| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mel" |
| Date: |
19 May 2004 06:38:55 PM |
| Object: |
Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:43:34 -0400, "EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in
message <2h1o6qF7s9pfU1@uni-berlin.de>:
Absolutely... btw- what's a "legal war"?
that's difficult to nail down, but war is a last resort.
Saddam Hussein did not exactly act in a way conducive to avoiding war.
It is still a great pity that individual idiots in power get to decide to
embark on courses of action that harm many people who are unable to avoid
their fate.
If indeed that happened, it would be a great pity. What really happened,
however, was that after more than a year of vigorous debate on this war, an
overwhelming democratic majority of Americans, through their elected
representatives in Congress, voted to grant President Bush the authority to
conduct this war.
yes, and they were lied to by the Bush administration.
The innocent people in Iraq who have suffered as a result
are to be pitied and helped, where possible, to rebuild their lives.
except that many of these innocent people are now taking up arms to rid
their country of an abusive oppressor.
Their
suffering however, should be measured against the suffering that they were
forced to endure under Bathist rule for the past 25 years, suffering that
would have continued without coalition intervention.
Gandhi said that India would prefer bad local government than good foreign
government.
America did not invade Iraq as an act of charity to better the lives of
Iraqis.
when South Africa entered into a period of transition, there were simple
"birth pains". certain people feel strongly enough about their point of
view to engage in useless and pointless acts of violence.
the negotiating table is where you get what you want. if you are
reasonable and patient, you will see progress. if you are prepared to
give, people will feel willing to give to you.
This naive statement
what is naive about it?
South Africa's transition proves it works like that in reality.
For years, the ANC conducted a campaign of urban terror which did nothing
but make the Afrikaner government more determined to resist them.
In 1989, FW de Klerk opened dialogue with Nelson Mandela. PW Botha had
before him, but lost interest because he was not the man for the job. PW
Botha wanted an undertaking from Mandela that he would renounce violence.
Mandela refused to give it.
is based on the incorrect supposition that Islamo-fascists are "reasonable"
everyone is reasonable with those they view as friends.
your mental images of what the enemy looks like are false. you need to see
them for yourself and realign your thinking with reality.
but it is true that you won't like everyone. no matter, you still need to
respect them and not harm them. you need to know who you are. you have lost
your way, if you want to harm them all the time.
war is not a solution. it's a disaster. it's an end, not a beginning. it's a
fire that sweeps a countryside, destroying the good and the bad. once begun,
it can't be stopped until all the fuel is exhausted.
and want only to co-exist with the West. In
fact, their stated goal is the destruction of Western culture and the forced
assimilation of any surviving infidels into a global Muslim theocracy.
so what? it's a fantasy of theirs that cannot come true in our lifetimes.
people cannot be forcibly converted to a religion. it's not real and it
won't last. people can only be converted to a new way of life by kindness
and compassion.
when you feel all alone, miserable, unloved and unloveable, someone who
takes pity on you and shows you love, kindness and compassion will win your
heart. you will become willing to adopt their lifestyle and follow their
religion.
people who beat others, win no followers.
In the case of Saddam, he was a simple thug that rose to power and maintained
it through the sheer force of terror.
his way was a miserable failure.
Guns are the only tools needed for negotiations with these mad dogs.
you don't need to feel threatened by people like him. they never last.
in all of human history, those who are brutal, oppressive, abusive and
violent end up as failures. none of their ideals take root because they are
so unattractive.
a Palestinian suicide bomber wins no hearts and minds. It is a dead end
option.
The Palestian Uprising (Intifada) has been a complete failure. They have won
nothing but their own death and destruction.
If you want something, you must give before you will receive. If you desire
generosity, you must first be generous. If you desire faithfulness, you must
be faithful first.
