government in exile, or as a represative of the iraqi
people
and
are
not covered by the Geneva Convention.
What an *****. Are all Bush supports as twisted as
you?
Apparently.
They seem to feel it is acceptable to torture prisoners.
Are all bushhaters as completely reality challenged as you?
Where
did
I say they could torture prisoners or that the US
government
has
the
right to?
You are going to soon find out that left extremist liberals
like
Barnes
will
lie. They will put words in people's mouths.
Heishman, the cowardly guard, sticks up for guards who torture
prisoners. What a shock.
This is another lie by Barnes.
David Barnes has a true hatred towards Correctional Officers.
He was describing YOU not other correctional officers.
You obviously don't know how to tell the difference when someone is
attacking a person or a group.
I have a HUGE collection of David Barnes comments about
"correctional
officers", NOT refering to me.
Would you like to see them? Or would you just like to admit you are
going
to snip them and come up with
some stupid remark?
The worst thing anyone could say about "corrections officers" is that
YOU are one of them. Other corrections officers are injured on the
job
while YOU, the guard, plays on the computer at work. You have told us
so.
This is another lie by Barnes and it is his 19th lie in the past month.
I have never said any such thing.
If anyone wishes to provide evidence that will support Barnes lying,
please
come forth and do so.
Why do you always try to get others to help you in your ongoing battle
with Barnes?
I don't recall asking you to get involved, I do recall you jumping in
though.
You involved yourself.
This is a public newsgroup. Try as you might, you can't stop that.
Can't handle him in your own?
Sure I can, I have many times. He, like you, has never been able to support
his claims.
He has made it very clear that you are afraid to deal with him. But
that is good. It is important for you to know your limitations.
(And you were the one who was telling us how one of the guards was
injured while you were on the computer.)
Nope, I never said that.
Do you have a quote or something to prove your claim?
I just did. Now we have two people making the claim. That far exceeds
the standard you have for evidence supporting Bush, for example.
I am on the computer a lot at work, we use a program that monitors movement,
does reports, we also use the internet...we have a policy that allows us to
use the internet.
Why would you "monitor movement?"
My job gets done, when an officer is in trouble I do respond.
But they might not get in trouble if you were off your ***** and helping
out.
I just
responded to a code a few weeks ago, situation was under control. Two
inmates got sprayed, no officers were injured. The goal of no one getting
hurt was accomplished.
I guess that was lucky for you, huh? I mean, if someone had been
injured while you were on the Internet that would be bad, right?
Now, have you got something to support your claim that I said an officer was
injured while I was on the computer?
Yeah - you claim you are on the computer a lot. You claim people have
been hurt at work. You claim someone almost got hurt a few weeks ago
but due to a stroke of luck it didn't happen. Sounds pretty
irresponsible to me.
Hint: No officer in my area, under my supervision was EVER injured on my
watch.
You said in the past that they were. Furthermore, you probably don't
supervise. You seem hell bent on changing the definitions of words,
what does supervise mean to you today?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
17 Jun 2004 07:23:53 PM |
|
|
"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
news:170620041710548052%anto@sales.com...
In article <6tudnb7_sIXhvE_dRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<cutting lengthy post>
Why do you always try to get others to help you in your ongoing battle
with Barnes?
I don't recall asking you to get involved, I do recall you jumping in
though.
You involved yourself.
This is a public newsgroup. Try as you might, you can't stop that.
Correct it is public and you decided to involve yourself. So deal with it.
You claimed you seen him back something up, I have yet to see you provide
anything to support that.
Can't handle him in your own?
Sure I can, I have many times. He, like you, has never been able to
support
his claims.
He has made it very clear that you are afraid to deal with him.
What is to be afraid of?
He can't back anything up, simple as that. I have given him every
opportunity in the world.
I simply ignore his stupidity. Other than that, any time he wishes to
address the issue and if he can back
up a statement I am righ there.
Please tell me what the hell there is to be afraid of with David Barnes?
He is a joke and so are you.
But
that is good. It is important for you to know your limitations.
What limitations would that be?
(And you were the one who was telling us how one of the guards was
injured while you were on the computer.)
Nope, I never said that.
Do you have a quote or something to prove your claim?
I just did.
You did? Where?
I saw no "" marks, I did not see any message ID
Now we have two people making the claim.
Two people who can't back it up you mean. Go ahead, back it up with the
post. I never said any such comment.
That far exceeds
the standard you have for evidence supporting Bush, for example.
I am on the computer a lot at work, we use a program that monitors
movement,
does reports, we also use the internet...we have a policy that allows us
to
use the internet.
Why would you "monitor movement?"
You have no clue do you.
We monitor all movement, you need to ask???
My job gets done, when an officer is in trouble I do respond.
But they might not get in trouble if you were off your ***** and helping
out.
And when has any officer with me ever gotten in trouble?
I just
responded to a code a few weeks ago, situation was under control. Two
inmates got sprayed, no officers were injured. The goal of no one
getting
hurt was accomplished.
I guess that was lucky for you, huh?
lucky for me? Sorry but lucky for all of us who were involved.
I mean, if someone had been
injured while you were on the Internet that would be bad, right?
No one has ever been injured while I am on duty, and I have responded to any
and all situations.
If you have something to back up your strawman please provide your evidence.
Now, have you got something to support your claim that I said an officer
was
injured while I was on the computer?
Yeah - you claim you are on the computer a lot.
Yes I use a system called DAC's, I am a supervisor idiot.
