| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"David W. Barnes" |
| Date: |
22 Sep 2006 12:01:21 AM |
| Object: |
Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with
militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on
the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said
Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14939983/
One of the many rationalizations of the Right Wing for invading Iraq
after the whole WMD's thing fell on it face was that Saddam Hussein was
killing and torturing Iraqi's.
Now we find out the situation is worse under Bush!
.
|
|
| User: "Jim Higgins" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 03:22:38 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210920062201228593%dbarnes@aol.com...
Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with
militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on
the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said
Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14939983/
One of the many rationalizations of the Right Wing for invading Iraq
after the whole WMD's thing fell on it face was that Saddam Hussein was
killing and torturing Iraqi's.
Now we find out the situation is worse under Bush!
With your help spammer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 04:36:31 PM |
|
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14939983/
One of the many rationalizations of the Right Wing for invading Iraq
after the whole WMD's thing fell on it face was that Saddam Hussein was
killing and torturing Iraqi's.
Now we find out the situation is worse under Bush!
LOL!! What situation *isn't* 'worse under Bush'...?!?
And, indeed, there's a long and odious history of things getting more
violent, chaotic and oppressive in places *after* the US got openly or
covertly involved in them. Look at Central and South America for shameful
examples close to home: as the tortures and murders go up, *so does the
financial and materiel support for the perpetrators*. I call it '*****'s
Law', and it holds with remarkable consistency...
M.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 09:45:25 AM |
|
|
In article <12h77a7k2veni30@corp.supernews.com>, Jim Higgins
<gordian238@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210920062201228593%dbarnes@aol.com...
Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with
militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on
the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said
Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14939983/
One of the many rationalizations of the Right Wing for invading Iraq
after the whole WMD's thing fell on it face was that Saddam Hussein was
killing and torturing Iraqi's.
Now we find out the situation is worse under Bush!
With your help spammer.
Whatever that means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bernard Spilman" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 12:04:37 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220920060745251009%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <12h77a7k2veni30@corp.supernews.com>, Jim Higgins
<gordian238@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210920062201228593%dbarnes@aol.com...
Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with
militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on
the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said
Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14939983/
One of the many rationalizations of the Right Wing for invading Iraq
after the whole WMD's thing fell on it face was that Saddam Hussein was
killing and torturing Iraqi's.
Now we find out the situation is worse under Bush!
With your help spammer.
Whatever that means.
I think it means its our fault that Bush's war
is such a dismal failure. Our's and the media's.
WS
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 12:41:28 PM |
|
|
In article <FIUQg.33242$Md4.7818@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
"Bernard Spilman" <b@man.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220920060745251009%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <12h77a7k2veni30@corp.supernews.com>, Jim Higgins
<gordian238@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210920062201228593%dbarnes@aol.com...
Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with
militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on
the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said
Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14939983/
One of the many rationalizations of the Right Wing for invading Iraq
after the whole WMD's thing fell on it face was that Saddam Hussein was
killing and torturing Iraqi's.
Now we find out the situation is worse under Bush!
With your help spammer.
Whatever that means.
I think it means its our fault that Bush's war
is such a dismal failure. Our's and the media's.
i agree with that. bush should ahve been stopped long ago, perhaps as
early as 2000.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 09:01:10 PM |
|
|
In article <FIUQg.33242$Md4.7818@tornado.southeast.rr.com>, Bernard
Spilman <b@man.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220920060745251009%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <12h77a7k2veni30@corp.supernews.com>, Jim Higgins
<gordian238@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210920062201228593%dbarnes@aol.com...
Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with
militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on
the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said
Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14939983/
One of the many rationalizations of the Right Wing for invading Iraq
after the whole WMD's thing fell on it face was that Saddam Hussein was
killing and torturing Iraqi's.
Now we find out the situation is worse under Bush!
With your help spammer.
Whatever that means.
I think it means its our fault that Bush's war
is such a dismal failure. Our's and the media's.
WS
Apparently. After all, we should have KNOWN Bush was lying about why
we were there.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 05:18:40 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:22:38 -0400, "Jim Higgins"
<gordian238@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210920062201228593%dbarnes@aol.com...
Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with
militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on
the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said
Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14939983/
One of the many rationalizations of the Right Wing for invading Iraq
after the whole WMD's thing fell on it face was that Saddam Hussein was
killing and torturing Iraqi's.
Now we find out the situation is worse under Bush!
With your help spammer.
It's still the TRUTH, and the truth is something the right wing can
not handle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 11:09:44 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with
militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on
the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said
Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14939983/
One of the many rationalizations of the Right Wing for invading Iraq
after the whole WMD's thing fell on it face was that Saddam Hussein was
killing and torturing Iraqi's.
Now we find out the situation is worse under Bush!
What a surprise that is... It takes dickheads to ellect one of their
own. I don't know why you Americans complain. You elected the
moron...now shut the hell up. You got what you deserve.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 01:32:29 PM |
|
|
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happenas long as
Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons had
continued to rule Iraq. It also depends on how long the problems in Iraq
now are going to continue....
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:210920062201228593%dbarnes@aol.com...
Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with
militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on
the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said
Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14939983/
One of the many rationalizations of the Right Wing for invading Iraq
after the whole WMD's thing fell on it face was that Saddam Hussein was
killing and torturing Iraqi's.
Now we find out the situation is worse under Bush!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 04:45:39 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1%VQg.10799$rE5.8462@tornado.socal.rr.com...
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons had
continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ... in
.... *fortune-telling*...
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 06:37:15 PM |
|
|
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
news:7QYQg.39682$WV2.25210@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1%VQg.10799$rE5.8462@tornado.socal.rr.com...
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ... in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better life?
Was to "cost" too high when we sent our military into Yugoslavia? What
would you propose we do with the Sudan?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 04:12:24 AM |
|
|
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Ls_Qg.10822$rE5.835@tornado.socal.rr.com...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better
life? Was to "cost" too high when we sent our military into Yugoslavia?
What would you propose we do with the Sudan?
It must take a remarkable amount of brainwashing or brain-damage for someone
actually to believe that Uncle Sam's foreign policy decisions are motivated
by an urge to give peoples 'a better shot at life'. That wasn't the
motivation in Yugoslavia, and it sure as hell won't have anything to do with
what happens in the Sudan.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 12:46:24 PM |
|
|
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
news:YT6Rg.37753$G72.3294@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Ls_Qg.10822$rE5.835@tornado.socal.rr.com...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better
life? Was to "cost" too high when we sent our military into Yugoslavia?
What would you propose we do with the Sudan?
It must take a remarkable amount of brainwashing or brain-damage for
someone actually to believe that Uncle Sam's foreign policy decisions are
motivated by an urge to give peoples 'a better shot at life'. That wasn't
the motivation in Yugoslavia, and it sure as hell won't have anything to
do with what happens in the Sudan.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html
What would be the movtivation?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 09:01:10 PM |
|
|
In article <Ls_Qg.10822$rE5.835@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Jerry Okamura
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
news:7QYQg.39682$WV2.25210@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1%VQg.10799$rE5.8462@tornado.socal.rr.com...
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ... in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better life?
How about we America begins with Americans?
Was to "cost" too high when we sent our military into Yugoslavia? What
would you propose we do with the Sudan?
Another Bush apologist bites the dust.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 12:42:44 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220920061901109849%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <Ls_Qg.10822$rE5.835@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Jerry Okamura
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
news:7QYQg.39682$WV2.25210@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1%VQg.10799$rE5.8462@tornado.socal.rr.com...
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened
when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as
long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con
con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the
awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and
the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ...
in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better
life?
How about we America begins with Americans?
Because, "if" you begin with Americans, then by definition you will never
address the problems with other peole living in other countries. It would
mean that you would not spend a dime helping anyone in any other country,
because you would prefer to spend it all "helping" americans. So, what you
are basically saying is let those "others" die....too bad they don't live in
America
Was to "cost" too high when we sent our military into Yugoslavia? What
would you propose we do with the Sudan?
Another Bush apologist bites the dust.