So don't feel threatened by the bad guys. The methods they use have never
won them any ground. In the end, if they persist, they lose everything
including their own lives.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Firelock" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
21 May 2004 09:33:50 AM |
|
|
"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message news:<t6pna0p58u2hfqdbc3jvi5tmb178ja019e@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:43:34 -0400, "EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in
message <2h1o6qF7s9pfU1@uni-berlin.de>:
Mel:
if you are prepared to
give, people will feel willing to give to you.
This naive statement
what is naive about it?
South Africa's transition proves it works like that in reality.
For years, the ANC conducted a campaign of urban terror which did nothing
but make the Afrikaner government more determined to resist them.
One purpose of the extreme, dangerous radical is to make
the less extreme radical appear reasonable by comparison.
Disrupt the status quo, the powers will look for a solution
to the disruption - they are politically unable to talk
to their worst enemies about it, but they can talk to
the person who, if their worst enemy didn't exist, would
otherwise be their worst enemy.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "ur_droll" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
21 May 2004 02:01:32 PM |
|
|
"Firelock" <firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d98390c0.0405210633.39a590d3@posting.google.com...
: "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
news:<t6pna0p58u2hfqdbc3jvi5tmb178ja019e@4ax.com>...
: > On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:43:34 -0400, "EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in
: > message <2h1o6qF7s9pfU1@uni-berlin.de>:
: > Mel:
: > >>if you are prepared to
: > >> give, people will feel willing to give to you.
: > >This naive statement
: >
: > what is naive about it?
: >
: > South Africa's transition proves it works like that in reality.
: >
: > For years, the ANC conducted a campaign of urban terror which did
nothing
: > but make the Afrikaner government more determined to resist them.
:
: One purpose of the extreme, dangerous radical is to make
: the less extreme radical appear reasonable by comparison.
: Disrupt the status quo, the powers will look for a solution
: to the disruption - they are politically unable to talk
: to their worst enemies about it, but they can talk to
: the person who, if their worst enemy didn't exist, would
: otherwise be their worst enemy.
Much like binladen and sadam
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mel" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
22 May 2004 06:56:52 AM |
|
|
On 21 May 2004 07:33:50 -0700, (Firelock) wrote in
message <d98390c0.0405210633.39a590d3@posting.google.com>:
"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:43:34 -0400, "EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in
Mel:
if you are prepared to
give, people will feel willing to give to you.
This naive statement
what is naive about it?
South Africa's transition proves it works like that in reality.
For years, the ANC conducted a campaign of urban terror which did nothing
but make the Afrikaner government more determined to resist them.
One purpose of the extreme, dangerous radical is to make
the less extreme radical appear reasonable by comparison.
Disrupt the status quo, the powers will look for a solution
to the disruption - they are politically unable to talk
to their worst enemies about it, but they can talk to
the person who, if their worst enemy didn't exist, would
otherwise be their worst enemy.
nice theory. keep it simple.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Firelock" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
24 May 2004 08:27:08 AM |
|
|
"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message news:<j6aua0hrfj616spq2s4c9nna2s43263o8r@4ax.com>...
On 21 May 2004 07:33:50 -0700, (Firelock) wrote in
message <d98390c0.0405210633.39a590d3@posting.google.com>:
One purpose of the extreme, dangerous radical is to make
the less extreme radical appear reasonable by comparison.
Disrupt the status quo, the powers will look for a solution
to the disruption - they are politically unable to talk
to their worst enemies about it, but they can talk to
the person who, if their worst enemy didn't exist, would
otherwise be their worst enemy.
nice theory. keep it simple.
I'm not saying this is the only purpose of the extreme
radical, and I'm also not saying that this purpose is
what the extreme radical intends. I suppose I could
say "one *use* for the extreme, dangerous radical", rather
than write about purpose.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vanilla Gorilla Monkey Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
24 May 2004 08:55:35 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2004 06:27:08 -0700, (Firelock)
wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes in message
<d98390c0.0405240527.14fd5e6b@posting.google.com>:
"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message news:<j6aua0hrfj616spq2s4c9nna2s43263o8r@4ax.com>...