Now, I know you don't know what DAC's is, but it is a system we use.
I will not explain what DAC's is for security purposes.
You claim people have
been hurt at work.
Yes, Correctional Officers have been hurt at work.
Go figure.
You claim someone almost got hurt a few weeks ago
but due to a stroke of luck it didn't happen.
stroke of luck? Not hardly.
We are trained to respond. We responded with force and the situation was
handled.
Sounds pretty
irresponsible to me.
Oh puh-lease, are you going to lecture me on how my job is done now?
You have no clue.
Are you really this desperate.
How was it irresponsible when the code happened in another location during a
time when I was assisting another officer during mass feeding.
Hint: No officer in my area, under my supervision was EVER injured on my
watch.
You said in the past that they were.
No, I have never said anyone was injured under my supervision.
Now, have you got something to back up your claim?
Furthermore, you probably don't
supervise.
Look up the job description for Correctional Corporal
Go to the State of Delaware and look up Job Descriptions
Now, when you can show me how you know more about my job than I do, you just
let me know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
17 Jun 2004 07:52:47 PM |
|
|
In article <zdednX1tdMQzqE_d4p2dnA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
news:170620041710548052%anto@sales.com...
In article <6tudnb7_sIXhvE_dRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<cutting lengthy post>
Why do you always try to get others to help you in your ongoing battle
with Barnes?
I don't recall asking you to get involved, I do recall you jumping in
though.
You involved yourself.
This is a public newsgroup. Try as you might, you can't stop that.
Correct it is public and you decided to involve yourself. So deal with it.
You claimed you seen him back something up, I have yet to see you provide
anything to support that.
Better idea. How about you go ***** yourself?
Can't handle him in your own?
Sure I can, I have many times. He, like you, has never been able to
support
his claims.
He has made it very clear that you are afraid to deal with him.
What is to be afraid of?
You tell me. I'm not afraid of him.
He can't back anything up, simple as that. I have given him every
opportunity in the world.
Like you do everyone else? Has anyone ever backed anything up to your
satisfaction?
I simply ignore his stupidity.
ROFL! Sure. Excuses, excuses...
Other than that, any time he wishes to
address the issue and if he can back
up a statement I am righ there.
You are just full of excuses, aren't you?
Please tell me what the hell there is to be afraid of with David Barnes?
I don't think there is anything to be afraid of. But you evidently do.
He is a joke and so are you.
Yeah, yeah. Everyone is a joke except you, right?
But
that is good. It is important for you to know your limitations.
What limitations would that be?
You fear and refusal to deal with Barnes and most others here. But
that is OK - I understand.
(And you were the one who was telling us how one of the guards was
injured while you were on the computer.)
Nope, I never said that.
Do you have a quote or something to prove your claim?
I just did.
You did? Where?
I saw no "" marks, I did not see any message ID
Is that you idea of proof? "" marks?
Now we have two people making the claim.
Two people who can't back it up you mean. Go ahead, back it up with the
post. I never said any such comment.
I was backing him up. I am the proof.
That far exceeds
the standard you have for evidence supporting Bush, for example.
I am on the computer a lot at work, we use a program that monitors
movement,
does reports, we also use the internet...we have a policy that allows us
to
use the internet.
Why would you "monitor movement?"
You have no clue do you.
We monitor all movement, you need to ask???
Again, "Why would you "monitor movement?"
My job gets done, when an officer is in trouble I do respond.
But they might not get in trouble if you were off your ***** and helping
out.
And when has any officer with me ever gotten in trouble?
Doesn't sound like a very dangerous job. Aren't you the one who is
always claiming about the low pay and how dangerous your job is?
I just
responded to a code a few weeks ago, situation was under control. Two
inmates got sprayed, no officers were injured. The goal of no one
getting
hurt was accomplished.
I guess that was lucky for you, huh?
lucky for me? Sorry but lucky for all of us who were involved.
But with you playing on the Internet, you would be in bigger trouble
than in the past.
I mean, if someone had been
injured while you were on the Internet that would be bad, right?
No one has ever been injured while I am on duty, and I have responded to any
and all situations.
So they do the work, you play on the Internet, and you "respond" if
they get into trouble. LOL!
If you have something to back up your strawman please provide your evidence.
That is not a straw man you chump.
Now, have you got something to support your claim that I said an officer
was
injured while I was on the computer?
Yeah - you claim you are on the computer a lot.
Yes I use a system called DAC's, I am a supervisor idiot.
What does a "Supervisor Idiot" do? Supervise idiots?
Now, I know you don't know what DAC's is, but it is a system we use.
I will not explain what DAC's is for security purposes.
LOL! Yeah. I'll bet being a guard is really top secret.
You claim people have
been hurt at work.
Yes, Correctional Officers have been hurt at work.
Go figure.
So when you are fucking around on the computer others are in more
danger. (Or maybe you just wouldn't much help in a fight.)
You claim someone almost got hurt a few weeks ago
but due to a stroke of luck it didn't happen.
stroke of luck? Not hardly.
We are trained to respond. We responded with force and the situation was
handled.
With force, eh? Against an unarmed man?
Sounds pretty
irresponsible to me.
Oh puh-lease, are you going to lecture me on how my job is done now?
That is my point. Your job isn't done.
You have no clue.
Just what I see.
Are you really this desperate.
Sorry I am hurting your feelings.
How was it irresponsible when the code happened in another location during a
time when I was assisting another officer during mass feeding.
