OT: Losing the Moral High Ground

Religions > Atheism > OT: Losing the Moral High Ground

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"maff"
Date:	05 May 2004 03:23:30 PM
Object:	OT: Losing the Moral High Ground

Losing the Moral High Ground
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4907803/
The shocking pictures from Abu Ghurayb prison don't just reflect badly
on those involved. They also undermine Bush's credibility and
jeopardize his plans for Iraq
WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Richard Wolffe
Newsweek
Updated: 1:29 p.m. ET May 05, 2004
May 5 - At a pancake breakfast yesterday morning in Lucas County,
Ohio, George W. Bush struck the high note—and the low note—of this
presidential election. After lampooning rival candidate John Kerry for
some of his seemingly contradictory statements (like whether or not he
owns an SUV), the president turned to his own character. "It's very
important for the president of the United States to speak clearly, and
when he says something, mean what he says," Bush declared. "In order
to make the world more peaceful and the world more free, when an
American president speaks, he'd better speak with authority, clarity
and certainty."
Richard Wolffe
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0311080254.2f9a4793%40posting.google.com
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	05 May 2004 05:57:27 PM

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We illegally
invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its citizenry to an
extremely brutal occupation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4907803/

The shocking pictures from Abu Ghurayb prison don't just reflect badly
on those involved. They also undermine Bush's credibility and
jeopardize his plans for Iraq

Bush's speech wasn't going to convince anybody. These won't be
isolated incidents. The photographs show a culture of torture and
degradation. It didn't happen out of the blue with one bad guy
suddenly deciding to do it.
.

User: "Fester"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	05 May 2004 06:25:09 PM

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We illegally
invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its citizenry to an
extremely brutal occupation.

We set out to protect ourselves from international murderers. There is no
higher moral ground than self-defense. We freed the people of Iraq from a
truly brutal regime. The "brutality" as you call it of our occupation is
both temporary and mild.

Pure, uncut, grade BS. They reflect badly on the discipline of a few bad
apples and the adults who were supposed to supervise them.

And we have your word to prove it.
.

User: "Jez"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 06:01:05 AM

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:pJemc.4742$V_.239286@twister.southeast.rr.com...

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We illegally
invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its citizenry to an
extremely brutal occupation.

We set out to protect ourselves from international murderers.

Ahh of course !! Saddam was about to invade the US !!
Idiot !

There is no
higher moral ground than self-defense. We freed the people of Iraq from a
truly brutal regime. The "brutality" as you call it of our occupation is
both temporary and mild.

So why did your country (And mine the UK) Support Saddams regime
for so long ??
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 10:00:12 AM

On Thu, 06 May 2004 12:01:05 +0100 in episode
<409a1ad7$0$20515$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com> we saw our hero "Jez"
<iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com>:

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:pJemc.4742$V_.239286@twister.southeast.rr.com...

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We illegally
invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its citizenry to an
extremely brutal occupation.

We set out to protect ourselves from international murderers.

Ahh of course !! Saddam was about to invade the US !!

That's what we were told.
Funny how the public seems to have forgotten that we were shrieked at over
and over and over again how mushroom clouds would be sprouting all over
the country if we didn't get Saddam. The public, to a large degree,
ignores being hyped at (or flat out lied to) and buys the
justification-of-the-week...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 07:01:27 AM

Piggyback - I killfiled Fester a long time ago...
On Thu, 6 May 2004 12:01:05 +0100, "Jez"
<iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:pJemc.4742$V_.239286@twister.southeast.rr.com...

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We illegally
invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its citizenry to an
extremely brutal occupation.

We set out to protect ourselves from international murderers.

Ahh of course !! Saddam was about to invade the US !!

They used this as an excuse over Nicaragua 20 years ago. I remember
Casper Weinberg lecturing an interviewer on British television that it
was necessary because Managua was only 1800 miles from Washington.
Dennis Healey (a WW2 war hero and former government minister) pointed
out that Moscow was only 1400 miles. Weinberg's response was "no it
isn't, I've been there". Healey was of course right - I checked it
using the highly accurate "string on the globe" method. And confirmed
the London/Moscow distance from the quoted air mileage.
Just as I never understood how Nicaragua was going to invade the US
without capturing Honduras, Guatemala and Venezuela first, nobody ever
explained how Iraq was going to do this.
Its weapons program had been removed by the UN etc inspectors and
sanctions.
Even the "long" range missile it was developing had a range less than
100 miles and they destroyed these in front of the inspectors (there
was something obscene about making them destroy their weaponry and
then blitzing them.

Idiot !

There is no
higher moral ground than self-defense. We freed the people of Iraq from a
truly brutal regime. The "brutality" as you call it of our occupation is
both temporary and mild.

So why did your country (And mine the UK) Support Saddams regime
for so long ??

Because he was our *****. We supported him against Iran and the
Ayatollahs (in itself a problem we caused because the Shah was one of
our bastards).
Just as we supported Noriega.
We can't let one of our puppets become his own *****. He's got too
much dirt on us that he can spill, and we it makes a lesson for our
other bastards.
We're a nation of sociopaths who imagine the rest of the world sees
things through our point of view.
And that they can't have their own view of things based on radiation
cancer (DU munitions in Gulf War 1), a decade of murderous sanctions
(remember Albright saying the thought the price of 500,000 children
deaths was worth it?), slaughter of civilians by a trigger happy
invader etc. So they already hated us before we went in.
And are doing what any resistance does. Whatever it takes to get the
occupier out. And if we don't like it, tough.
We've been conned into believing that we're the international knight
in shining armour. Only the bad guys do this sort of thing and we ride
in to right wrongs.
It comes as a shock when we realise we're just as bad as the other
guys. We expect them to be bad, but not us.
We wouldn't have half these problems if we made our bastards behave
better towards their own people. Instead we allow them to do whatever
they can to remain in power as our puppets. They squash dissent and
are hated. And we're hated because we prop them up. It's a cycle that
builds pressure until it explodes. All it would take is a word to the
Shah, Hussein, Somosa, Batista, Pinochet etc: "You've got to treat
them better otherwise you will be in trouble".
.

