In article <eqd4lc$tgi$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:070220070728207539%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <eqco0h$gkj$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220071923481220%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <eqaf8k$tne$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220070817214790%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <eqa29p$gd2$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:050220071906510448%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <eq7enj$o6t$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071505577536%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <eq321b$hta$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071352041560%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <eq2or5$83s$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in
message
news:030220070847202270%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <epvlv9$tsg$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe
Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in
message
news:010220072023114561%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <epu8s1$ce7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe
Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
in
message

news:Hwuwh.494107$Fi1.6192@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in
message
news:eptn8k$q9v$1@news04.infoave.net...

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net>
wrote
in
message

news:KMswh.493227$Fi1.395917@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net>
wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot
innocent
civilians.
What I
do advocate is that if our military is
receiving
fire
from a
civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is
possible
not
to
harm
civilians
but protect your forces and if that means
firing
into
these
place
by
all means do so. Otherwise you are not
fighting
a
war
you
are
setting your military up as targets ... we
should
have
never
went
to
war if we didn't want to win it. Do you
hold
the
Muslim
jihadists
to
the same standards of conduct as the US
military
...
chopping
off
heads, killing civilians as an aim. If
they
are
fighting
for
their
own country how do you account for them
bombing
their
own
people
with
no US targets?

I don't know where you have been while the
news
was
on,
but
we
have been firing into civilian homes,
mosques,
and
hospitals.
And
we
having been killing innocent civilians.

In some cases yes we have. We also have men
in
the
military
on
trial
for murdering civilians who killed civilians
where
enemy
fire
came
from. Special permission/situations is need
to
fire
into
mosques.
There have been situations where US soldiers
were
not
allowed
to
enter
mosques and had to > wait for Iraqis ...
this
to
me
shows a
lack
of
will to win. Have the Muslim jihadist
violated
any
rules
of
war
...
do
they recognize the rules of war?

In other words, you are advocating that we
kill
more
innocent
civilians.

No, I'm not advocating killing more innocent
civilians.
I'm
just
recognizing reality that in war civilians get
killed.
If
it
was
our
policy that civilians cannot be killed we
would
have
never
have
won
a
war
or
would we ever win a war. The message that
would
be
sent
to
the
Muslim jihadists is to hide behind civilians
and
you
can
kill
Americans
without being fired on. And if you were so
worried
about
the
killing
of
innocent civilians you may want to in a least
one
of
your
post
recognize
the fact that civilians are targeted by the
Muslim
jihadist,
rather
than
hold
the US to a standard that cannot be met. The
Muslim
jihadist
target
civilians, the US doesn't. There is a
difference
even
though
in
both
cases civilians are killed.

Face it: You are advocating that we kill more
innocent
civilians.

Face it, I recognizing reality that civilians get
killed
in
wars.

Which means nothing other than you knew it would
happen
ahead
of
time.

True, it has nothing to do with whether I advocate
killing
civilians
or
not
... civilians get killed in wars is reality.

If you accept that civilians get killed in wars, and
you
advocate
war,
you advocate the killing of civilians.

Obviously, and a recognition of reality.

Yeah - reality is that we just have to kill people to
keep
the
price
of
oil down.

I've not one time said we had to kill people to keep the
price
of
oil
down.

And I never said you did. But that is the real reason we
are
over
there.

Why has the price of oil at times been at its highest while
we
are
there
if
it was suppose to keep the price of oil down?

Instability in the region. Bush thought it was going to be a
cake
walk.

Ok, but oil like any other commodity, its price is determined by
supply
and
demand if the market is relatively free.

Supply and demand breaks down at this level. We are speaking of
very
large corporations with limited competition and corruption of
governments.

Generally speaking part of this statement is true, producing
governments
can
charge whatever they wish for their oil. The oil companies have to
compete
on the amount they can charge.

With the other oil companies that they conspire with.

Well, you explanation of things you do not believe or can prove is
that
there is a conspiracy. Ok you are free to believe that.