Mass feeding? What are they, cattle?
Hint: No officer in my area, under my supervision was EVER injured on my
watch.
You said in the past that they were.
No, I have never said anyone was injured under my supervision.
Dangerous.
Now, have you got something to back up your claim?
Just what you said.
Furthermore, you probably don't
supervise.
Look up the job description for Correctional Corporal
Go to the State of Delaware and look up Job Descriptions
Give me the url
Now, when you can show me how you know more about my job than I do, you just
let me know.
Your job seems kind of silly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 08:18:54 AM |
|
|
Elmo <anto@sales.com> wrote in message news:<170620041752478896%anto@sales.com>...
In article <zdednX1tdMQzqE_d4p2dnA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
news:170620041710548052%anto@sales.com...
In article <6tudnb7_sIXhvE_dRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<cutting lengthy post>
Why do you always try to get others to help you in your ongoing battle
with Barnes?
I don't recall asking you to get involved, I do recall you jumping in
though.
You involved yourself.
This is a public newsgroup. Try as you might, you can't stop that.
Correct it is public and you decided to involve yourself. So deal with it.
You claimed you seen him back something up, I have yet to see you provide
anything to support that.
Better idea. How about you go ***** yourself?
Can't handle him in your own?
Sure I can, I have many times. He, like you, has never been able to
support
his claims.
He has made it very clear that you are afraid to deal with him.
What is to be afraid of?
You tell me. I'm not afraid of him.
He can't back anything up, simple as that. I have given him every
opportunity in the world.
Like you do everyone else? Has anyone ever backed anything up to your
satisfaction?
I simply ignore his stupidity.
ROFL! Sure. Excuses, excuses...
Other than that, any time he wishes to
address the issue and if he can back
up a statement I am righ there.
You are just full of excuses, aren't you?
Please tell me what the hell there is to be afraid of with David Barnes?
I don't think there is anything to be afraid of. But you evidently do.
He is a joke and so are you.
Yeah, yeah. Everyone is a joke except you, right?
But
that is good. It is important for you to know your limitations.
What limitations would that be?
You fear and refusal to deal with Barnes and most others here. But
that is OK - I understand.
Heh, you hit the nail on the head with this one. His list of people
he ignores here (but replies to through other people's postings) is
quite large.
(And you were the one who was telling us how one of the guards was
injured while you were on the computer.)
Nope, I never said that.
Do you have a quote or something to prove your claim?
I just did.
You did? Where?
I saw no "" marks, I did not see any message ID
Is that you idea of proof? "" marks?
Yea, if he didn't say it VERBATIM then apparently he feels he's
allowed to play semantic games with what he says. In short, he's a
fucking idiot.
Now we have two people making the claim.
Two people who can't back it up you mean. Go ahead, back it up with the
post. I never said any such comment.
I was backing him up. I am the proof.
That far exceeds
the standard you have for evidence supporting Bush, for example.
I am on the computer a lot at work, we use a program that monitors
movement,
does reports, we also use the internet...we have a policy that allows us
to
use the internet.
Why would you "monitor movement?"
You have no clue do you.
We monitor all movement, you need to ask???
Again, "Why would you "monitor movement?"
LOL!!! His inability to read, comprehend and respond is utterly
amazing. To the point that he proves what an idiot he is everytime he
posts here.
My job gets done, when an officer is in trouble I do respond.
But they might not get in trouble if you were off your ***** and helping
out.
And when has any officer with me ever gotten in trouble?
Doesn't sound like a very dangerous job. Aren't you the one who is
always claiming about the low pay and how dangerous your job is?
I just
responded to a code a few weeks ago, situation was under control. Two
inmates got sprayed, no officers were injured. The goal of no one
getting
hurt was accomplished.
I guess that was lucky for you, huh?
lucky for me? Sorry but lucky for all of us who were involved.
But with you playing on the Internet, you would be in bigger trouble
than in the past.
I mean, if someone had been
injured while you were on the Internet that would be bad, right?
No one has ever been injured while I am on duty, and I have responded to any
and all situations.
So they do the work, you play on the Internet, and you "respond" if
they get into trouble. LOL!
Actually, I suspect that he cowers in the corner when the ***** hits
the fan...
If you have something to back up your strawman please provide your evidence.
That is not a straw man you chump.
Now, have you got something to support your claim that I said an officer
was
injured while I was on the computer?
Yeah - you claim you are on the computer a lot.
Yes I use a system called DAC's, I am a supervisor idiot.
What does a "Supervisor Idiot" do? Supervise idiots?
Be careful now, he's starting to pump up his under-inflated ego. It
could get quite messy when his head explodes...
Now, I know you don't know what DAC's is, but it is a system we use.
I will not explain what DAC's is for security purposes.
LOL! Yeah. I'll bet being a guard is really top secret.
You claim people have
been hurt at work.
Yes, Correctional Officers have been hurt at work.
Go figure.
So when you are fucking around on the computer others are in more
danger. (Or maybe you just wouldn't much help in a fight.)
I suspect the latter..
You claim someone almost got hurt a few weeks ago
but due to a stroke of luck it didn't happen.
stroke of luck? Not hardly.
We are trained to respond. We responded with force and the situation was
handled.
With force, eh? Against an unarmed man?
I bet he had a woody too. It seems he gets very aroused by this since
he likes to bring it up so much. Or, maybe he's just puffing his
chest out in an attempt to make us think he's a "real tough guy".