User: "Topelgeno"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 08:36:40 AM

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We illegally
invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its citizenry to an
extremely brutal occupation.

The "murderers" were saudia arabian we profiled muslems by attacking Iraq, our
"mild " brutality includes killing 1000s in Iraq .

The shocking pictures from Abu Ghurayb prison don't just reflect badly
on those involved. They also undermine Bush's credibility and
jeopardize his plans for Iraq

Pure, uncut, grade BS. They reflect badly on the discipline of a few bad
apples and the adults who were supposed to supervise them.

And we have your word to prove it.

We have over 1000 pictures to prove it.
.

User: "Nivlem"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 12:24:47 AM

Fester wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We illegally
invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its citizenry to an
extremely brutal occupation.

Er, Fester, there's a small problem with this. The Iraqi regime's ties
to Al Qeada have been found to be minimal. We'd crippled them so badly
the first time out that they weren't much of a conventional threat to
anything, either. And based on the thanks we're getting, they mustn't
have wanted us to "free" them. So we shouldn't have. The only good thing
about this is that we're doing a better job of protecting the troops
than we did in Vietnam. We've only lost a few hundred, with something
over 3,000 wounded.

User: "Fester"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 05:12:00 AM

"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message news:4099CC1F.8080108@svn.net...

Fester wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We illegally
invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its citizenry to an
extremely brutal occupation.

We set out to protect ourselves from international murderers. There is

higher moral ground than self-defense. We freed the people of Iraq from

truly brutal regime. The "brutality" as you call it of our occupation is
both temporary and mild.

Er, Fester, there's a small problem with this. The Iraqi regime's ties
to Al Qeada have been found to be minimal.

We are fighting a war against terrorism. The scope of that war is not
limited to Al Qaeda. Just because Al Qaeda was the group responsible for
9/11 does not mean that we are not threatened by all the other Islamic
loonies, and Saddam was undeniably a supporter of them. He had the
technology to produce chem and bio weapons and could well have given such
devices to others. What good will it do to destroy Al Qaeda, and then have
Hezbollah explode a chem weapon in a subway?

We'd crippled them so badly
the first time out that they weren't much of a conventional threat to
anything, either. And based on the thanks we're getting, they mustn't
have wanted us to "free" them.

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative estimate) of
the Iraqi population.

So we shouldn't have. The only good thing
about this is that we're doing a better job of protecting the troops
than we did in Vietnam. We've only lost a few hundred, with something
over 3,000 wounded.

The implementation of a Democracy in Iraq could well mark a turning point in
history. If we succeed, we will deny terrorists one of their best allies,
and put tremendous internal pressure for reform in their other allies.
.

User: "Eric Gill"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 07:57:58 AM

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:Qbomc.5482$V_.285422@twister.southeast.rr.com:

"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message
news:4099CC1F.8080108@svn.net...

Fester wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We
illegally invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its
citizenry to an extremely brutal occupation.

We set out to protect ourselves from international murderers. There
is

higher moral ground than self-defense. We freed the people of Iraq
from

truly brutal regime. The "brutality" as you call it of our
occupation is both temporary and mild.

Er, Fester, there's a small problem with this. The Iraqi regime's
ties to Al Qeada have been found to be minimal.

We are fighting a war against terrorism.

Very much like saying "A Crusade Against Evil."

The scope of that war is not
limited to Al Qaeda.

You mean we should be attacking people who haven't attacked us?

Just because Al Qaeda was the group responsible
for 9/11 does not mean that we are not threatened by all the other
Islamic loonies, and Saddam was undeniably a supporter of them.

You do know that the support for groups that have actually attacked the
US have come from just about everywhere BUT Iraq, right?
(Until the time we invaded. Four to one says that will now change.)

He had the technology to produce chem and bio weapons

Indeed?
Where?
(I mean, besides "Syria, Iran, and Pakistan.")

and could well have
given such devices to others. What good will it do to destroy Al
Qaeda, and then have Hezbollah explode a chem weapon in a subway?

We'd crippled them so badly
the first time out that they weren't much of a conventional threat to
anything, either. And based on the thanks we're getting, they mustn't
have wanted us to "free" them.

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative
estimate)

I'm willing to bet it's more "baseless wishful thinking."

of the Iraqi population.

The implementation of a Democracy in Iraq could well mark a turning
point in history. If we succeed,

We won't. Hell, we haven't really been trying.

we will deny terrorists one of their
best allies,

You mean, "Create new allies in the occupied territory."

and put tremendous internal pressure for reform in their
other allies.

How so?
.

User: "Sara Brum"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 03:00:35 PM

"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94E1510A092DAericvgillyahoocom@24.93.43.119...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:Qbomc.5482$V_.285422@twister.southeast.rr.com:

<snip>

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative
estimate)

I'm willing to bet it's more "baseless wishful thinking."

That's what he said, a "conservative estimate". That's right-wing speak for
"an estimate made by a conservative, so it must be right".
<snip>
.

User: "Jez"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 06:06:26 AM

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:Qbomc.5482$V_.285422@twister.southeast.rr.com...

"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message news:4099CC1F.8080108@svn.net...

Fester wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We illegally
invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its citizenry to an
extremely brutal occupation.