So true an unstable market may
make for higher prices ... Bush did think Iraq would be a cake
walk
as
you
say.

But you might as yourself who would keep the middle east
open
for
oil
shipments to not only the US but the rest of the world.

So it is oil, not ³terrorism.²

Free access for all the world to be supplied with oil is part
of
the
reason,
but not the only reason.

What are the other reasons?

Saddams non compliance with the terms of the agreement that
ended
the
Gulf
war

That never justified invasion.

That is your opinion

Me and most of the civilized world.

This may/may not be true ... majority isn't always right though is it?

Yeah - just you are right.

I didn't say that or imply that. I just made the observation that
concensus
doesn't mean something is true or false.

So you said nothing.

... what should have been done when Saddam didn't live
up to is agreements ... talking lasted about 12 years to get him to
comply
... he didn't.

Leave it to the U.N.

Any time limit on the UN ... 12 years isn't long enough? Saddam had
already
corrupted the UN. The oil for food program ...

Leave it to the U.N. The whole point of the U.N. is to stop countries
from taking things into their own hands.

And the UN has found over and over again that they have not had any
sucess
unless a member country acts ... when it comes to force where has the UN
ever been sucessfull ... Rwanda, today Sudan? No do your favorite ...
taaaallllk. People died in Rwanda/Sudan.

Not like Iraq. Even Collin Powell told Bush to let the sanctions take
their course.

All he had to do is comply and there is not war.

Oh, *****. I didnıt even matter that he wasnıt creating WMDıs.

It wasn't ***** ... its on record that negotiations went on with
Saddam
for around 12 years.

And he was told not to develop WMDıs which he didnıt - and he paid the
price for that.

All he had to do was comply ... he though he could taaaaaaaaaaaalk.

SO we murdered hundreds of thousands.

Bush said he was and invaded. If you really believe there was any
way
we werenıt invading you are deluded. What he SHOULD have done was
actually NOT do as agreed and developed them. Then he would be
alive
today and in charge of a country that was safe from U.S. Aggression,
like North Korea.

In case you do not know ... Saddam had used WMD's against his own
people
...
he had invaded other countries ... So far N. Korea has not.

WE have used real WMDıs on hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
As for Saddam Hussein, those were the WMDıs that the Republicans
supplied him. And he didnıt have any when we invaded his country.

Its going to be the US's fault no matter what happens ... why should I
think
Saddam was a tyrant ... it was America's fault.

³WE have used real WMDıs on hundreds of thousands of innocent
civilians.³ But we are not ³terrorists.²

Yet you
blame the countries that went to war with Iraq as being in the
wrong.

Yeah - they were.

Your idea of talking was a failure ... 12 years? Thats all you have
and
nothing is done. In other words you have/had no workable plan

Not true at all. It was obviously working - no WMDıs.

He did have WMD's ... he used them on his own people.

You mean the one the Republicans sold him?

He signed an
agreement that he would account ... if he had none this was the time to
say
so.

He did. We didnıt believe him. He was telling the truth, Bush was
lying.

He wouldn't account, plus other violations ... he invade.

Green light, remember?

There are
people who believe that he moved the WMD's to Syria.

The same people that believe the earth is flat?

We didn't find any so
to me that means there were none. Google former Iraqi General George
Sada
and his claims ... I agree there were no WMD's found.

So you know with your limited information, but Bush could figure it out
with all his.

I ask
again what should have been done?

Patience and diplomacy. It worked against communism. But Bush and
people like you have the patience of a five year old.

It didn't work against Communism if you are referring to Russia .. its
that
Russian couldn't keep up with the US economy ... the SDS program.

You are out of your mind. The SDS program was a very small part of it.
You just believe whatever the Right Wing tells you.

Small advances give nations great advantages.

Which is why we should taken Collin Powellıs advice.

This is
not to say that diplomacy wasn't used. Russia realized they couldn't
match
the US.

Whatever Fox ³NEWS² says, I guess.

... a belief that Iraq had WMD's.

Those who believe that believed it based on the lies of Bush.