On 21 May 2004 07:33:50 -0700, (Firelock) wrote in
message <d98390c0.0405210633.39a590d3@posting.google.com>:
One purpose of the extreme, dangerous radical is to make
the less extreme radical appear reasonable by comparison.
Disrupt the status quo, the powers will look for a solution
to the disruption - they are politically unable to talk
to their worst enemies about it, but they can talk to
the person who, if their worst enemy didn't exist, would
otherwise be their worst enemy.
nice theory. keep it simple.
I'm not saying this is the only purpose of the extreme
radical, and I'm also not saying that this purpose is
what the extreme radical intends. I suppose I could
say "one *use* for the extreme, dangerous radical", rather
than write about purpose.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Or you could just shut the ***** up, but I guess that would be too
simple?
--
V.G.
Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Firelock" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
26 May 2004 08:21:50 AM |
|
|
"Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgorilla@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in message news:<fr95b0pdehrc0b9csdpome80cc7fnp9j7m@4ax.com>...
Or you could just shut the ***** up, but I guess that would be too
simple?
Nah, I'm having too much fun to do the simple stuff.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mel" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
24 May 2004 12:56:55 PM |
|
|
On 24 May 2004 06:27:08 -0700, (Firelock) wrote in
message <d98390c0.0405240527.14fd5e6b@posting.google.com>:
"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message news:<j6aua0hrfj616spq2s4c9nna2s43263o8r@4ax.com>...
On 21 May 2004 07:33:50 -0700, (Firelock) wrote in
message <d98390c0.0405210633.39a590d3@posting.google.com>:
One purpose of the extreme, dangerous radical is to make
the less extreme radical appear reasonable by comparison.
Disrupt the status quo, the powers will look for a solution
to the disruption - they are politically unable to talk
to their worst enemies about it, but they can talk to
the person who, if their worst enemy didn't exist, would
otherwise be their worst enemy.
nice theory. keep it simple.
I'm not saying this is the only purpose of the extreme
radical, and I'm also not saying that this purpose is
what the extreme radical intends. I suppose I could
say "one *use* for the extreme, dangerous radical", rather
than write about purpose.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
too many words.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "EZ2" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
20 May 2004 11:28:37 AM |
|
|
If indeed that happened, it would be a great pity. What really
happened,
however, was that after more than a year of vigorous debate on this war,
an
overwhelming democratic majority of Americans, through their elected
representatives in Congress, voted to grant President Bush the authority
to
conduct this war.
yes, and they were lied to by the Bush administration.
Really? Inasmuch as both the House & Senate select committees on
intelligence had access to the same information as the Bush administration,
why did they support Bush in this "lie"? Why did Bill Clinton "lie" when he
publicly accused Iraq of WMD possession in 1998? The truth is that
intelligence agencies and leaders the world over (including Chirac,
Schroeder and Putin) all believed that Iraq still possessed WMD in violation
of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and numerous UN resolutions. The only
difference between them and Bush, is that they had no stomach for war. This
opposition comes into sharp relief as the scandal surrounding the UN's "Oil
For Palaces" program unfolds, implicating Kofi Annan and French & Russian
interests in widespread corruption and profiteering.
The innocent people in Iraq who have suffered as a result
are to be pitied and helped, where possible, to rebuild their lives.
except that many of these innocent people are now taking up arms to rid
their country of an abusive oppressor.
That is simply untrue. The press characterization of the current conflict in
Iraq as a popular "uprising" is nonsense. Al-Sadr is nothing more than a
radical, political opportunist and the more moderate Shiite clerics have
already distanced themselves from him. Other Bathist forces and foreign
"jihadists" are simply using this opportunity to create instability in the
desperate hope to avoid the inevitable march to Iraq democracy.
Their
suffering however, should be measured against the suffering that they
were
forced to endure under Bathist rule for the past 25 years, suffering that
would have continued without coalition intervention.
Gandhi said that India would prefer bad local government than good foreign
government.
America did not invade Iraq as an act of charity to better the lives of
Iraqis.
