| 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: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
17 Jun 2004 01:41:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:38 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:11:56 -0400, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
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.
He never gets that.
Well, in his mind (such as it is), Bobby represents all correctional
officers.
Which is a bloody insult, in itself.
It should be to all the good ones, anyway.
I wonder how the rest of them would feel, knowing that Bobby thinks
he's speaking for them?
Not very happy. I'd imagine.
I saw his long string of responses claiming that he's not speaking for
correctional officers as a group, yet every time David criticizes him,
suddenly David hates them all. Bobby's mind sure is a scary place.
---
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 01:00:02 AM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<8qo3d0hs3fmdqs66lvgharp30pnjrvf7l9@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:38 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:11:56 -0400, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
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.
He never gets that.
Well, in his mind (such as it is), Bobby represents all correctional
officers.
Which is a bloody insult, in itself.
It should be to all the good ones, anyway.
I wonder how the rest of them would feel, knowing that Bobby thinks
he's speaking for them?
Not very happy. I'd imagine.
I saw his long string of responses claiming that he's not speaking for
correctional officers as a group, yet every time David criticizes him,
suddenly David hates them all. Bobby's mind sure is a scary place.
The problem is, David doesn't criticize just me. He lumps all
Correctional Officers. If he indicated in his rants and insults that
they were reflected at just me, that would be one thing. But he
doesn't do that.
No matter how hard you and a few others want to defend David Barnes,
here are a few facts:
1) None of you have a clue as to how Corrections operate
2) None of you have a clue as to what my job duties, or any
Correctional Officer for that matter.
3) You guess and assume what my duties are and make up false
accusations. This is most likely because you are desperate for
attention. I have no other explanation as to why you have the need to
make things up.
4) The moment I challenge any one of you to back up your statements
you play three stooges (act like clowns)
The abover 4 statements are facts
If any one of you wish to take a stab at what happens in a prison,
what a Correctional Officers duties are, or back up any of your
statements let me know.
Don't waste my time though, if you can back it up..be prepared.
So far, you, Elmo, Krisblake, and David Barnes are only acting like
clowns, making things up, and have absolutely no idea what you are
talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 04:53:59 AM |
|
|
On 17 Jun 2004 23:00:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<8qo3d0hs3fmdqs66lvgharp30pnjrvf7l9@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:38 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:11:56 -0400, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
< > 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.
He never gets that.
Well, in his mind (such as it is), Bobby represents all correctional
officers.
Which is a bloody insult, in itself.
It should be to all the good ones, anyway.
I wonder how the rest of them would feel, knowing that Bobby thinks
he's speaking for them?
Not very happy. I'd imagine.
I saw his long string of responses claiming that he's not speaking for
correctional officers as a group, yet every time David criticizes him,
suddenly David hates them all. Bobby's mind sure is a scary place.
The problem is, David doesn't criticize just me. He lumps all
Correctional Officers.
Only idiot officers, like you.
Not ALL officers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 08:44:33 AM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ese5d01hg81ggn91te6jk5425l8ai5gn0s@4ax.com...
On 17 Jun 2004 23:00:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:<8qo3d0hs3fmdqs66lvgharp30pnjrvf7l9@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:38 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:11:56 -0400, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey"
<>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
< > 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.
He never gets that.
Well, in his mind (such as it is), Bobby represents all correctional
officers.
Which is a bloody insult, in itself.
It should be to all the good ones, anyway.
I wonder how the rest of them would feel, knowing that Bobby thinks
he's speaking for them?
Not very happy. I'd imagine.
I saw his long string of responses claiming that he's not speaking for
correctional officers as a group, yet every time David criticizes him,
suddenly David hates them all. Bobby's mind sure is a scary place.
The problem is, David doesn't criticize just me. He lumps all
Correctional Officers.
Only idiot officers, like you.
Not ALL officers.
He never specified certain officers, he clearly says in his post
"guards"
Not once did he specify what kind of "guards" he was refering too.
If you would like to take his comments to a correctional officer message
board and see how other correctional officers view his post, we can do that.
Most likely you will decline because you know damn well that David Barnes
would be bashed by Correctional Officers for saying the hateful things he
said.
