Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45c954d0$0$80109$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45c8c0e8$0$80054$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

And thats open to interpretation isn't it? ... "compelling
need."

Since Iraq was no threat to the US, there was no compelling
need.

Global warming

Another murderous neocon runs away from the truth.

If you've noticed I've responded to everyone but you ...

Because you're a coward who runs away from the truth.

your ideology

What "ideology" is that?

Its the ideology of everything America does is wrong .

Which is, like almost everything else you write, a lie based upon
hatred and bigotry.

I'm just going by what you write in this post Honest Ray.

It's an old tactic to attack a person's patriotism in order to justify
mass killing, war, and religious bigotry. And it's what you are
doing.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding
of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. it works the same
in any country."
Hermann Goering

Who is attacking anyones patriotism?

You are.

You accuse but show no evidence.

You're lying. The evidence is just below.

Try reading what I write.

"Its the ideology of everything America does is wrong."

And there's the evidence.

Here is some
religious bigotry to justify murder: "Blew up 3 Israelis at a
bakery.

How about the thousands of Palestinians killed by the Israelis?

We are not talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict ...

Of course not. You only want to justify hating Muslims.

Not talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict is a neutral statement
...

But only talking about Muslims is not neutral.

Its Muslim JIHADISTS, Honest Ray.

It's still Muslims, bigot.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

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

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

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

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

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

But its nations/states that harbor the 'loose bunch
of rattleheads', they shouldn't allow to have a safe
haven to plan, rearm an attack ... Lockerbie/PanAm/USS
Cole/Marine Baracks in Baruit/Khobar towers/Somalia/World Trade
Center 1&11 ... all US interests ... This doesn't include the
attacks in the rest of the world Asia/Africa/Europe.

What has any of the above to do with Iraq? Even Bush has admitted
that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nor was Saddam associated
with Osama bin Laden in any way. Saddam did not turn against
Isael until after the Gulf war began, and that was a
play to get Arab support.

Saddam failed to live up to the agreement that ended Gulf war I. The
UN wouldn't act to enforce the agreement. The minute Saddam fired on
the planes in the no fly zone he violated the agreement ...
when he bounced the inspectors he violated the agreement .... 12 years
of nagotions showed nothing but weakness on the part of the US and
UN.

*****. Those excuses had nothing to do with why we went into Iraq.
We went into Iraq because George W. Bush told us that Iraq had weapons
on mass destruction. Either our intelligence services are
incapable of doing their job, or George was deliberatly lying to us.

So what I said above is "*****" .... Saddam did NOT violate the
agreement that ended the Gulf War? Sir you are uninformed ... Saddam
did violate the treaty ending the Gulf War. I never said that one of the
reasons for going into Iraq was the President thought there was WMD's ...
surely he did, as did all the Congressmen that are now back tracking ...
as did both the British and Russian intelligence believe that Saddam had
WMD's. How should the US have reacted when the agreement was violated
... when Saddam failed to live up to the inspections he agreed
to ... failed to make an accounting as he was suppose to? ... talk? ...
We did for 12 years.

Whether you said we went going into Iraq because of weapons of mass
destruction or not is irrelevant. George W. Bush said that we were going
into Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction.

stopped the U.N. inspection, not Saddam. Bush wanted to get the war on
before the U.N. was finished.

Yes, Congress did accept the White House reports that Saddam had weapons
onf mass destruction, but it is the White House which was responsible for
the accuracy of those reports, not Congress. Even Prime Minister Blair
fell for it, and told the British Parliament that he supported the United
States because of information gathered by U.S. intelligence. (At one
point Bush said that it was bristish intelligence which had reported that
Iraq was buying weapons grade uranium, but Blair immediately denied the
report.)

You are making a mistake to believe that the war is
just with Iraq.

That is an interesting remark. It suggests that you think we should
expand the war. What do you want to do? Go into Iran? Invade Syria?

The war is already expanded ... what happened in Spain, London, Asia and
Africa, not to mention what has taken place in this country. Its is not
the US that is expanding it ... it is the Muslim jihadists.

So you want us to make war upon Islam?

If we/they have chose Iraq,

Bush chose Iraq.

True ... the UN chose to not make him accountable to
the agreement he signed to end Gulf War I. Who was
credible? We've shown weakness for the last 25 years in dealing with
the Muslim jihadists ... the press
and we give in. Not to mention the the toothless UN
and its band of crooks. When do you think we should stop and hold the

Muslim jihadist accountable?

Middle East countries look at it differently. The United States is the
invader. European and Christian countries have been invading the Middle
East for hundreds of years.

Are you suggesting that we should 'look at it differently' at the risk of
our own securtiy ... at the security of the west? That is one of the
problems, the west always gives in to the Muslim jihadists.

The only Moslem country which was thretening our security at the time, and
which we had any cause to go into was Afghanistan . Iraq was not
threatening our security.

Our security was greater before we went into Iraq.

United States as the agressor there because we are the agressor.

Moslem countries sees themselves as victims, and potential victims.

Therefore the world and Moslem countries are preparing to defend
themselves against us.

weapons when we are invading other countries?

The United States is losing its position of leadership because our allies,
which we count upon, are withdrawing support. Saudi Arabia has been our
closest friend in the Middle East, but it has turned against our invasion
of Iraq.

Even after the end of World War II, much of the Middle East, including
Iraq, was under European rule. France and England divided the area
between themselves.

So what ... Germany was hamstrung by the treaty that ended WWI but the
west didn't fold up to Hitler when he started his war against the west
... the west responded to the threat of the Nazis ... just has we should
respond to the threat of the Muslim jihadists.

You are trying to tie Saddam and Iraq up with "Muslim jihadists"
terrorists.

Unfortunately, there was no connection until after the invasion of Iraq.
We did not go in Iraq to fight "Muslim jihadists".

They have fought hard to free themselves of foreign rule. Don't you
think we should let them know that we recognize their right to self
rule?

So its really the west's fault because they are flying planes into
buildings, bombing trains, and the subway in London, killing innocent
people > in Sudan, killing innocent people in Indonesia. If we could
just be more 'understanding' of the Muslim jihadists. Its really all our
fault. How do you respond to someone who's opening statement is Israel
should be
wiped off the map? We should talk they should bomb and kill and we
accept it because what has happened in the past.

Saddam and Iraq was not involved in 9/11, bombing trains, the subway in
London, killing people in Sudan or in Indonesia.

Israel until the Gulf war, and was not a threat to Israel at the time the
United States invaded Iraq.

reaching a settlement with the Palestinians, but that went out the window
when we invaded Iraq.

--Wax