Sounds pretty
irresponsible to me.
Oh puh-lease, are you going to lecture me on how my job is done now?
That is my point. Your job isn't done.
You have no clue.
Just what I see.
Are you really this desperate.
Sorry I am hurting your feelings.
How was it irresponsible when the code happened in another location during a
time when I was assisting another officer during mass feeding.
Mass feeding? What are they, cattle?
He continues to give insight as to how he views prisoners...
Hint: No officer in my area, under my supervision was EVER injured on my
watch.
You said in the past that they were.
No, I have never said anyone was injured under my supervision.
Dangerous.
Now, have you got something to back up your claim?
Just what you said.
Furthermore, you probably don't
supervise.
Look up the job description for Correctional Corporal
Go to the State of Delaware and look up Job Descriptions
Give me the url
While I was at a local restaurant chain the other day, the girl
running the cash register couldn't do her job for *****, and I'm sure
running the cash register was in her job description. I guess Asspry
feels that since it's written down (and probably in " ") on a job
description that it suddenly makes him good it.
Now, when you can show me how you know more about my job than I do, you just
let me know.
Your job seems kind of silly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
20 Jun 2004 08:16:26 PM |
|
|
In article <b41296b4.0406180518.77409342@posting.google.com>, Pr0r3p
<pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Elmo <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
news:<170620041752478896%anto@sales.com>...
In article <zdednX1tdMQzqE_d4p2dnA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Elmo" <anto@sales.com> wrote in message
news:170620041710548052%anto@sales.com...
In article <6tudnb7_sIXhvE_dRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<cutting lengthy post>
Why do you always try to get others to help you in your ongoing
battle
with Barnes?
I don't recall asking you to get involved, I do recall you jumping in
though.
You involved yourself.
This is a public newsgroup. Try as you might, you can't stop that.
Correct it is public and you decided to involve yourself. So deal with it.
You claimed you seen him back something up, I have yet to see you provide
anything to support that.
Better idea. How about you go ***** yourself?
Can't handle him in your own?
Sure I can, I have many times. He, like you, has never been able to
support
his claims.
He has made it very clear that you are afraid to deal with him.
What is to be afraid of?
You tell me. I'm not afraid of him.
He can't back anything up, simple as that. I have given him every
opportunity in the world.
Like you do everyone else? Has anyone ever backed anything up to your
satisfaction?
I simply ignore his stupidity.
ROFL! Sure. Excuses, excuses...
Other than that, any time he wishes to
address the issue and if he can back
up a statement I am righ there.
You are just full of excuses, aren't you?
Please tell me what the hell there is to be afraid of with David Barnes?
I don't think there is anything to be afraid of. But you evidently do.
He is a joke and so are you.
Yeah, yeah. Everyone is a joke except you, right?
But
that is good. It is important for you to know your limitations.
What limitations would that be?
You fear and refusal to deal with Barnes and most others here. But
that is OK - I understand.
Heh, you hit the nail on the head with this one. His list of people
he ignores here (but replies to through other people's postings) is
quite large.
I expect to be on that list any day now. He doesn't like it when you
make him look foolish.
(And you were the one who was telling us how one of the guards was
injured while you were on the computer.)
Nope, I never said that.
Do you have a quote or something to prove your claim?
I just did.
You did? Where?
I saw no "" marks, I did not see any message ID
Is that you idea of proof? "" marks?
Yea, if he didn't say it VERBATIM then apparently he feels he's
allowed to play semantic games with what he says. In short, he's a
fucking idiot.
I guess so. I knew he was bad, but this bad?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
17 Jun 2004 09:42:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:40:19 -0700, Elmo <anto@sales.com> wrote:
In article <lK6dnd1Zb9h0L0zdRVn-jA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:170620040743272035%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <xMednZCWgpvjCUzdRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"The True AntiLiberal" <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:1f3b80af.0406161545.3b45d16d@posting.google.com...
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:<160620040806028575%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <1f3b80af.0406160603.70d4038b@posting.google.com>,
The
True
AntiLiberal <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
After 9/11, Bush said that he would attack preemptively
against
future
threats.
Do you disagree with his doctrine or do you feel that
Iraq
wasn't a
future threat?
It wasn't, and Bush's doctrine is a direct violation of
several
international treaties that the US is a signatory of -
Hussein's regime was obligated to comply with the removal
of
WMD.
NO which he didn't. He was supposed to not only remove them, he
was
supposed to document their destruction, not just say, their
destroyed.
Hussein was responsible for complying with that order. If
Hussien
HAD
complied with that decree, then the US would have been in
violation
for engaging in hostilities.
Is that the excuse this week? Besides, that is a NATO Issue.
How is it a NATO issue?
President Clinton signed into law the removal of Hussein's
regime.
This has been US policy since 1998. I don't recall any
objects
to
that
law based on a conflict of international treaties.
It is a violation of international law.
including the Geneva Convention.
Isn't it odd how the US was willing to invoke the GC
against
Hussein's
regime, yet is also entirely willing to break it?
The Geneva Convention applies to a specific regime.
And we violate it.
They violated the Geneva convention during the war, how?
Saddam Hussein's
regime was defeated, and it ceased to exist. The insurgents
aren't
representing the iraqi people in their fighting or
Hussein's
regime,
they are simply killing people independently. Therefore,
any
insurgents fighting in Iraq are not fighting for any
regime,
government in exile, or as a represative of the iraqi
people
and
are
not covered by the Geneva Convention.