"No. I have seen how prison systems work. The guards are scared
shitless of the prisoners. This is why the violence in prisons is so
high. "
Two problems with that statement.
1) He has never seen how prison systems work
2) his statement is in reference to "guards" Nothing specific...
Next statement
" Which is why I think so little of guards."
This is not refering to any specific "guards" he is talking about guards in
general
"Guards are notoriously "hobby cops." They are wanna-be cops who have
something in their backgrounds that make them ineligible to be real
police officers.
Often it is a criminal conviction or simple a mental
condition. Or, quite often, it is that the person failed the
psychological test because he is too aggressive and wants to be a cop
so he can push people around."
Again, he is talking about guards in general.
I hope you are taking notes and prepared to show me where he is speaking
about any "specific" guard
"I also see the groups of eight or ten guards in helmets, batons, flak
vests, boots, tear gas, and riot equipment,who bravely go up against one
unarmed man in his underwear. You are a very brave bunch"
Several problems with that statement
1) the ONLY time tear gas is EVER used is in EXTREME CASES. NEVER against
just "one unarmed man" THAT NEVER HAPPENS
It would take a RIOT that has completely gotten out of control. So Barnes
definetely doesn't know what he is talking about.
2) The ONLY time helmets, batons, flak vest are used is in EXTREME CASES as
well, for example if a inmate has a shank and has baracaded himself in the
cell.
3) Barnes has never seen these things in person because Barnes would never
be allowed to go past the visitor's point in a prison. Maybe he saw
something on a documentary show and completely didn't understand it. That
is possible, but actually seeing it...no way.
4) He is not refering to me, or any specific officers. He is once again
speaking about officers in general.
Now, can you show us in his statments where he is refering to just me and
not Correctional Officers?
Or are you going to snip and lie again?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 09:43:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:44:33 -0400, "Osprey" <>
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ese5d01hg81ggn91te6jk5425l8ai5gn0s@4ax.com...
On 17 Jun 2004 23:00:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:<8qo3d0hs3fmdqs66lvgharp30pnjrvf7l9@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:38 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:11:56 -0400, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey"
< >
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
< > 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.
He never gets that.
Well, in his mind (such as it is), Bobby represents all correctional
officers.
Which is a bloody insult, in itself.
It should be to all the good ones, anyway.
I wonder how the rest of them would feel, knowing that Bobby thinks
he's speaking for them?
Not very happy. I'd imagine.
I saw his long string of responses claiming that he's not speaking for
correctional officers as a group, yet every time David criticizes him,
suddenly David hates them all. Bobby's mind sure is a scary place.
The problem is, David doesn't criticize just me. He lumps all
Correctional Officers.
Only idiot officers, like you.
Not ALL officers.
He never specified certain officers, he clearly says in his post
"guards"
Idiot guards (not honest officers
who respect their profession).
[Garbage harangue gleefully snipped.]
Or are you going to snip...
Yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 02:23:50 PM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:2pv5d0l89tpg33d219fshdodfg9afmsh5j@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:44:33 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ese5d01hg81ggn91te6jk5425l8ai5gn0s@4ax.com...
On 17 Jun 2004 23:00:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:<8qo3d0hs3fmdqs66lvgharp30pnjrvf7l9@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:38 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:11:56 -0400, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey"
< >
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
< > 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.
He never gets that.
Well, in his mind (such as it is), Bobby represents all
correctional
officers.
Which is a bloody insult, in itself.
It should be to all the good ones, anyway.
I wonder how the rest of them would feel, knowing that Bobby
thinks
he's speaking for them?
Not very happy. I'd imagine.
I saw his long string of responses claiming that he's not speaking
for
correctional officers as a group, yet every time David criticizes
him,
suddenly David hates them all. Bobby's mind sure is a scary place.
The problem is, David doesn't criticize just me. He lumps all
Correctional Officers.
Only idiot officers, like you.
Not ALL officers.
He never specified certain officers, he clearly says in his post
"guards"
Idiot guards (not honest officers
who respect their profession).
That was never specified in his comments at all.
You lose again.
[Garbage harangue gleefully snipped.]
Of course you will snip, because you can't handle it and address it.