Quite right. America invaded Iraq to minimize the nexus of WMD and Islamic
terrorists. In addition, the war was undertaken because it was deemed
necessary to put an "American footprint" on the ground in the Middle East,
to conduct the broader war on terror. The presence of the US military on the
borders of Syria and Iran (both states with a long history of supporting
terror) serves to encourage some behavior modification from them. This
"diplomacy" has already borne fruit as Iran capitulated and allowed IAE
inspections of their nuclear program. Syria has adopted a more conciliatory
diplomatic tone, Moammar Kadafi had renounced WMD and invited international
inspection and North Korea dropped their demand for unilateral talks with
the US and has agreed to multilateral talks with the other regional powers.
Freeing the people of Iraq from Bathist tyranny and giving them a historical
opportunity at self rule is a wonderful byproduct of American intervention.
The generosity of US taxpayers has resulted in billions of dollars of aid
and in the space of one year has already restored the infrastructure to
higher than pre-war levels. It would seem that everybody wins except for the
tyrants and terrorists and the states that support them. Oh yes, I suppose
we have to include the predictable anti-American, Bush-hating crowd among
the losers as well.
South Africa's transition proves it works like that in reality.
.............................................................................
.............................................................................
So don't feel threatened by the bad guys. The methods they use have never
won them any ground. In the end, if they persist, they lose everything
including their own lives.
You seem hopelessly mired in your own cloistered experience in South
Africa. The movement for majority rule in an isolated country like yours,
has no correlation to the broader, international war against Islamo-fascist
terror. While waging war in South Africa, if the ANC had attacked New York
City and the Pentagon and murdered 3000 American citizens, Nelson Mandela
would be dead or in an American jail. Those of you that claim "war doesn't
settle anything" need to read some history. Unfortunately, all to often, war
is the ONLY thing that settles anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
20 May 2004 12:43:34 PM |
|
|
"EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2h44loF8afhoU1@uni-berlin.de...
If indeed that happened, it would be a great pity. What really
happened,
however, was that after more than a year of vigorous debate on this
war,
an
overwhelming democratic majority of Americans, through their elected
representatives in Congress, voted to grant President Bush the
authority
to
conduct this war.
yes, and they were lied to by the Bush administration.
Really? Inasmuch as both the House & Senate select committees on
intelligence had access to the same information as the Bush
administration,
why did they support Bush in this "lie"? Why did Bill Clinton "lie" when
he
publicly accused Iraq of WMD possession in 1998? The truth is that
intelligence agencies and leaders the world over (including Chirac,
Schroeder and Putin) all believed that Iraq still possessed WMD in
violation
of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and numerous UN resolutions.
Sources for this claim ?
As far as I recal, hardly anyone in Europe belived the WMD lie....
Apart from poodle Blair, of course !
The only
difference between them and Bush, is that they had no stomach for war.
This
opposition comes into sharp relief as the scandal surrounding the UN's
"Oil
For Palaces" program unfolds, implicating Kofi Annan and French & Russian
interests in widespread corruption and profiteering.
The innocent people in Iraq who have suffered as a result
are to be pitied and helped, where possible, to rebuild their lives.
except that many of these innocent people are now taking up arms to rid
their country of an abusive oppressor.
That is simply untrue. The press characterization of the current conflict
in
Iraq as a popular "uprising" is nonsense. Al-Sadr is nothing more than a
radical, political opportunist and the more moderate Shiite clerics have
already distanced themselves from him. Other Bathist forces and foreign
"jihadists" are simply using this opportunity to create instability in the
desperate hope to avoid the inevitable march to Iraq democracy.
Their
suffering however, should be measured against the suffering that they
were
forced to endure under Bathist rule for the past 25 years, suffering
that
would have continued without coalition intervention.
Gandhi said that India would prefer bad local government than good
foreign
government.
America did not invade Iraq as an act of charity to better the lives of
Iraqis.