Why didn't you answer the question asked, instead of acting like a
politician?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 01:16:16 PM |
|
|
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220920061901109849%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <Ls_Qg.10822$rE5.835@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Jerry Okamura
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
news:7QYQg.39682$WV2.25210@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1%VQg.10799$rE5.8462@tornado.socal.rr.com...
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened
when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as
long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con
con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the
awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and
the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ...
in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better
life?
How about we America begins with Americans?
Because, "if" you begin with Americans, then by definition you will never
address the problems with other peole living in other countries. It would
mean that you would not spend a dime helping anyone in any other country,
because you would prefer to spend it all "helping" americans. So, what you
are basically saying is let those "others" die....too bad they don't live in
America
As opposed to saying "let those others die" because they do live in
America?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 09:28:43 PM |
|
|
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ... in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better life?
By killing them?
Pretty generous of you to want to pay thousands more in taxes every
year to help the Iraqi people. Not very patriotic of you, though,
given that you neocons never seem to want to help Americans.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 12:44:03 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45149bdb$0$34528$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened
when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as
long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con
con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and
the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ...
in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better
life?
By killing them?
Pretty generous of you to want to pay thousands more in taxes every
year to help the Iraqi people. Not very patriotic of you, though,
given that you neocons never seem to want to help Americans.
Some of them were going to die in any event. The only basic difference is
who kills them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 01:17:10 PM |
|
|
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45149bdb$0$34528$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened
when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as
long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con
con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and
the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ...
in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better
life?
By killing them?
Pretty generous of you to want to pay thousands more in taxes every
year to help the Iraqi people. Not very patriotic of you, though,
given that you neocons never seem to want to help Americans.
Some of them were going to die in any event. The only basic difference is
who kills them.
You're going to die eventually too - does that justify executing you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 06:11:45 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45157a26$0$34529$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45149bdb$0$34528$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened
when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as
long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his
sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con
con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the
awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and
the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted
...
in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better
life?
By killing them?
Pretty generous of you to want to pay thousands more in taxes every
year to help the Iraqi people. Not very patriotic of you, though,
given that you neocons never seem to want to help Americans.
Some of them were going to die in any event. The only basic difference is
who kills them.
You're going to die eventually too - does that justify executing you?
The only time I would be even have any opinions about that is when I am
still alive. Once I am dead, I don't care "how" or "when" I died.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rg" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 08:01:40 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RajRg.11152$rE5.4860@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45157a26$0$34529$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45149bdb$0$34528$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened
when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as
long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his
sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the
neo-con
con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the
awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and
the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted
...
in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better
life?
By killing them?
Pretty generous of you to want to pay thousands more in taxes every
year to help the Iraqi people. Not very patriotic of you, though,
given that you neocons never seem to want to help Americans.
Some of them were going to die in any event. The only basic difference
is
who kills them.
You're going to die eventually too - does that justify executing you?
The only time I would be even have any opinions about that is when I am
still alive. Once I am dead, I don't care "how" or "when" I died.
Are you sure?
Just kidding.
rg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 07:45:55 PM |
|
|
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened
when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as
long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his
sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con
con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the
awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and
the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted
...
in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better
life?
By killing them?
Pretty generous of you to want to pay thousands more in taxes every
year to help the Iraqi people. Not very patriotic of you, though,
given that you neocons never seem to want to help Americans.
Some of them were going to die in any event. The only basic difference is
who kills them.
You're going to die eventually too - does that justify executing you?
The only time I would be even have any opinions about that is when I am
still alive. Once I am dead, I don't care "how" or "when" I died.
Which doesn't address the question at all.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
24 Sep 2006 01:06:11 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4515d543$0$34537$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened
when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen
as
long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his
sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the
neo-con
con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the
awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction
and
the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted
...
in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better
life?
By killing them?
Pretty generous of you to want to pay thousands more in taxes every
year to help the Iraqi people. Not very patriotic of you, though,
given that you neocons never seem to want to help Americans.
Some of them were going to die in any event. The only basic difference
is
who kills them.