We set out to protect ourselves from international murderers. There is

higher moral ground than self-defense. We freed the people of Iraq

from

truly brutal regime. The "brutality" as you call it of our occupation

both temporary and mild.

Er, Fester, there's a small problem with this. The Iraqi regime's ties
to Al Qeada have been found to be minimal.

We are fighting a war against terrorism.

Yeah, ever since Regan declared the 'war on terrorism' back in the 80's.
(Kinda odd really, you yanks make these 'war on...' things, and always
make the situations worse..like the 'war on drugs'
drugs are more available now that before such a war was made !!
Maybe you should call them 'the war for....' )

The scope of that war is not
limited to Al Qaeda. Just because Al Qaeda was the group responsible for
9/11 does not mean that we are not threatened by all the other Islamic
loonies, and Saddam was undeniably a supporter of them.

Proof ?

He had the
technology to produce chem and bio weapons and could well have given such
devices to others.

Where..no WMD's have been found.

What good will it do to destroy Al Qaeda, and then have
Hezbollah explode a chem weapon in a subway?

We'd crippled them so badly
the first time out that they weren't much of a conventional threat to
anything, either. And based on the thanks we're getting, they mustn't
have wanted us to "free" them.

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative estimate) of
the Iraqi population.

Proof ?

The implementation of a Democracy in Iraq could well mark a turning point

history. If we succeed, we will deny terrorists one of their best allies,

*****.
The ONLY reason you illegally invaded Iraq is because of the....
OIL !!!

and put tremendous internal pressure for reform in their other allies.

Ahh the media brain-washing has really done it's job !
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.

User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 01:00:58 PM

"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:409a1c18$0$20512$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:Qbomc.5482$V_.285422@twister.southeast.rr.com...

<snip>

The implementation of a Democracy in Iraq could well mark a turning

point

history. If we succeed, we will deny terrorists one of their best

allies,

*****.
The ONLY reason you illegally invaded Iraq is because of the....
OIL !!!

No, that is just one of the reasons.
The reasons were:
1. To make Pa (Bush Sr.) happy by settling an old score.
2. To curry favor from Zionists. (Iraq was no real threat
to the US but was something of a threat to Israel.)
3. Stimulate the economy. War (and the reconstruction
spoils) are good for the Dow, jobs, and re-election.
4. Stimulate the Bush personal economy. Oil and
reconstruction business are good for the Bush family
and their associates.
5. Hubris, bigotry, and chauvanism. We are the bad ***** of the world
and we wear the white hat. We know what's good
for those towel heads and if they don't like it we'll
kick their *****.
--
Ron Baker, 'Merkin
.

User: "Fester"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 05:06:05 PM

"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:409a1c18$0$20512$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:Qbomc.5482$V_.285422@twister.southeast.rr.com...

"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message

news:4099CC1F.8080108@svn.net...

Fester wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We

illegally

invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its citizenry to

extremely brutal occupation.

We set out to protect ourselves from international murderers. There

higher moral ground than self-defense. We freed the people of Iraq

from

truly brutal regime. The "brutality" as you call it of our

occupation

both temporary and mild.

Er, Fester, there's a small problem with this. The Iraqi regime's ties
to Al Qeada have been found to be minimal.

We are fighting a war against terrorism.

Yeah, ever since Regan declared the 'war on terrorism' back in the 80's.

(Kinda odd really, you yanks make these 'war on...' things, and always
make the situations worse..like the 'war on drugs'
drugs are more available now that before such a war was made !!
Maybe you should call them 'the war for....' )

The scope of that war is not
limited to Al Qaeda. Just because Al Qaeda was the group responsible

for

9/11 does not mean that we are not threatened by all the other Islamic
loonies, and Saddam was undeniably a supporter of them.

Proof ?

Saddam harbored Abu Nidal inside Iraq for decades. He gave murder-money to
Paletinians. I could go on, but I find it hard to take you seriously when
you question such well-reported facts.

He had the
technology to produce chem and bio weapons and could well have given

such

devices to others.

Where..no WMD's have been found.

20 tons have been found in Jordan.

What good will it do to destroy Al Qaeda, and then have
Hezbollah explode a chem weapon in a subway?

We'd crippled them so badly
the first time out that they weren't much of a conventional threat to
anything, either. And based on the thanks we're getting, they mustn't
have wanted us to "free" them.

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative estimate)

the Iraqi population.

Proof ?

Best estimates of insrugent forces by our military puts the number at under
10k, out of a population of 25M.

The implementation of a Democracy in Iraq could well mark a turning

point

history. If we succeed, we will deny terrorists one of their best

allies,

*****.
The ONLY reason you illegally invaded Iraq is because of the....
OIL !!!

Sorry, but we haven't gotten or attempted to get any oil from them. OTOH,
those who opposed us in the UN have been shown to be drowing in illegal
oil-for-food scams to the tune of $10B at a minimum.

and put tremendous internal pressure for reform in their other allies.

Ahh the media brain-washing has really done it's job !

*****.
.

User: "Eric Gill"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	08 May 2004 01:35:14 PM

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:hFymc.7486$V_.342004@twister.southeast.rr.com:

"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:409a1c18$0$20512$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:Qbomc.5482$V_.285422@twister.southeast.rr.com...

"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message

news:4099CC1F.8080108@svn.net...

Fester wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We

illegally

invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its
citizenry to

extremely brutal occupation.

We set out to protect ourselves from international murderers.
There

higher moral ground than self-defense. We freed the people of
Iraq

from

truly brutal regime. The "brutality" as you call it of our

occupation

both temporary and mild.

Er, Fester, there's a small problem with this. The Iraqi regime's
ties to Al Qeada have been found to be minimal.