You are wrong, and the more you repeat this doesn't make it true.
From
fact
check:
The President says Democrats in Congress "had access to the same
intelligence" he did before the Iraq war, but some Democrats deny
it."That
was not true," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard
Dean.
"He
withheld some intelligence. . . . The intelligence was corrupted."

Uh. My point exactly.

But it was found that 'your point exactly' was incorrect ... but I
know
you
will not accept it ... its a conspiracy, isn't it.

I have provided direct quotes from those who know. You provided
opinion pieces from Right Wing hacks.

Government reports are not 'right wing hacks.'

Great! Lets see the ³government reports.²

Neither side is giving the whole story in this continuing dispute.

Yeah - they are both sticking to their guns, except those of the
Democrats are loaded.

<SNIP - Stop quoting things without citations. For all I know you
are
making them up. (But probably not, most donıt support you
position.)>

You are welcome to go on factcheck.org and see if I'm lying.

Or you could just site your comments.

http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html

That seems to
be a trait of people like you who disagree ... I'm lying/making up
things/conspiracy. You can see it in black in white on fact check ...
it
will not change your opinion in the least.

LOL!!! Yeah - if it is in ³black and white,² the simple minded figure
it MUST be true.

Anything but 'black and white', I've agreed with you when I believed you
were correct.

Gee, thanks.

I criticize Bush on many things ... You on the other hand
find every mistake/miscue/problem the fault of the US via Bush.

Not really. A lot of it is Cheneyıs fault.

Now you don't have to believe any of this and keep repeating "Bush
lied"

LOL!!! NEARLY EVERYONE knows Bush lied. Are you the last hold out?

So it makes no difference what the truth is as long as there is
concensus
that he lied ... wow you amaze David.

What an idiot. YOU know the truth no one else knows.

I never said that or implied it ... it just amazes me that anyone blieves
that truth is arrived at by concensus. I don't think I am the arbitrator
of
all truth ... I don't blame everything on the US via Bush either.

I just blame him for what he deserves.

Not that it will change you mind but:
In 2004 the Senate Intelligence Committee said, in a report adopted
unanimously by both Republican and Democratic members:

Senate Intelligence Committee: The Committee did not find any
evidence
that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of
political
pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with
Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce,
influence
or
pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured
in
any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform
with
Administration policies on Iraq's WMD programs, not a single analyst
answered "yes." (p273)

³The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people,
shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.'
Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in
absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a
report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking
at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a
connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come
back with that answer. We wrote a report.³ - Richard Clarke, someone
who actually was there.

Been over that. Any particular part?

The whole thing. But you donıt ³believe it.²

You don't blame Congress, but you see how interested they seemed

...
keep

drinking the Kool-Ade.

Well you be sure to keep repeating the Right Wing tripe that made

YOU

into a good little brown shirt.

If you
were really worried about the Iraqi civilians

getting

killed
you
would
recognize that the Muslim jihadist target

civilians
with

suicide
bombers
...
something you have not spoken out against in

our
posts.

The
only
thing
you
are worried is holding the US to an impossible

standard,

all
the
while
ignoring the Muslim jihadists. You've not

said
one
thing

about
how
Saddam
killed innocent civilians either, just the US.

What
a

standard.

Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq. Right

or
wrong,

it
was
an
Iraqi problem.

True, Saddam was Prez of Iraq which enable him to

sign
an

agreement
that
ended the Gulf War. He failed to live up to the

agreement he

signed
...
he
fired on aircraft in the no-fly zone, he played a

cat
and

mouse
game
with
inspectors, and he failed to account for the WMD's

he

previously
had
...
broke the agreement. What makes you think we have

to
invade

all
other
countries that have despots?

I donıt. But to be consistent, you should.

Not at all ... there could and have been countries

ruled
by

despots
that
do
not threaten our vital interests. Vital interests

are
what

countries
go
to
war about.

Iraq never threatened our vital interests. In fact,

they
were an

excellent tool to fight terrorists.

Again, your opinion.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hated Saddam Hussein.