Quite right. America invaded Iraq to minimize the nexus of WMD and Islamic
terrorists. In addition,
Nope there was one reason and one reason only for the Iraq invasion.
OIL.
--
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: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
20 May 2004 02:06:06 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote
"EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2h44loF8afhoU1@uni-berlin.de...
If indeed that happened, it would be a great pity. What really
happened,
however, was that after more than a year of vigorous debate on this
war,
an
overwhelming democratic majority of Americans, through their elected
representatives in Congress, voted to grant President Bush the
authority
to
conduct this war.
yes, and they were lied to by the Bush administration.
Really? Inasmuch as both the House & Senate select committees on
intelligence had access to the same information as the Bush
administration,
why did they support Bush in this "lie"? Why did Bill Clinton "lie" when
he
publicly accused Iraq of WMD possession in 1998? The truth is that
intelligence agencies and leaders the world over (including Chirac,
Schroeder and Putin) all believed that Iraq still possessed WMD in
violation
of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and numerous UN resolutions.
Sources for this claim ?
As far as I recal, hardly anyone in Europe belived the WMD lie....
Apart from poodle Blair, of course !
You subscribe to the Weekly World News, right? Sources for EZ2's
'claim' include such obscure documents as the Congressional Record,
which you no doubt consider an unreliable source of information.
The only
difference between them and Bush, is that they had no stomach for war.
This
opposition comes into sharp relief as the scandal surrounding the UN's
"Oil
For Palaces" program unfolds, implicating Kofi Annan and French & Russian
interests in widespread corruption and profiteering.
The innocent people in Iraq who have suffered as a result
are to be pitied and helped, where possible, to rebuild their lives.
except that many of these innocent people are now taking up arms to rid
their country of an abusive oppressor.
That is simply untrue. The press characterization of the current conflict
in
Iraq as a popular "uprising" is nonsense. Al-Sadr is nothing more than a
radical, political opportunist and the more moderate Shiite clerics have
already distanced themselves from him. Other Bathist forces and foreign
"jihadists" are simply using this opportunity to create instability in the
desperate hope to avoid the inevitable march to Iraq democracy.
Their
suffering however, should be measured against the suffering that they
were
forced to endure under Bathist rule for the past 25 years, suffering
that
would have continued without coalition intervention.
Gandhi said that India would prefer bad local government than good
foreign
government.
America did not invade Iraq as an act of charity to better the lives of
Iraqis.
Quite right. America invaded Iraq to minimize the nexus of WMD and Islamic
terrorists. In addition,
Nope there was one reason and one reason only for the Iraq invasion.
OIL.
--
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: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
21 May 2004 07:05:44 AM |
|
|
"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
news:yk7rc.295483$e17.121531@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote
"EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2h44loF8afhoU1@uni-berlin.de...
If indeed that happened, it would be a great pity. What really
happened,
however, was that after more than a year of vigorous debate on this
war,
an
overwhelming democratic majority of Americans, through their
elected
representatives in Congress, voted to grant President Bush the
authority
to
conduct this war.
yes, and they were lied to by the Bush administration.
Really? Inasmuch as both the House & Senate select committees on
intelligence had access to the same information as the Bush
administration,
why did they support Bush in this "lie"? Why did Bill Clinton "lie"
when
he
publicly accused Iraq of WMD possession in 1998? The truth is that
intelligence agencies and leaders the world over (including Chirac,
Schroeder and Putin) all believed that Iraq still possessed WMD in
violation
of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and numerous UN resolutions.
Sources for this claim ?
As far as I recal, hardly anyone in Europe belived the WMD lie....
Apart from poodle Blair, of course !
You subscribe to the Weekly World News, right? Sources for EZ2's
'claim' include such obscure documents as the Congressional Record,
which you no doubt consider an unreliable source of information.
Anything that comes out of the mouth of a 'merkin
politician is dubious !
--
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: "EZ2" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
20 May 2004 02:03:31 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:40acee28$0$25328$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
"EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2h44loF8afhoU1@uni-berlin.de...