What an *****. Are all Bush supports as twisted as you?
Apparently.
They seem to feel it is acceptable to torture prisoners.
Are all bushhaters as completely reality challenged as you?
Where
did
I say they could torture prisoners or that the US government
has
the
right to?
You are going to soon find out that left extremist liberals like
Barnes
will
lie. They will put words in people's mouths.
Heishman, the cowardly guard, sticks up for guards who torture
prisoners. What a shock.
This is another lie by Barnes.
David Barnes has a true hatred towards Correctional Officers.
He was describing YOU not other correctional officers.
You obviously don't know how to tell the difference when someone is
attacking a person or a group.
I have a HUGE collection of David Barnes comments about "correctional
officers", NOT refering to me.
Would you like to see them? Or would you just like to admit you are
going
to snip them and come up with
some stupid remark?
The worst thing anyone could say about "corrections officers" is that
YOU are one of them. Other corrections officers are injured on the job
while YOU, the guard, plays on the computer at work. You have told us
so.
This is another lie by Barnes and it is his 19th lie in the past month.
I have never said any such thing.
If anyone wishes to provide evidence that will support Barnes lying, please
come forth and do so.
Why do you always try to get others to help you in your ongoing battle
with Barnes? Can't handle him in your own?
He can't.
(And you were the one who was telling us how one of the guards was
injured while you were on the computer.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
19 Jun 2004 10:33:01 AM |
|
|
In article <lK6dnd1Zb9h0L0zdRVn-jA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:170620040743272035%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <xMednZCWgpvjCUzdRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"The True AntiLiberal" <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:1f3b80af.0406161545.3b45d16d@posting.google.com...
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:<160620040806028575%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <1f3b80af.0406160603.70d4038b@posting.google.com>,
The
True
AntiLiberal <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
After 9/11, Bush said that he would attack preemptively
against
future
threats.
Do you disagree with his doctrine or do you feel that
Iraq
wasn't a
future threat?
It wasn't, and Bush's doctrine is a direct violation of
several
international treaties that the US is a signatory of -
Hussein's regime was obligated to comply with the removal
of
WMD.
NO which he didn't. He was supposed to not only remove them, he
was
supposed to document their destruction, not just say, their
destroyed.
Hussein was responsible for complying with that order. If
Hussien
HAD
complied with that decree, then the US would have been in
violation
for engaging in hostilities.
Is that the excuse this week? Besides, that is a NATO Issue.
How is it a NATO issue?
President Clinton signed into law the removal of Hussein's
regime.
This has been US policy since 1998. I don't recall any
objects
to
that
law based on a conflict of international treaties.
It is a violation of international law.
including the Geneva Convention.
Isn't it odd how the US was willing to invoke the GC
against
Hussein's
regime, yet is also entirely willing to break it?
The Geneva Convention applies to a specific regime.
And we violate it.
They violated the Geneva convention during the war, how?
Saddam Hussein's
regime was defeated, and it ceased to exist. The insurgents
aren't
representing the iraqi people in their fighting or
Hussein's
regime,
they are simply killing people independently. Therefore,
any
insurgents fighting in Iraq are not fighting for any
regime,
government in exile, or as a represative of the iraqi
people
and
are
not covered by the Geneva Convention.
What an *****. Are all Bush supports as twisted as you?
Apparently.
They seem to feel it is acceptable to torture prisoners.
Are all bushhaters as completely reality challenged as you?
Where
did
I say they could torture prisoners or that the US government
has
the
right to?
You are going to soon find out that left extremist liberals like
Barnes
will
lie. They will put words in people's mouths.
Heishman, the cowardly guard, sticks up for guards who torture
prisoners. What a shock.
This is another lie by Barnes.
David Barnes has a true hatred towards Correctional Officers.
He was describing YOU not other correctional officers.
You obviously don't know how to tell the difference when someone is
attacking a person or a group.
I have a HUGE collection of David Barnes comments about "correctional
officers", NOT refering to me.
Would you like to see them? Or would you just like to admit you are
going
to snip them and come up with
some stupid remark?
The worst thing anyone could say about "corrections officers" is that
YOU are one of them. Other corrections officers are injured on the job
while YOU, the guard, plays on the computer at work. You have told us
so.
This is another lie by Barnes and it is his 19th lie in the past month.
Do you even remotely understand how foolish comments like this make you
look?
I have never said any such thing.
If anyone wishes to provide evidence that will support Barnes lying, please
come forth and do so.
Suddenly, silence....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
19 Jun 2004 10:57:03 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:190620040833017012%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <lK6dnd1Zb9h0L0zdRVn-jA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:170620040743272035%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <xMednZCWgpvjCUzdRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"The True AntiLiberal" <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote
in
message
news:1f3b80af.0406161545.3b45d16d@posting.google.com...
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
message
news:<160620040806028575%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article
<1f3b80af.0406160603.70d4038b@posting.google.com>,
The
True
AntiLiberal <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
After 9/11, Bush said that he would attack
preemptively
against
future
threats.
Do you disagree with his doctrine or do you feel
that
Iraq
wasn't a
future threat?
It wasn't, and Bush's doctrine is a direct violation
of
several
international treaties that the US is a signatory
of -
Hussein's regime was obligated to comply with the
removal
of
WMD.
NO which he didn't. He was supposed to not only remove
them, he
was
supposed to document their destruction, not just say, their
destroyed.
Hussein was responsible for complying with that order.