So what, peoples dilike for each other doesn't mean they

cannot
work

together.

<http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm>

Saddam Hussein did work against Al Qaeda.

He also supported terrorism ... he paid the families of

suicide
bombers.

"Iraqi financial records confirm tht the government supported,

harbored

and
financed Abdul Rahman Ysin, the 1993 World Trade Center

bomber,

throughout
the 1990's." Saddam's, Iraq and Islamic Terrorism: What We

Now
Know, a

speech given by Stephen F. Hayes at Hillsdale College. He has

written a

book also, "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with

Saddam

Hussein has Endangered America." Don't want to get into

Saddam's
support

of
terror though. Hope this helps.

<Yawn> Even the Bush White House now acknowledges no

connection.

Whether Bush acknowledges it or not, it has been shown that there

has
been

some connection ... some of it has come after Iraq was invaded.

*****. You are worse than Bush.

Maybe so, but I don't seek truth by concensus.

But I like
your inconsistency ... Bush was the lier and yet you believe him

when
he

says there is no connection?

LOL!!! What a stretch. When someone who has been trying to

convince

you of a lie for years finally admits it was a lie, you tend to

assume

they are cornered.

Really, I would assume that there is a chance that they are still
lying.

Your are a hoot David.

Yeah - you are doing a great job of demonstrating your ³critical
thinking skills.²

Oh you mean by giving evidence which you have failed to give except
in
one
case and it turned out that it didn't support you.

Bush is a truth teller
when he agrees with what you believe/think.

Be an idiot - your problem. The simple minded black and white

*****
is

a constant with you Right Wingers.

When your arguments fail turn to name calling ... why didn't that
supprise
me?

There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al

Qaeda.

I never said there was a connection. Iraq did support

terrorism

though.

No it didnıt. And how is it WE are not considered

terrorists?

Because we do not target innocent people as an aim of our

foreign
policy.

LOL!! Of course we do. So we make the rules now as to what is

a

legitimate ³attack² vs a ³terrorist act?²

You are wrong again and I think you know it.

Mind reading now? You sure have many ways of convincing yourself

the

hate ridden crap you want to believe is so.

No, not mind reading, I said "may"

We have soldiers that have
gone on trial for killing civilians.

Yeah. Those that were caught on video.

No, not all. Any of the Muslim jihadist kill any civilians ... why
doesn't that bother you?

We do not target innocent civilians

You are naive as *****. Check this out and lets see if you can

admit

you are wrong:

<http://tinyurl.com/n58hn>

or:

<http://tinyurl.com/28oftq>

Or:

<http://tinyurl.com/ytrv>

War is hell ... I've never denied that ... every see people jumping
out
of
the WTC?

***** you. I give youi the proof that you are full of ***** and you say,
³War is Hell?² Face it - you are just a Right Wing ***** who is
determined to believe Bush is correct in lying and killing civilians.
That says a great deal about you.

When all else fails start name calling. Niiiccccccce going David.

When facec with the truth that you just denied, that is, that Americans
target and kill innocent civilians, you ignore that and say ³War is
hell.² Can you explain that?

Over 100,000 children killed by U.S. Troops.

Want to give a cite please ... I almost positive that is an
incorrect
number.

Of course you are. That is what you do.

I take that as you have no cite, but just hot air. Cite please.

So I cite and you donıt eh?

You are faced with video of Americans murdering civilians, just as Bin
Laden did here, but you say ³War is Hell.² You are doing what Bin
Laden does. You are justifying the murder of thousands of civilians
for your own propaganda use. You, like everyone else that takes the
position that, somehow, when we kill hundreds of thousands of civilians
we are fighting for freedom, but when others kill our civilians they
are ³terrorists,² are no better than Bin Laden.

There is a difference, our aim is not to killl civilians, but combatant
...

Yes - it is.

Its make the war that much more dangerous when the Muslim jihadist don't
wear uniforms/use civilians as hostages to hide behind/fire from mosques.

Civilians do that.

It Aaaammmericaaaaaaaaa fault via GB.

Yep.