Or are you going to snip...
Yes.
I figured you would, because that is the kind of dishonest little liar you
are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 02:29:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:23:50 -0400, "Osprey" <>
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:2pv5d0l89tpg33d219fshdodfg9afmsh5j@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:44:33 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ese5d01hg81ggn91te6jk5425l8ai5gn0s@4ax.com...
On 17 Jun 2004 23:00:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:<8qo3d0hs3fmdqs66lvgharp30pnjrvf7l9@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:38 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:11:56 -0400, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey"
< >
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
< > 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.
He never gets that.
Well, in his mind (such as it is), Bobby represents all
correctional
officers.
Which is a bloody insult, in itself.
It should be to all the good ones, anyway.
I wonder how the rest of them would feel, knowing that Bobby
thinks
he's speaking for them?
Not very happy. I'd imagine.
I saw his long string of responses claiming that he's not speaking
for
correctional officers as a group, yet every time David criticizes
him,
suddenly David hates them all. Bobby's mind sure is a scary place.
The problem is, David doesn't criticize just me. He lumps all
Correctional Officers.
Only idiot officers, like you.
Not ALL officers.
He never specified certain officers, he clearly says in his post
"guards"
Idiot guards (not honest officers
who respect their profession).
That was never specified in his comments at all.
You don't know how to bloody well read, that's why.
You lose again.
[Garbage harangue gleefully snipped.]
Of course you will snip, because...
Your crap isn't worth repeating.
Or are you going to snip...
Yes.
I figured you would, because...
Your crap isn't worth reposting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 02:33:57 PM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:shg6d0ld3nvfjtf9056r46d7p3678oqbqd@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:23:50 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:2pv5d0l89tpg33d219fshdodfg9afmsh5j@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:44:33 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ese5d01hg81ggn91te6jk5425l8ai5gn0s@4ax.com...
On 17 Jun 2004 23:00:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:<8qo3d0hs3fmdqs66lvgharp30pnjrvf7l9@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:38 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:11:56 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey"
< >
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
< > 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.
He never gets that.
Well, in his mind (such as it is), Bobby represents all
correctional
officers.
Which is a bloody insult, in itself.
It should be to all the good ones, anyway.
I wonder how the rest of them would feel, knowing that Bobby
thinks
he's speaking for them?
Not very happy. I'd imagine.
I saw his long string of responses claiming that he's not
speaking
for
correctional officers as a group, yet every time David criticizes
him,
suddenly David hates them all. Bobby's mind sure is a scary
place.
The problem is, David doesn't criticize just me. He lumps all
Correctional Officers.
Only idiot officers, like you.
Not ALL officers.
He never specified certain officers, he clearly says in his post
"guards"
Idiot guards (not honest officers
who respect their profession).
That was never specified in his comments at all.
You don't know how to bloody well read, that's why.
You lost Krisblake...it's over now.
You can't explain your statements or defend them.
So you go around in circles like you do with everyone else
trying to make up your stupid excuses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 02:41:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:33:57 -0400, "Osprey" <>
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:shg6d0ld3nvfjtf9056r46d7p3678oqbqd@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:23:50 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:2pv5d0l89tpg33d219fshdodfg9afmsh5j@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:44:33 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ese5d01hg81ggn91te6jk5425l8ai5gn0s@4ax.com...
On 17 Jun 2004 23:00:02 -0700, (osprey) wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:<8qo3d0hs3fmdqs66lvgharp30pnjrvf7l9@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:38 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:11:56 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey"
< >
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
< > 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.
He never gets that.
Well, in his mind (such as it is), Bobby represents all
correctional
officers.
Which is a bloody insult, in itself.
It should be to all the good ones, anyway.
I wonder how the rest of them would feel, knowing that Bobby
thinks
he's speaking for them?
Not very happy. I'd imagine.
I saw his long string of responses claiming that he's not
speaking
for
correctional officers as a group, yet every time David criticizes
him,
suddenly David hates them all. Bobby's mind sure is a scary
place.
The problem is, David doesn't criticize just me. He lumps all
Correctional Officers.
Only idiot officers, like you.
Not ALL officers.