If
Hussien
HAD
complied with that decree, then the US would have been
in
violation
for engaging in hostilities.
Is that the excuse this week? Besides, that is a NATO
Issue.
How is it a NATO issue?
President Clinton signed into law the removal of
Hussein's
regime.
This has been US policy since 1998. I don't recall any
objects
to
that
law based on a conflict of international treaties.
It is a violation of international law.
including the Geneva Convention.
Isn't it odd how the US was willing to invoke the GC
against
Hussein's
regime, yet is also entirely willing to break it?
The Geneva Convention applies to a specific regime.
And we violate it.
They violated the Geneva convention during the war, how?
Saddam Hussein's
regime was defeated, and it ceased to exist. The
insurgents
aren't
representing the iraqi people in their fighting or
Hussein's
regime,
they are simply killing people independently.
Therefore,
any
insurgents fighting in Iraq are not fighting for any
regime,
government in exile, or as a represative of the iraqi
people
and
are
not covered by the Geneva Convention.
What an *****. Are all Bush supports as twisted as
you?
Apparently.
They seem to feel it is acceptable to torture prisoners.
Are all bushhaters as completely reality challenged as you?
Where
did
I say they could torture prisoners or that the US
government
has
the
right to?
You are going to soon find out that left extremist liberals
like
Barnes
will
lie. They will put words in people's mouths.
Heishman, the cowardly guard, sticks up for guards who torture
prisoners. What a shock.
This is another lie by Barnes.
David Barnes has a true hatred towards Correctional Officers.
He was describing YOU not other correctional officers.
You obviously don't know how to tell the difference when someone is
attacking a person or a group.
I have a HUGE collection of David Barnes comments about
"correctional
officers", NOT refering to me.
Would you like to see them? Or would you just like to admit you are
going
to snip them and come up with
some stupid remark?
The worst thing anyone could say about "corrections officers" is that
YOU are one of them. Other corrections officers are injured on the
job
while YOU, the guard, plays on the computer at work. You have told us
so.
This is another lie by Barnes and it is his 19th lie in the past month.
Do you even remotely understand how foolish comments like this make you
look?
Do you even remotely understand how foolish your lies are?
I have never said any such thing.
If anyone wishes to provide evidence that will support Barnes lying,
please
come forth and do so.
Suddenly, silence....
No kidding sherlock...because no one can produce anything that will support
your lies.
I am glad you finally figured that out. Mabye now you will stop making up
lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
19 Jun 2004 11:19:57 AM |
|
|
In article <Mr6dnV0uRuhW_EndRVn-jw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:190620040833017012%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <lK6dnd1Zb9h0L0zdRVn-jA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:170620040743272035%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <xMednZCWgpvjCUzdRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"The True AntiLiberal" <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote
in
message
news:1f3b80af.0406161545.3b45d16d@posting.google.com...
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
message
news:<160620040806028575%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article
<1f3b80af.0406160603.70d4038b@posting.google.com>,
The
True
AntiLiberal <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
After 9/11, Bush said that he would attack
preemptively
against
future
threats.
Do you disagree with his doctrine or do you feel
that
Iraq
wasn't a
future threat?
It wasn't, and Bush's doctrine is a direct violation
of
several
international treaties that the US is a signatory
of -
Hussein's regime was obligated to comply with the
removal
of
WMD.
NO which he didn't. He was supposed to not only remove
them, he
was
supposed to document their destruction, not just say, their
destroyed.
Hussein was responsible for complying with that order.
If
Hussien
HAD
complied with that decree, then the US would have been
in
violation
for engaging in hostilities.
Is that the excuse this week? Besides, that is a NATO
Issue.
How is it a NATO issue?
President Clinton signed into law the removal of
Hussein's
regime.
This has been US policy since 1998. I don't recall any
objects
to
that
law based on a conflict of international treaties.
It is a violation of international law.
including the Geneva Convention.
Isn't it odd how the US was willing to invoke the GC
against
Hussein's
regime, yet is also entirely willing to break it?
The Geneva Convention applies to a specific regime.
And we violate it.
They violated the Geneva convention during the war, how?
Saddam Hussein's
regime was defeated, and it ceased to exist. The
insurgents
aren't
representing the iraqi people in their fighting or
Hussein's
regime,
they are simply killing people independently.
Therefore,
any
insurgents fighting in Iraq are not fighting for any
regime,
government in exile, or as a represative of the iraqi
people
and
are
not covered by the Geneva Convention.
What an *****. Are all Bush supports as twisted as
you?
Apparently.
They seem to feel it is acceptable to torture prisoners.
Are all bushhaters as completely reality challenged as you?
Where
did
I say they could torture prisoners or that the US
government
has
the
right to?
You are going to soon find out that left extremist liberals
like
Barnes
will
lie. They will put words in people's mouths.
Heishman, the cowardly guard, sticks up for guards who torture
prisoners. What a shock.
This is another lie by Barnes.
David Barnes has a true hatred towards Correctional Officers.
He was describing YOU not other correctional officers.
You obviously don't know how to tell the difference when someone is
attacking a person or a group.
I have a HUGE collection of David Barnes comments about
"correctional
officers", NOT refering to me.
Would you like to see them? Or would you just like to admit you are
going
to snip them and come up with
some stupid remark?
The worst thing anyone could say about "corrections officers" is that
YOU are one of them. Other corrections officers are injured on the
job
while YOU, the guard, plays on the computer at work. You have told us
so.