We are fighting a war against terrorism.

Yeah, ever since Regan declared the 'war on terrorism' back in the
80's.

(Kinda odd really, you yanks make these 'war on...' things, and
always make the situations worse..like the 'war on drugs'
drugs are more available now that before such a war was made !!
Maybe you should call them 'the war for....' )

The scope of that war is not
limited to Al Qaeda. Just because Al Qaeda was the group
responsible

for

9/11 does not mean that we are not threatened by all the other
Islamic loonies, and Saddam was undeniably a supporter of them.

Proof ?

Saddam harbored Abu Nidal inside Iraq for decades. He gave
murder-money to Paletinians. I could go on, but I find it hard to
take you seriously when you question such well-reported facts.

Well, you might have a point - if that was what he was asking. For
someone who spouts a lot about reading comprehension, it certainly eludes
you.
Who was Iraq harboring that threatened the U.S.?

He had the
technology to produce chem and bio weapons and could well have
given

such

devices to others.

Where..no WMD's have been found.

20 tons have been found in Jordan.

That originated in Syria.
No amount of wishful thinking will pull you out of that hole.

What good will it do to destroy Al Qaeda, and then have
Hezbollah explode a chem weapon in a subway?

We'd crippled them so badly
the first time out that they weren't much of a conventional
threat to anything, either. And based on the thanks we're
getting, they mustn't have wanted us to "free" them.

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative
estimate)

the Iraqi population.

Proof ?

Best estimates of insrugent forces by our military puts the number at
under 10k, out of a population of 25M.

No, that's the size of Sadr's militia alone.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/iraq/2001895780_sadr05.html
Of course, the size and intensity of the uprising gives lie to the
nonsensical "there are only a few insurgents" idiocy. Ten thousand
insurgents could not grab control of four major cities, nor hold U.S.
troops at bay for weeks.

So we shouldn't have. The only good thing
about this is that we're doing a better job of protecting the
troops than we did in Vietnam. We've only lost a few hundred,
with something over 3,000 wounded.

The implementation of a Democracy in Iraq could well mark a turning

point

history. If we succeed, we will deny terrorists one of their best

allies,

*****.
The ONLY reason you illegally invaded Iraq is because of the....
OIL !!!

Sorry, but we haven't gotten or attempted to get any oil from them.

Except, of course, for the $2.60 a gallon gasoline Halliburton is
delivering?
Or the diesel fuel Halliburton charges the U.S. military $50 a gallon
for?
Or the tens of millions in overcharges just for food service that made
the news - when Halliburton was "forgetting" to pay it's subcontractors?

OTOH, those who opposed us in the UN have been shown to be drowing in
illegal oil-for-food scams to the tune of $10B at a minimum.

We didn't order Red Herring, thanks.

and put tremendous internal pressure for reform in their other
allies.

Ahh the media brain-washing has really done it's job !

*****.

Heh. Right on target.
.

User: "Abhijit Bhattacharya"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	08 May 2004 05:00:33 PM

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<hFymc.7486$V_.342004@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

Saddam harbored Abu Nidal inside Iraq for decades. He gave murder-money to
Paletinians. I could go on, but I find it hard to take you seriously when
you question such well-reported facts.

Terrorism against third countries (Israel in your example) can't be
used as a reason for invading Iraq because, as a counterexample, the
US supports Pakistan which supports terrorism against India.
Regards,
Abhijit
.

User: "Fester"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	08 May 2004 05:06:59 PM

"Abhijit Bhattacharya" <bhattacharya_abhijit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9996210f.0405081400.66b384a@posting.google.com...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message

news:<hFymc.7486$V_.342004@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

Saddam harbored Abu Nidal inside Iraq for decades. He gave murder-money

Paletinians. I could go on, but I find it hard to take you seriously

when

you question such well-reported facts.

Terrorism against third countries (Israel in your example) can't be
used as a reason for invading Iraq because, as a counterexample, the
US supports Pakistan which supports terrorism against India.

The reason for invading Iraq, as I support it, is not revenge for an attack
against us or against Israel or anyone else. It is to prevent attacks
against us *in the future*. Iraq was a threat because they both had the
means to provide WMDs to terrorists and they had a history of support for
terrorism. Our enemy in this war is Islamic terrorism and those who would
advance their cause.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	08 May 2004 05:48:20 PM

(Abhijit Bhattacharya) wrote in
news:9996210f.0405081400.66b384a@posting.google.com:

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<hFymc.7486$V_.342004@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

Saddam harbored Abu Nidal inside Iraq for decades. He gave
murder-money to Paletinians. I could go on, but I find it hard to
take you seriously when you question such well-reported facts.

Terrorism against third countries (Israel in your example) can't be
used as a reason for invading Iraq because, as a counterexample, the
US supports Pakistan which supports terrorism against India.

Of course the US also supports India as well. So that counterexample
cancels out.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.

User: "Abhijit Bhattacharya"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	08 May 2004 10:05:15 PM

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94E3BF528E67Bfstone69@207.69.154.206>...

bhattacharya_abhijit@hotmail.com (Abhijit Bhattacharya) wrote in
news:9996210f.0405081400.66b384a@posting.google.com:

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<hFymc.7486$V_.342004@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

Saddam harbored Abu Nidal inside Iraq for decades. He gave
murder-money to Paletinians. I could go on, but I find it hard to
take you seriously when you question such well-reported facts.

Terrorism against third countries (Israel in your example) can't be
used as a reason for invading Iraq because, as a counterexample, the
US supports Pakistan which supports terrorism against India.

Of course the US also supports India as well. So that counterexample
cancels out.