If indeed that happened, it would be a great pity. What really
happened,
however, was that after more than a year of vigorous debate on this
war,
an
overwhelming democratic majority of Americans, through their elected
representatives in Congress, voted to grant President Bush the
authority
to
conduct this war.
yes, and they were lied to by the Bush administration.
Really? Inasmuch as both the House & Senate select committees on
intelligence had access to the same information as the Bush
administration,
why did they support Bush in this "lie"? Why did Bill Clinton "lie" when
he
publicly accused Iraq of WMD possession in 1998? The truth is that
intelligence agencies and leaders the world over (including Chirac,
Schroeder and Putin) all believed that Iraq still possessed WMD in
violation
of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and numerous UN resolutions.
Sources for this claim ?
As far as I recal, hardly anyone in Europe belived the WMD lie....
Apart from poodle Blair, of course !
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN
Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a
final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been
set out in several previous resolutions, notably to provide "an accurate
full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991),
of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if
these are not met.
Inasmuch as the resolution was passed unanimously, either the European
signatories are uncommonly stupid and can't read, or the European member
states believed that Iraq had not fully complied with it's obligations to
disclose and disarm of it's WMD. Which was it?
Quite right. America invaded Iraq to minimize the nexus of WMD and
Islamic
terrorists. In addition,
Nope there was one reason and one reason only for the Iraq invasion.
OIL.
I never cease to be amazed at the mindless mantra of OIL as the root cause
of the Iraq war. Obviously, oil is critical to the WORLD economy and without
it, life as we know it in the developed world, would cease. But, think about
this - if all we wanted was Iraq's oil it would have been far cheaper and
easier to lift the UN sanctions and simply import more! If our objective was
to steal it, we could have taken it from an utterly defenseless Kuwait in
1991 or for that matter, pushed on to Baghdad behind an Iraqi army that was
routed and in full retreat. Instead, we offered terms for a ceasefire that
included a pledge from Iraq to disarm. After extinguishing the fires started
by Saddam's forces and helping to clean up the ecological disaster that he
unleashed, the US returned Kuwait to it's people and left Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
21 May 2004 07:04:23 AM |
|
|
"EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2h4do7F8r6pcU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:40acee28$0$25328$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
"EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2h44loF8afhoU1@uni-berlin.de...
If indeed that happened, it would be a great pity. What really
happened,
however, was that after more than a year of vigorous debate on this
war,
an
overwhelming democratic majority of Americans, through their
elected
representatives in Congress, voted to grant President Bush the
authority
to
conduct this war.
yes, and they were lied to by the Bush administration.
Really? Inasmuch as both the House & Senate select committees on
intelligence had access to the same information as the Bush
administration,
why did they support Bush in this "lie"? Why did Bill Clinton "lie"
when
he
publicly accused Iraq of WMD possession in 1998? The truth is that
intelligence agencies and leaders the world over (including Chirac,
Schroeder and Putin) all believed that Iraq still possessed WMD in
violation
of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and numerous UN resolutions.
Sources for this claim ?
As far as I recal, hardly anyone in Europe belived the WMD lie....
Apart from poodle Blair, of course !
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN
Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a
final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had
been
set out in several previous resolutions, notably to provide "an accurate
full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687
(1991),
of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if
these are not met.
Inasmuch as the resolution was passed unanimously, either the European
signatories are uncommonly stupid and can't read, or the European member
states believed that Iraq had not fully complied with it's obligations to
disclose and disarm of it's WMD. Which was it?
It was just an attempt to pacify the US call for aggression IMHO.
Quite right. America invaded Iraq to minimize the nexus of WMD and
Islamic
terrorists. In addition,
Nope there was one reason and one reason only for the Iraq invasion.
OIL.