This is another lie by Barnes and it is his 19th lie in the past month.
Do you even remotely understand how foolish comments like this make you
look?
Do you even remotely understand how foolish your lies are?
I have never said any such thing.
If anyone wishes to provide evidence that will support Barnes lying,
please
come forth and do so.
Suddenly, silence....
No kidding sherlock...because no one can produce anything that will support
your lies.
Idiot. No one cares about you lies.
I am glad you finally figured that out. Mabye now you will stop making up
lies.
Just because you can't prove me wrong you hope to recruit others to
this folly of yours, and when they refuse, you suggest that is some
kind of evidence. ROFL!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
17 Jun 2004 10:10:27 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <xMednZCWgpvjCUzdRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"The True AntiLiberal" <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:1f3b80af.0406161545.3b45d16d@posting.google.com...
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:<160620040806028575%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <1f3b80af.0406160603.70d4038b@posting.google.com>, The
True
AntiLiberal <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
After 9/11, Bush said that he would attack preemptively
against
future
threats.
Do you disagree with his doctrine or do you feel that Iraq
wasn't a
future threat?
It wasn't, and Bush's doctrine is a direct violation of
several
international treaties that the US is a signatory of -
Hussein's regime was obligated to comply with the removal of
WMD.
NO which he didn't. He was supposed to not only remove them, he was
supposed to document their destruction, not just say, their
destroyed.
Hussein was responsible for complying with that order. If
Hussien
HAD
complied with that decree, then the US would have been in
violation
for engaging in hostilities.
Is that the excuse this week? Besides, that is a NATO Issue.
How is it a NATO issue?
President Clinton signed into law the removal of Hussein's
regime.
This has been US policy since 1998. I don't recall any objects
to
that
law based on a conflict of international treaties.
It is a violation of international law.
including the Geneva Convention.
Isn't it odd how the US was willing to invoke the GC against
Hussein's
regime, yet is also entirely willing to break it?
The Geneva Convention applies to a specific regime.
And we violate it.
They violated the Geneva convention during the war, how?
Saddam Hussein's
regime was defeated, and it ceased to exist. The insurgents
aren't
representing the iraqi people in their fighting or Hussein's
regime,
they are simply killing people independently. Therefore, any
insurgents fighting in Iraq are not fighting for any regime,
government in exile, or as a represative of the iraqi people
and
are
not covered by the Geneva Convention.
What an *****. Are all Bush supports as twisted as you?
Apparently.
They seem to feel it is acceptable to torture prisoners.
Are all bushhaters as completely reality challenged as you? Where
did
I say they could torture prisoners or that the US government has
the
right to?
You are going to soon find out that left extremist liberals like
Barnes
will
lie. They will put words in people's mouths.
Heishman, the cowardly guard, sticks up for guards who torture
prisoners. What a shock.
This is another lie by Barnes.
David Barnes has a true hatred towards Correctional Officers.
He was describing YOU not other correctional officers.
You obviously don't know how to tell the difference when someone is
attacking a person or a group.
I have a HUGE collection of David Barnes comments about "correctional
officers", NOT refering to me.
Would you like to see them? Or would you just like to admit you are going
to snip them and come up with
some stupid remark?
The worst thing anyone could say about "corrections officers" is that
YOU are one of them.
Which is the gest of your messages.
Other corrections officers are injured on the job
while YOU, the guard, plays on the computer at work. You have told us
so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
17 Jun 2004 10:09:55 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:55:27 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"The True AntiLiberal" <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:1f3b80af.0406161545.3b45d16d@posting.google.com...
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:<160620040806028575%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <1f3b80af.0406160603.70d4038b@posting.google.com>, The
True
AntiLiberal <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
After 9/11, Bush said that he would attack preemptively
against
future
threats.
Do you disagree with his doctrine or do you feel that Iraq
wasn't a
future threat?
It wasn't, and Bush's doctrine is a direct violation of
several
international treaties that the US is a signatory of -
Hussein's regime was obligated to comply with the removal of
WMD.
NO which he didn't. He was supposed to not only remove them, he was
supposed to document their destruction, not just say, their
destroyed.
Hussein was responsible for complying with that order. If
Hussien
HAD
complied with that decree, then the US would have been in
violation
for engaging in hostilities.
Is that the excuse this week? Besides, that is a NATO Issue.
How is it a NATO issue?
President Clinton signed into law the removal of Hussein's
regime.
This has been US policy since 1998. I don't recall any objects
to
that
law based on a conflict of international treaties.
It is a violation of international law.
including the Geneva Convention.
Isn't it odd how the US was willing to invoke the GC against
Hussein's
regime, yet is also entirely willing to break it?
The Geneva Convention applies to a specific regime.
And we violate it.
They violated the Geneva convention during the war, how?
Saddam Hussein's
regime was defeated, and it ceased to exist. The insurgents
aren't
representing the iraqi people in their fighting or Hussein's
regime,
they are simply killing people independently. Therefore, any
insurgents fighting in Iraq are not fighting for any regime,
government in exile, or as a represative of the iraqi people
and
are
not covered by the Geneva Convention.
What an *****. Are all Bush supports as twisted as you?
Apparently.
They seem to feel it is acceptable to torture prisoners.
Are all bushhaters as completely reality challenged as you? Where
did
I say they could torture prisoners or that the US government has
the
right to?
You are going to soon find out that left extremist liberals like
Barnes
will
lie. They will put words in people's mouths.