My point was that US supports countries which support terrorism when
it suits its purpose.
Regards,
Abhijit
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	09 May 2004 04:13:00 AM

(Abhijit Bhattacharya) wrote in
news:9996210f.0405081905.2cee8d59@posting.google.com:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94E3BF528E67Bfstone69@207.69.154.206>...

(Abhijit Bhattacharya) wrote in
news:9996210f.0405081400.66b384a@posting.google.com:

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<hFymc.7486$V_.342004@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

Saddam harbored Abu Nidal inside Iraq for decades. He gave
murder-money to Paletinians. I could go on, but I find it hard to
take you seriously when you question such well-reported facts.

Terrorism against third countries (Israel in your example) can't be
used as a reason for invading Iraq because, as a counterexample,
the US supports Pakistan which supports terrorism against India.

Of course the US also supports India as well. So that counterexample
cancels out.

My point was that US supports countries which support terrorism when
it suits its purpose.

We don't have to do them all the same way, you know. Most nations
respond to diplomatic methods.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.

User: "SMChristenson"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	10 May 2004 08:19:22 AM

On Sun, 09 May 2004 09:13:00 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:

bhattacharya_abhijit@hotmail.com (Abhijit Bhattacharya) wrote in
news:9996210f.0405081905.2cee8d59@posting.google.com:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94E3BF528E67Bfstone69@207.69.154.206>...

bhattacharya_abhijit@hotmail.com (Abhijit Bhattacharya) wrote in
news:9996210f.0405081400.66b384a@posting.google.com:

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<hFymc.7486$V_.342004@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

Saddam harbored Abu Nidal inside Iraq for decades. He gave
murder-money to Paletinians. I could go on, but I find it hard to
take you seriously when you question such well-reported facts.

Terrorism against third countries (Israel in your example) can't be
used as a reason for invading Iraq because, as a counterexample,
the US supports Pakistan which supports terrorism against India.

Of course the US also supports India as well. So that counterexample
cancels out.

My point was that US supports countries which support terrorism when
it suits its purpose.

We don't have to do them all the same way, you know. Most nations
respond to diplomatic methods.

That would mean giving Powell something to do except apologizing to the
world for Bush. Unfortunately, I hear he isn't speaking to President
Cheney.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	10 May 2004 09:00:09 AM

SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.05.10.13.19.21.579174@visi.com:

On Sun, 09 May 2004 09:13:00 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:

bhattacharya_abhijit@hotmail.com (Abhijit Bhattacharya) wrote in
news:9996210f.0405081905.2cee8d59@posting.google.com:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94E3BF528E67Bfstone69@207.69.154.206>...

bhattacharya_abhijit@hotmail.com (Abhijit Bhattacharya) wrote in
news:9996210f.0405081400.66b384a@posting.google.com:

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<hFymc.7486$V_.342004@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

Saddam harbored Abu Nidal inside Iraq for decades. He gave
murder-money to Paletinians. I could go on, but I find it hard
to take you seriously when you question such well-reported
facts.

Terrorism against third countries (Israel in your example) can't
be used as a reason for invading Iraq because, as a
counterexample, the US supports Pakistan which supports terrorism
against India.

Of course the US also supports India as well. So that
counterexample cancels out.

My point was that US supports countries which support terrorism when
it suits its purpose.

We don't have to do them all the same way, you know. Most nations
respond to diplomatic methods.

That would mean giving Powell something to do except apologizing to
the world for Bush. Unfortunately, I hear he isn't speaking to
President Cheney.

Powell has been quite busy lately doing things besides apologizing for
Bush.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.

User: "towelie"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 05:57:18 PM

TV's Fester wrote:

The scope of that war is not
limited to Al Qaeda. Just because Al Qaeda was the group
responsible for 9/11 does not mean that we are not threatened by
all the other Islamic loonies, and Saddam was undeniably a
supporter of them.

Proof ?

Saddam harbored Abu Nidal inside Iraq for decades. He gave
murder-money to Paletinians. I could go on, but I find it hard to
take you seriously when you question such well-reported facts.

Since when are Palestinians a threat to the US?

He had the
technology to produce chem and bio weapons and could well have
given such devices to others.

Where..no WMD's have been found.

20 tons have been found in Jordan.

Then why the ***** didn't Dumbya invade Jordan?

What good will it do to destroy Al Qaeda, and then have
Hezbollah explode a chem weapon in a subway?

We'd crippled them so badly
the first time out that they weren't much of a conventional threat
to anything, either. And based on the thanks we're getting, they
mustn't have wanted us to "free" them.

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative
estimate) of the Iraqi population.

Proof ?

Best estimates of insrugent forces by our military puts the number at
under 10k, out of a population of 25M.

So if you're not part of an insurgent force you're by default grateful to
the US for the occupation? That's getting dangerously close to binary
thinking.

So we shouldn't have. The only good thing
about this is that we're doing a better job of protecting the
troops than we did in Vietnam. We've only lost a few hundred, with
something over 3,000 wounded.

The implementation of a Democracy in Iraq could well mark a turning
point in history. If we succeed, we will deny terrorists one of
their best allies,

*****.
The ONLY reason you illegally invaded Iraq is because of the....
OIL !!!

Sorry, but we haven't gotten or attempted to get any oil from them.
OTOH, those who opposed us in the UN have been shown to be drowing in
illegal oil-for-food scams to the tune of $10B at a minimum.

One word: Halliburton.

and put tremendous internal pressure for reform in their other
allies.

Ahh the media brain-washing has really done it's job !

*****.

You're resorted to petty insults, sounds like a white flag to me. Thanks
for trying, anyway.
--
"A vote for Bush is a character flaw" - Janeane Garofalo
aa #2133
ap #19
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 07:08:18 AM

On Thu, 6 May 2004 12:06:26 +0100, "Jez"
<iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:

We are fighting a war against terrorism.