I never cease to be amazed at the mindless mantra of OIL as the root cause
of the Iraq war. Obviously, oil is critical to the WORLD economy and
without
it, life as we know it in the developed world, would cease. But, think
about
this - if all we wanted was Iraq's oil it would have been far cheaper and
easier to lift the UN sanctions and simply import more! If our objective
was
to steal it, we could have taken it from an utterly defenseless Kuwait in
1991 or for that matter, pushed on to Baghdad behind an Iraqi army that
was
routed and in full retreat. Instead, we offered terms for a ceasefire that
included a pledge from Iraq to disarm.
But the US had to prove it's 'Credibility'...ya know...like the mafia does.
After extinguishing the fires started
by Saddam's forces and helping to clean up the ecological disaster that he
unleashed, the US returned Kuwait to it's people and left Iraq.
There have been some reports that state
it was the US marines that started those fires !
--
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: "Yang, AthD \h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
20 May 2004 11:49:11 PM |
|
|
"EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2h4do7F8r6pcU1@uni-berlin.de...
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN
Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a
final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had
been
set out in several previous resolutions, notably to provide "an accurate
full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687
(1991),
of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if
these are not met.
Inasmuch as the resolution was passed unanimously, either the European
signatories are uncommonly stupid and can't read, or the European member
states believed that Iraq had not fully complied with it's obligations to
disclose and disarm of it's WMD. Which was it?
Which must explain why the UN's own weapons expoert Blix didn't buy into
Bush's WMD lie.
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -794 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mel" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs |
21 May 2004 01:56:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:28:37 -0400, "EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in
message <2h44loF8afhoU1@uni-berlin.de>:
America did not invade Iraq as an act of charity to better the lives of
Iraqis.
Quite right. America invaded Iraq to minimize the nexus of WMD and Islamic
terrorists. In addition, the war was undertaken because it was deemed
necessary to put an "American footprint" on the ground in the Middle East,
to conduct the broader war on terror. The presence of the US military on the
borders of Syria and Iran (both states with a long history of supporting
terror) serves to encourage some behavior modification from them. This
"diplomacy" has already borne fruit as Iran capitulated and allowed IAE
inspections of their nuclear program. Syria has adopted a more conciliatory
diplomatic tone, Moammar Kadafi had renounced WMD and invited international
inspection and North Korea dropped their demand for unilateral talks with
the US and has agreed to multilateral talks with the other regional powers.
hmmm. give Bush 4 more years and he can sort out every world problem, eh?
the man is a ***** genius!!!
Freeing the people of Iraq from Bathist tyranny and giving them a historical
opportunity at self rule is a wonderful byproduct of American intervention.
they should thank you.
The generosity of US taxpayers has resulted in billions of dollars of aid
and in the space of one year has already restored the infrastructure to
higher than pre-war levels. It would seem that everybody wins except for the
tyrants and terrorists and the states that support them. Oh yes, I suppose
we have to include the predictable anti-American, Bush-hating crowd among
the losers as well.
what an all glorious world you live in. you could have written propaganda
for the Nazis.
South Africa's transition proves it works like that in reality.
...
So don't feel threatened by the bad guys. The methods they use have never
won them any ground. In the end, if they persist, they lose everything
including their own lives.
You seem hopelessly mired in your own cloistered experience in South
Africa.
more propaganda from you. belittling our achievement.
The movement for majority rule in an isolated country like yours,
has no correlation to the broader, international war against Islamo-fascist
terror.
it has a lot to do with it. we negotiated our way to a new dispensation.
those who resorted to violence were side-lined and received nothing.
While waging war in South Africa,
no war was waged in South Africa.
if the ANC had attacked New York
City and the Pentagon and murdered 3000 American citizens, Nelson Mandela
would be dead or in an American jail.
irrelevant statement. you have no idea what to do with what i said. you
simply do not understand what i wrote.
Those of you that claim "war doesn't settle anything" need to read some
history. Unfortunately, all to often, war is the ONLY thing that settles
anything.
war by itself does not lead to lasting peace.
an example of this is WWI. after the war, no negotiated settlement with
Germany was entered into. Germany was dictated to. and hence the seeds for
WWII were laid.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