You're going to die eventually too - does that justify executing you?
The only time I would be even have any opinions about that is when I am
still alive. Once I am dead, I don't care "how" or "when" I died.
Which doesn't address the question at all.
The only time I worry about dying by "execution" is when I am still
alive.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 09:33:47 PM |
|
|
In article <45149bdb$0$34528$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ... in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better life?
By killing them?
Pretty generous of you to want to pay thousands more in taxes every
year to help the Iraqi people. Not very patriotic of you, though,
given that you neocons never seem to want to help Americans.
As of today, Bush and his supporters are responsible for more deaths
than Bin Laden.
(AP) U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now match those of
the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger
for what came next. Add casualties from chasing terrorists elsewhere in
the world, and the total has passed the Sept. 11 figure.
Altogether, 3,028 have died abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/22/terror/main2035427.shtml>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 12:45:50 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:220920061933477278%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <45149bdb$0$34528$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
Jerry Okamura <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened
when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as
long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his
sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con
con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the
awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and
the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted
... in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better
life?
By killing them?
Pretty generous of you to want to pay thousands more in taxes every
year to help the Iraqi people. Not very patriotic of you, though,
given that you neocons never seem to want to help Americans.
As of today, Bush and his supporters are responsible for more deaths
than Bin Laden.
(AP) U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now match those of
the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger
for what came next. Add casualties from chasing terrorists elsewhere in
the world, and the total has passed the Sept. 11 figure.
Altogether, 3,028 have died abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/22/terror/main2035427.shtml>
The same can be said about WWII, i.e. we killed a whole lot more of them,
then died in the attack on Pearl Harbot. How many died as a result of the
attack on Pearl Harbor, and how many Germans and Japense died when we went
to war with them?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 09:13:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:37:15 GMT, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:
<Ls_Qg.10822$rE5.835@tornado.socal.rr.com>
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote in message
news:7QYQg.39682$WV2.25210@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1%VQg.10799$rE5.8462@tornado.socal.rr.com...
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons
had continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ... in
... *fortune-telling*...
How high a cost is "too high a cost" to give people a shot at a better life?
Was to "cost" too high when we sent our military into Yugoslavia? What
would you propose we do with the Sudan?
Air-drop .45ACPs and M-16 with crates of ammunition.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 09:01:09 PM |
|
|
In article <7QYQg.39682$WV2.25210@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, Mark D J. <
J.@hoyme.com> wrote:
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1%VQg.10799$rE5.8462@tornado.socal.rr.com...
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons had
continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ... in
... *fortune-telling*...
M.
LOL! How true... :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 05:09:16 PM |
|
|
Mark D J. wrote:
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1%VQg.10799$rE5.8462@tornado.socal.rr.com...
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons had
continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ... in
... *fortune-telling*...
Hey, Chavez is looking for penpals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
22 Sep 2006 09:01:10 PM |
|
|
In article <1158962956.072237.269170@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mark D J. wrote:
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1%VQg.10799$rE5.8462@tornado.socal.rr.com...
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons had
continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ... in
... *fortune-telling*...
Hey, Chavez is looking for penpals.
Osprey continues to blindly support Bush no matter what crimes he
commits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is Saddam Hussein When You Need Him? |
23 Sep 2006 02:35:45 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1158962956.072237.269170@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mark D J. wrote:
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1%VQg.10799$rE5.8462@tornado.socal.rr.com...
The word "worse" is relative. It depends on not only what happened when
Saddam was in power, but also what would have continued to happen as long
as Saddam was still in power, and what would have happened if his sons had
continued to rule Iraq.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we see the final nadir of the neo-con con
that is the Iraq disaster. Yes, the ultimate justification for the awful
killing and the unconscionable cost, the incalculable destruction and the
creation of indelible hatreds ... turns out to have been ... rooted ... in
... *fortune-telling*...
Hey, Chavez is looking for penpals.
Osprey continues to blindly support Bush no matter what crimes he
commits.
And Barnes continues to lie, no matter what the issue is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