Yeah, ever since Regan declared the 'war on terrorism' back in the 80's.

(Kinda odd really, you yanks make these 'war on...' things, and always
make the situations worse..like the 'war on drugs'
drugs are more available now that before such a war was made !!
Maybe you should call them 'the war for....' )

There's no war on terrorism. There never was, because there is no
single entity to fight that is universal terrorism. Our European
allies know this - Britain has had the IRA and its derivatives, France
has had ETA, Italy the Red Brigade, Germany the Baader Meinhof etc.
Yet you didn't see the RAF bombing Dublin into submission, the French
Air Force bombing Algiers etc.
Or even the US doing anything about it.
Because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
And because we've used terrorism against people we don't like. We
fostered the Mujihadeen which included both Taliban and Al Quaeda We
encouraged the Madrassas in the Pakistan border country which provided
them with their cannon fodder.
We backed the Contras in Nicaragua.
All the "war on terrorism" is, is a combination of being seen to be
doing something by the hard of thinking, and an excuse to clamp down
ourselves.
.

User: "Bob Dog"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 11:34:59 AM

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<Qbomc.5482$V_.285422@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

We are fighting a war against terrorism.

The war *is* terrorism. The US military have become the
terrorists. Just look at Falujja and Abu Ghraib.

Just because Al Qaeda was the group responsible for
9/11 does not mean that we are not threatened by all the other Islamic
loonies, and Saddam was undeniably a supporter of them. He had the
technology to produce chem and bio weapons and could well have given such
devices to others.

The US is responsible for 9/11, fucking over other nations
for decades and expecting no reprisals, especially when it
was the US who sold the weapons to Saddam and the Taliban.

What good will it do to destroy Al Qaeda, and then have
Hezbollah explode a chem weapon in a subway?

The US didn't sell them any, so it won't happen.

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative estimate) of
the Iraqi population.

Obviously the opium from post-Taliban Afghanistan (that
Shrub made possible) is reaching your city. Nobody could
be that deluded without some chemical assistance.

Every long war the US starts, it loses. Fighting the long
haul takes courage and balls. The US has as much of those
as it does victories, ie. none. Prepare to run when the
bill goes over US$300billion and/or the body count hits
2000; it's US$192B and 700 dead now. And you won't be
getting the oil either.
Bob Dog
.

User: "Fester"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 06:53:19 PM

"Bob Dog" <bg12345@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fa573de.0405060834.12a3e6dc@posting.google.com...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message

news:<Qbomc.5482$V_.285422@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

We are fighting a war against terrorism.

The war *is* terrorism. The US military have become the
terrorists. Just look at Falujja and Abu Ghraib.

such

devices to others.

The US is responsible for 9/11, fucking over other nations
for decades and expecting no reprisals, especially when it
was the US who sold the weapons to Saddam and the Taliban.

And you wonder why I call you a seditious scum bag.

What good will it do to destroy Al Qaeda, and then have
Hezbollah explode a chem weapon in a subway?

The US didn't sell them any, so it won't happen.

See above.

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative estimate)

the Iraqi population.

Obviously the opium from post-Taliban Afghanistan (that
Shrub made possible) is reaching your city. Nobody could
be that deluded without some chemical assistance.

This must pass for wit where you're from.

The implementation of a Democracy in Iraq could well mark a turning

point in

history. If we succeed, we will deny terrorists one of their best

allies,

and put tremendous internal pressure for reform in their other allies.

And you wonder why I call you a seditious scum bag.
I'd try to be a little more creative with my snappy rejoinders, but you're
just not woth it.
.

User: "Bob Dog"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	10 May 2004 11:07:22 AM

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message news:<PdAmc.16534$jU.937357@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

"Bob Dog" <bg12345@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fa573de.0405060834.12a3e6dc@posting.google.com...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message

news:<Qbomc.5482$V_.285422@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

The US is responsible for 9/11, fucking over other nations
for decades and expecting no reprisals, especially when it
was the US who sold the weapons to Saddam and the Taliban.

And you wonder why I call you a seditious scum bag.

What good will it do to destroy Al Qaeda, and then have
Hezbollah explode a chem weapon in a subway?

The US didn't sell them any, so it won't happen.

See above.

See below, Fe-dera-ster.

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative estimate)

the Iraqi population.

Obviously the opium from post-Taliban Afghanistan (that
Shrub made possible) is reaching your city. Nobody could
be that deluded without some chemical assistance.

This must pass for wit where you're from.

I'm sorry if subtlety, innuendo, and familiarity with facts
are too much for you. But then, I'm speaking to someone who
thinks Rush Limbaugh offers highbrow commentary and accurate
information.

And you wonder why I call you a seditious scum bag.

Sedition? It is you, not I, who supports an unelected
regime which tries to silence free speech, arrests those
who ask questions, or which attempts to gut its country's
own constitution.
And you are so inept, so bereft of any originality or of
any depth of repartee that you resort to using your own
"insults"? Then again, because that is the best you can
muster, I feel more pity for you than offense at you.

I'd try to be a little more creative with my snappy rejoinders, but you're
just not woth it.

No, it's because you don't want to address historical fact:
the US has never had the balls and the stomach to "stay the
course" for a long war. Your defeat in Iraq is inevitable.
Invest in a bicycle now. You're not getting any oil.
Bob Dog
.

User: "Gary Bohn"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 11:12:14 PM

Fester wrote:

"Bob Dog" <bg12345@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fa573de.0405060834.12a3e6dc@posting.google.com...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message

news:<Qbomc.5482$V_.285422@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

We are fighting a war against terrorism.