Heishman, the cowardly guard, sticks up for guards who torture
prisoners. What a shock.
This is another lie by Barnes.
David Barnes has a true hatred towards Correctional Officers.
He was describing YOU not other correctional officers.
You obviously don't know how to tell the difference when someone is
attacking a person or a group.
I have a HUGE collection of David Barnes comments about "correctional
officers", NOT refering to me.
Would you like to see them?
I have seen posts where he was referring to numb-nutted correctional
offers - like you. He didn't insult those who are legitimate in their
profession.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
17 Jun 2004 10:23:43 AM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:o0d3d05jm5fse3bh4nvvpcb08hi4ps5chp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:55:27 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"The True AntiLiberal" <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:1f3b80af.0406161545.3b45d16d@posting.google.com...
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:<160620040806028575%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <1f3b80af.0406160603.70d4038b@posting.google.com>,
The
True
AntiLiberal <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
After 9/11, Bush said that he would attack preemptively
against
future
threats.
Do you disagree with his doctrine or do you feel that
Iraq
wasn't a
future threat?
It wasn't, and Bush's doctrine is a direct violation of
several
international treaties that the US is a signatory of -
Hussein's regime was obligated to comply with the removal of
WMD.
NO which he didn't. He was supposed to not only remove them, he
was
supposed to document their destruction, not just say, their
destroyed.
Hussein was responsible for complying with that order. If
Hussien
HAD
complied with that decree, then the US would have been in
violation
for engaging in hostilities.
Is that the excuse this week? Besides, that is a NATO Issue.
How is it a NATO issue?
President Clinton signed into law the removal of Hussein's
regime.
This has been US policy since 1998. I don't recall any
objects
to
that
law based on a conflict of international treaties.
It is a violation of international law.
including the Geneva Convention.
Isn't it odd how the US was willing to invoke the GC
against
Hussein's
regime, yet is also entirely willing to break it?
The Geneva Convention applies to a specific regime.
And we violate it.
They violated the Geneva convention during the war, how?
Saddam Hussein's
regime was defeated, and it ceased to exist. The insurgents
aren't
representing the iraqi people in their fighting or Hussein's
regime,
they are simply killing people independently. Therefore, any
insurgents fighting in Iraq are not fighting for any regime,
government in exile, or as a represative of the iraqi people
and
are
not covered by the Geneva Convention.
What an *****. Are all Bush supports as twisted as you?
Apparently.
They seem to feel it is acceptable to torture prisoners.
Are all bushhaters as completely reality challenged as you?
Where
did
I say they could torture prisoners or that the US government has
the
right to?
You are going to soon find out that left extremist liberals like
Barnes
will
lie. They will put words in people's mouths.
Heishman, the cowardly guard, sticks up for guards who torture
prisoners. What a shock.
This is another lie by Barnes.
David Barnes has a true hatred towards Correctional Officers.
He was describing YOU not other correctional officers.
You obviously don't know how to tell the difference when someone is
attacking a person or a group.
I have a HUGE collection of David Barnes comments about "correctional
officers", NOT refering to me.
Would you like to see them?
I have seen posts where he was referring to numb-nutted correctional
offers - like you. He didn't insult those who are legitimate in their
profession.
Would you like to defend his statements? I am prepared to show the entire
list and allow you
the opportunity to point out where they refer to "me" and not "correctional
officers" in general.
Choice is yours.
Are you prepared or do you wish to run from this now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
17 Jun 2004 10:57:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:23:43 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:o0d3d05jm5fse3bh4nvvpcb08hi4ps5chp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:55:27 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"The True AntiLiberal" <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:1f3b80af.0406161545.3b45d16d@posting.google.com...
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:<160620040806028575%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...
In article <1f3b80af.0406160603.70d4038b@posting.google.com>,
The
True
AntiLiberal <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
After 9/11, Bush said that he would attack preemptively
against
future
threats.
Do you disagree with his doctrine or do you feel that
Iraq
wasn't a
future threat?
It wasn't, and Bush's doctrine is a direct violation of
several
international treaties that the US is a signatory of -
Hussein's regime was obligated to comply with the removal of
WMD.
NO which he didn't. He was supposed to not only remove them, he
was
supposed to document their destruction, not just say, their
destroyed.
Hussein was responsible for complying with that order. If
Hussien
HAD
complied with that decree, then the US would have been in
violation
for engaging in hostilities.
Is that the excuse this week? Besides, that is a NATO Issue.
How is it a NATO issue?
President Clinton signed into law the removal of Hussein's
regime.
This has been US policy since 1998. I don't recall any
objects
to
that
law based on a conflict of international treaties.
It is a violation of international law.
including the Geneva Convention.
Isn't it odd how the US was willing to invoke the GC
against
Hussein's
regime, yet is also entirely willing to break it?
The Geneva Convention applies to a specific regime.
And we violate it.
They violated the Geneva convention during the war, how?
Saddam Hussein's
regime was defeated, and it ceased to exist. The insurgents
aren't
representing the iraqi people in their fighting or Hussein's
regime,
they are simply killing people independently. Therefore, any
insurgents fighting in Iraq are not fighting for any regime,
government in exile, or as a represative of the iraqi people
and
are
not covered by the Geneva Convention.
What an *****. Are all Bush supports as twisted as you?
Apparently.
They seem to feel it is acceptable to torture prisoners.
Are all bushhaters as completely reality challenged as you?
Where
did
I say they could torture prisoners or that the US government has
the
right to?
| | | |
