On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:35:59 GMT, Sam Brown <xxx@nospam.net> wrote the
following in alt.atheism:

Parsifal wrote:

Merovingian a écrit :

Parsifal wrote:

J Young schrieb:

"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining
the army to
fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq." -
Charles Rangel

For someone who likes the word "decent" so much, I'm surprised that you
oppose the "decent career" and prefer an unjustified, useless and
immoral war. BTW, why aren't you in Iraq, hypocrite *****, then?

I love it when hindsight rules. I am willing to bet that at least 9 out
of 10 people who call this war Immoral, were cheering for it while
waving old glory off of their front porches until they failed to
produce the WMD. Not only does that make you a hypocrite,

Well ***** you for deciding for me what I was thinking. I've been
opposed to this war from the
beginning because IRAQ HAS FUCKING NOTHING TO DO WITH 9 /11.

You are a moronic LIAR:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it
finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met
with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing,
according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA
has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the
Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic
Jihad was merging with al Qaeda.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Once again, the United States Senate Committee on Intelligence
disagrees with you

Sam Brown schrieb:

Parsifal wrote:

Merovingian a écrit :

Parsifal wrote:

J Young schrieb:

"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining
the army to
fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq." -
Charles Rangel

For someone who likes the word "decent" so much, I'm surprised that you
oppose the "decent career" and prefer an unjustified, useless and
immoral war. BTW, why aren't you in Iraq, hypocrite *****, then?

I love it when hindsight rules. I am willing to bet that at least 9 out
of 10 people who call this war Immoral, were cheering for it while
waving old glory off of their front porches until they failed to
produce the WMD. Not only does that make you a hypocrite,

Well ***** you for deciding for me what I was thinking. I've been
opposed to this war from the
beginning because IRAQ HAS FUCKING NOTHING TO DO WITH 9 /11.

You are a moronic LIAR:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

How about this, goose-stepping idiot:

Thursday, September 18, 2003

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found
President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to
attacks

By SCOTT SHEPARD
COX NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein
to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said
yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand
in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html

or this, *****:

The Iraq Connection
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no
"collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one
of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

And I just took two examples found on google after 15 seconds of
searching...

I rest my case. Attacking Iraq for 9/11 is as relevant as attacking New
Zealand for Pearl Harbour.

Merovingian wrote:

Mike wrote:

Merovingian wrote:

Parsifal wrote:

J Young schrieb:

"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or
joining the army to
fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in
Iraq." - Charles Rangel

For someone who likes the word "decent" so much, I'm surprised
that you oppose the "decent career" and prefer an unjustified,
useless and immoral war. BTW, why aren't you in Iraq, hypocrite
*****, then?

I love it when hindsight rules. I am willing to bet that at least 9
out of 10 people who call this war Immoral, were cheering for it
while waving old glory off of their front porches until they failed
to produce the WMD. Not only does that make you a hypocrite, but it
makes hypocrites out of all the Democrats and Republicans who now
critisize the war. We all thought they were there.

Yes we thought the WMD were there. How does that make us hypocrites?
We believed the claimed evidence the Bush people were offering which
turned out to be false. I don't think Bush deliberately lied in the
sense of telling us there were WMDs when he knew they didn't exist.
I think he did believe the WMDs were there. But he did lie about the
quality of the evidence he was passing on. But even if we forgive
that mistake (after all, even the French and Russians who were
against us have admitted that they thought Saddam had WMD and were
surprised when we didn't find any) there remains the question of the
conduct of the war. Rumsfeld screwed up bigtime by sending an
inadequate number of troops. Smashing an army is one thing, but
policing a place takes numbers. And you have to admit that Bush and
Rumsfeld have been in complete denial about the fact that the
situation was deteriorating. What about you? Do you think the war is
going just swimmingly?

We all thought Saddam & the

terrorists would make a deal and slam us.

I was always skeptical of the claimed Alquaida - Saddam connection.
The religious fanatics hated Saddam for being a secular regime.
Saddam worships himself, not Allah.

All the Democrats voted
UNANIMOUSLY in the senate for this war. Now only some of us know
that whatever WMD was there is now in Cyria, and jack asses like
you sit here and judge based on hindsight, while people are dying.
Now thats hypocritical, thats immoral, and that is unpatriotic.

I don't believe any enormous stockpile went over to Syria. Small
quantities perhaps, but not tons of the stuff.

Was this war a
mistake? Possibly. Who is responsible for that mistake? EVERYONE on
capital hill. What do we do now? Im sure you dont have an answer to
that.

We either swallow our pride and start scaling down. Or we have to
scale up in a BIG way. I doubt the 20 or 30 thousand extra troops
McCain and Liebermann are advocating would be enough. But where
would the troops be gotten? Our military is over extended now and
too many of the soldiers have already done multiple tours.
Meanwhile, since we are so bogged down in Iraq we are not in a
position to send extra forces to Afghanistan which seems to be going
down the toilet also. What are your thoughts on the best thing to do
now?

I am not willing to concede that this wars appearent failure is not by
design. Look at whats going on there. The terrorists are flocking to
Iraq and concentrating their efforts there. It seems like we opened the
door and allowed the fish to get into the barrel so we could shoot
them. It also seems like we have a significant military build up right
next door to Iran and Syria that could easily be used to hit a reactor
or two. Are you getting the picture? Or do i have to plainly tell you
that not all is as it appears. My plan would be to send more troops and
stay the appearently failed course that has obviously convinced you and
the terrorists that the terrorists are actually winning. Especially if
a threat as large as Iran was in striking distance of my stealth
bombers. We have so many things going on over there that nobody in the
middle east can take a ***** without big brother knowing. Thats how I
like it.

Keep one thing in mind:

Many people rely on the media for their information, and often times
the media is dead wrong. The media is often times one sided and will
tell what sells. We don't know what is going on over there, we only
know what we read. The government also uses the media to put out
information to mislead sometimes, meaning to mislead the enemy.

I have always been against the media being over there and directly
involved where the fighting is going on. It's bad enough that our
military is over there fighting for their lives, but they also have to
not only watch their backs but the media's as well.

We read stories like:
Military shoots van, killing family.

We think, "Oh my, how could we do that".

What we probably don't read is or know is:

Van was speeding through checkpoint.
Verbal orders were given to hault
Driver failed to ignore
Threat was perceived
They shot to protect themselves.