The war *is* terrorism. The US military have become the
terrorists. Just look at Falujja and Abu Ghraib.

such

devices to others.

The US is responsible for 9/11, fucking over other nations
for decades and expecting no reprisals, especially when it
was the US who sold the weapons to Saddam and the Taliban.

And you wonder why I call you a seditious scum bag.

What good will it do to destroy Al Qaeda, and then have
Hezbollah explode a chem weapon in a subway?

The US didn't sell them any, so it won't happen.

See above.

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative estimate)

the Iraqi population.

Obviously the opium from post-Taliban Afghanistan (that
Shrub made possible) is reaching your city. Nobody could
be that deluded without some chemical assistance.

This must pass for wit where you're from.

The implementation of a Democracy in Iraq could well mark a turning

point in

history. If we succeed, we will deny terrorists one of their best

allies,

and put tremendous internal pressure for reform in their other allies.

And you wonder why I call you a seditious scum bag.

I'd try to be a little more creative with my snappy rejoinders, but you're
just not woth it.

Hey mister 'if we don't likem we'll kill em' redneck!
Can somebody not from your country butt in? No? Tough *****!
Ten minutes after 911 the majority of countries in the world sent their
condolences to the States and pledged to help with the fight against
terrorism. Twenty minutes later money, equipment, and personnel were
sent to the States to help with the search for survivors.
You said you wanted to attack Afghanistan because it held the
terrorists. The rest of the world went with you. You said you would help
rebuild afghanistan after the war so that the Taliban and El Qeada would
not get a foothold there again. (The Taliban you helped put in power
because of your paranoia)
So we bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, killing thousands of civilians
and removing the Taliban. Did you catch Bin Laden? No! Did you stick
around to help the Afghani people rebuild? NO! You decided you needed to
attack someone else.
I won't try to guess the motivation, whether it was for oil, or because
Bush's daddy didn't finish something, or something else, it doesn't
matter. What matters is that your leader lied to the world (us and
you)to get us to agree with him, then when we were having trouble
finding the evidence for a reason to attack them, you decided to wage an
illegal war on a piddly little country that did not threaten you in the
least. Many countries that did not have any oil stakes in Iraq asked you
to wait until they were sure that there were WMDs and that Saddam wasn't
complying with the UN. Your largest trading partner, Canada, asked you
to wait two weeks.
Why didn't Bush wait the two weeks to see if WMDs were found? Is it
because Bush knew they weren't there? Where is the proof that Iraq had
anything to do with attacking the US on 911? Is it that there is none?
So you right-wing nut cases decided to kill thousands to gain what?
Political points at home? To Satisfy daddy? What? To relieve some of
your paranoia?
It had nothing to do with removing a mad man, that could have been done
more effectively and cheaply be supplying money to Saddams enemies in
Iraq. They even asked you for it.
Do you honestly think that the States has any chance of getting a U.S.
friendly government in Iraq now?
You don't think that the rest of the world finds these actions
despicable? Get your head out of your lap and look around. You say it
doesn't matter, they'll be friends again when they need you. Look
around, other countries are now developing the technology, training and
economies and it won't be long before they won't need you.
If you want terrorism to stop, stop increasing your wealth at the
expense of other countries, stop letting your paranoia convince you to
interfere with the politics of other countries (putting in US friendly
dictators), stop trying to push your ideals on others. Do you see
Canucks wandering around trying to force people to build igloos and wear
beaver hats? No! Canada goes around trying to make peace. You could also
show some respect for anti-war efforts: e.g. the land mine treaty,
Israel/Palistine.
Flex your muscle to help other countries, not ***** with them.
Most of all, get your head out of your *****, you are not the centre of
the universe! And Elect someone with some brains for your president!
This diatribe is aimed at all the money grubbing, insensitive, wrong
minded, back stabbing conservatives NOT the 90% of posters on this NG
that are sensible.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Pubba, EAC Department of Oxygen Deprivation
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority of
the wealthy.
Greg Bear
.

User: "Fester"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	07 May 2004 04:58:34 AM

"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@nospam.accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:409b0c4e$1@news3.accesscomm.ca...

Fester wrote:

"Bob Dog" <bg12345@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fa573de.0405060834.12a3e6dc@posting.google.com...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message

news:<Qbomc.5482$V_.285422@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

We are fighting a war against terrorism.

The war *is* terrorism. The US military have become the
terrorists. Just look at Falujja and Abu Ghraib.

such

devices to others.

The US is responsible for 9/11, fucking over other nations
for decades and expecting no reprisals, especially when it
was the US who sold the weapons to Saddam and the Taliban.

And you wonder why I call you a seditious scum bag.

What good will it do to destroy Al Qaeda, and then have
Hezbollah explode a chem weapon in a subway?

The US didn't sell them any, so it won't happen.

See above.

Truth is that we do have the gratitude of 90% (a conservative estimate)

the Iraqi population.

Obviously the opium from post-Taliban Afghanistan (that
Shrub made possible) is reaching your city. Nobody could
be that deluded without some chemical assistance.

This must pass for wit where you're from.

The implementation of a Democracy in Iraq could well mark a turning

point in

history. If we succeed, we will deny terrorists one of their best

allies,

and put tremendous internal pressure for reform in their other allies.

And you wonder why I call you a seditious scum bag.

I'd try to be a little more creative with my snappy rejoinders, but

you're

just not woth it.

Hey mister 'if we don't likem we'll kill em' redneck!
Can somebody not from your country butt in? No? Tough *****!

You can blather on all day long, but you're off to a pretty bad start.