He never specified certain officers, he clearly says in his post
"guards"
Idiot guards (not honest officers
who respect their profession).
That was never specified in his comments at all.
You don't know how to bloody well read, that's why.
You lost Krisblake...it's over now.
You lost, Rheish...it's over now. Deal with it. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 02:44:16 PM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:c9h6d09sro60j47r9uugv32qmikj0rvecu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:33:57 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:shg6d0ld3nvfjtf9056r46d7p3678oqbqd@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:23:50 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:2pv5d0l89tpg33d219fshdodfg9afmsh5j@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:44:33 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ese5d01hg81ggn91te6jk5425l8ai5gn0s@4ax.com...
On 17 Jun 2004 23:00:02 -0700, (osprey)
wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:<8qo3d0hs3fmdqs66lvgharp30pnjrvf7l9@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:38 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:11:56 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey"
< >
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Osprey
< > 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.
He never gets that.
Well, in his mind (such as it is), Bobby represents all
correctional
officers.
Which is a bloody insult, in itself.
It should be to all the good ones, anyway.
I wonder how the rest of them would feel, knowing that Bobby
thinks
he's speaking for them?
Not very happy. I'd imagine.
I saw his long string of responses claiming that he's not
speaking
for
correctional officers as a group, yet every time David
criticizes
him,
suddenly David hates them all. Bobby's mind sure is a scary
place.
The problem is, David doesn't criticize just me. He lumps all
Correctional Officers.
Only idiot officers, like you.
Not ALL officers.
He never specified certain officers, he clearly says in his post
"guards"
Idiot guards (not honest officers
who respect their profession).
That was never specified in his comments at all.
You don't know how to bloody well read, that's why.
You lost Krisblake...it's over now.
You lost, Rheish...it's over now. Deal with it. ;-)
You can run along now, your little strawmen don't work and making things up
never did work well for you.
Like Barnes and Elmo, you have shown that you prefer to believe lies and
never question anyone that you
like to side with.
That would be a fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 02:48:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:44:16 -0400, "Osprey" <>
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:c9h6d09sro60j47r9uugv32qmikj0rvecu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:33:57 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:shg6d0ld3nvfjtf9056r46d7p3678oqbqd@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:23:50 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:2pv5d0l89tpg33d219fshdodfg9afmsh5j@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:44:33 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ese5d01hg81ggn91te6jk5425l8ai5gn0s@4ax.com...
On 17 Jun 2004 23:00:02 -0700, (osprey)
wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:<8qo3d0hs3fmdqs66lvgharp30pnjrvf7l9@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:38 -0400, Somesappywriter
<sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:11:56 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
In article <bo43d0ls2l6k61oo43aljddsacb9mffr51@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:09:58 -0400, "Osprey"
< >
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in
message
news:160620042206143060%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
In article <-86dnWCPEbSCfU3dRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Osprey
< > 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.
He never gets that.
Well, in his mind (such as it is), Bobby represents all
correctional
officers.
Which is a bloody insult, in itself.
It should be to all the good ones, anyway.
I wonder how the rest of them would feel, knowing that Bobby
thinks
he's speaking for them?
Not very happy. I'd imagine.
I saw his long string of responses claiming that he's not
speaking
for
correctional officers as a group, yet every time David
criticizes
him,
suddenly David hates them all. Bobby's mind sure is a scary
place.
The problem is, David doesn't criticize just me. He lumps all
Correctional Officers.
Only idiot officers, like you.
Not ALL officers.
He never specified certain officers, he clearly says in his post
"guards"
Idiot guards (not honest officers
who respect their profession).
That was never specified in his comments at all.
You don't know how to bloody well read, that's why.
You lost Krisblake...it's over now.
You lost, Rheish...it's over now. Deal with it. ;-)
You can run along now...
After you, coward.
[...]
That would be a fact.
You wouldn't know a fact if one danced in front of your eyes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Continuing to correct Barnes lies |
18 Jun 2004 02:50:01 PM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:dnh6d0pri0ecp80ge8tgb9d8oiul3i78hj@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:44:16 -0400, "Osprey" < >
wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:c9h6d09sro60j47r9uugv32qmikj0rvecu@4ax.co | | | | | | | | | | | | |