Ten minutes after 911 the majority of countries in the world sent their
condolences to the States and pledged to help with the fight against
terrorism. Twenty minutes later money, equipment, and personnel were
sent to the States to help with the search for survivors.

And as soon as they heard that it might break up *their* sweet oil-for-food
PRO$$ITS they did their best to block the road.

You said you wanted to attack Afghanistan because it held the
terrorists. The rest of the world went with you.

Out of a pure heart of altruistic gold, of course. Its not like terror is a
threat to them as well.

You said you would help
rebuild afghanistan after the war so that the Taliban and El Qeada would
not get a foothold there again. (The Taliban you helped put in power
because of your paranoia)
So we bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, killing thousands of civilians
and removing the Taliban. Did you catch Bin Laden? No! Did you stick
around to help the Afghani people rebuild? NO! You decided you needed to
attack someone else.

Er, we're still their helping them build (rebuild is a misnomer, there was
nothing there to begin with).

I won't try to guess the motivation, whether it was for oil, or because
Bush's daddy didn't finish something, or something else, it doesn't
matter.

But you will offer unjustifiably cynical options and ignore the real reason.

What matters is that your leader lied to the world (us and
you)to get us to agree with him, then when we were having trouble
finding the evidence for a reason to attack them, you decided to wage an
illegal war on a piddly little country that did not threaten you in the
least. Many countries that did not have any oil stakes in Iraq asked you
to wait until they were sure that there were WMDs and that Saddam wasn't
complying with the UN. Your largest trading partner, Canada, asked you
to wait two weeks.

Yeah, yeah, just 2 more weeks, just 2 more months, just to more years for 17
years. And Bush never lied to us. The intel from every nation who has
intel agreed with both our CIA's assessment. Did you notice that 20 tons of
chem WMDs showed up in the hands of Al Qaeda in Jordan a couple of weeks
ago? No, of course not, or rather you may have noticed and conveniently
filed in your dark place where facts you don't like go to hide.

Why didn't Bush wait the two weeks to see if WMDs were found? Is it
because Bush knew they weren't there? Where is the proof that Iraq had
anything to do with attacking the US on 911? Is it that there is none?

Once again, Bush did not claim Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Bush rightly
declared Saddam to be a threat irrespective of any ties to Al Qaeda.

So you right-wing nut cases decided to kill thousands to gain what?
Political points at home? To Satisfy daddy? What? To relieve some of
your paranoia?

So you like making strawmen. Despite all your practice you're still not
very good at it.

It had nothing to do with removing a mad man, that could have been done
more effectively and cheaply be supplying money to Saddams enemies in
Iraq. They even asked you for it.

Do tell. Just which enemies were capable of knocking him off?

Do you honestly think that the States has any chance of getting a U.S.
friendly government in Iraq now?

Absolutely.

You don't think that the rest of the world finds these actions
despicable? Get your head out of your lap and look around. You say it
doesn't matter, they'll be friends again when they need you. Look
around, other countries are now developing the technology, training and
economies and it won't be long before they won't need you.

I can say that those of us who have been against us have been bought and
paid for. Their opinion doesn't matter to me.

If you want terrorism to stop, stop increasing your wealth at the
expense of other countries, stop letting your paranoia convince you to
interfere with the politics of other countries (putting in US friendly
dictators), stop trying to push your ideals on others. Do you see
Canucks wandering around trying to force people to build igloos and wear
beaver hats? No! Canada goes around trying to make peace. You could also
show some respect for anti-war efforts: e.g. the land mine treaty,
Israel/Palistine.

Yeah, right. Terrorists don't attack countries like Spain or Germany or
France or anything. They're good "world citizens" and the Islamic whackos
appreciate that. What a nice dream world you've constructed for yourself.

Flex your muscle to help other countries, not ***** with them.

Most of all, get your head out of your *****, you are not the centre of
the universe! And Elect someone with some brains for your president!

We have one.

This diatribe is aimed at all the money grubbing, insensitive, wrong
minded, back stabbing conservatives NOT the 90% of posters on this NG
that are sensible.

It's more like 95% who consistently find the wrong side of any issue, and
they're morons.
.

User: "towelie"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 05:49:42 PM

TV's Fester wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We
illegally invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its
citizenry to an extremely brutal occupation.

We set out to protect ourselves from international murderers.

By becoming international murderers?

There
is no higher moral ground than self-defense.

Self-defense occurs when one responds to being attacked. When did Iraq
attack the US?

We freed the people of
Iraq from a truly brutal regime.
The "brutality" as you call it of
our occupation is both temporary and mild.

How long is "temporary"? 5 years? 10 years? Indefinitely?
--
"A vote for Bush is a character flaw" - Janeane Garofalo
aa #2133
ap #19
.

User: "jwk"
Title: Re: OT: Losing the Moral High Ground	06 May 2004 10:51:25 AM

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<e6si90l01g4hrafa1kakqt31tbcrmse9rb@4ax.com>...

On 5 May 2004 13:23:30 -0700,

(maff) wrote:

Losing the Moral High Ground

We never had the moral high ground - except in our minds. We illegally
invaded somebody else's country and are subjecting its citizenry to an
extremely brutal occupation.

I find it hard to feel sorry for people who killed a couple of
contractors, dragged their bodies behind a car, and hung them from a
bridge. Cheering all the while. What those MPs did was wrong, but it
doesn't compare to the savagery those people pull. Yes, I know they
weren't the *same individuals. But they are the same people. The
same nationality. The same mind-set. The same people who are
outraged about those prisoners were cheering the brutal murder of
those contractors. There is your culture of torture and degradation.
jwk
.

Page 1 of 2

Post reply

Losing their religion
OT: Israel Is Losing