| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Bill McCarty" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2005 12:01:05 AM |
| Object: |
Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
According to Cindy Sheehan there would be no terrorism if the jews
got out of Palestine and the Americans got out of Iraq. What are the
chances of a serious examination of this view by the main stream media
in the US ?
.
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
26 Aug 2005 12:07:25 AM |
|
|
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125032465.963009.175730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
According to Cindy Sheehan there would be no terrorism if the jews
got out of Palestine and the Americans got out of Iraq. What are the
chances of a serious examination of this view by the main stream media
in the US ?
There is no Palestine, never has been
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill McCarty" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
26 Aug 2005 01:00:29 AM |
|
|
Simply because you've never seen a flag, a parliament building,
marching bands, state diners and written documents, does not mean it
does not exist. Check the psycology books under something called the
territorial imperative. If the european jews sincerely believe in
their gut that the territory belongs to them, then they will prevail.
But if the palestinians believe in their gut that it belonged to them
in the past, does now and always will, then THEY will prevail. And
all the jewish fences, barriers and armed soldiers they can muster will
prove fruitless. My guess is that if it takes a hundred years the
palestinians are going to win that war and nothing we or the UN or NATO
or the EU or the jews can do is going to make the slightest difference.
The Brits were once the most powerful nation on earth and decided
one day to run up the British flag over Ireland, a nation of uneducated
farmers. So who owns Ireland today ? The people who believed most
strongly that Ireland belonged to THEM !
Have anice day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
26 Aug 2005 07:36:52 AM |
|
|
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125036029.865202.171590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Simply because you've never seen a flag, a parliament building,
marching bands, state diners and written documents, does not mean it
does not exist.
They exist as about as much as the Nation of Star Trek fans, no wait I think
the Star Trek fan club has a President, something the palestines never had,
so maybe not as much.
Check the psycology books under something called the
territorial imperative. If the european jews sincerely believe in
their gut that the territory belongs to them, then they will prevail.
But if the palestinians believe in their gut that it belonged to them
in the past, does now and always will, then THEY will prevail. And
all the jewish fences, barriers and armed soldiers they can muster will
prove fruitless. My guess is that if it takes a hundred years the
palestinians are going to win that war and nothing we or the UN or NATO
or the EU or the jews can do is going to make the slightest difference.
My guess is you are wrong, Israel believes that is their land, given to them
by God himself, the terrorist did not think the land was theirs until it was
given to Israel after the war. If they had any real claim to any land, it
would be from Jordon or maybe Syria, when they start murdering children in
Jordon, you can take them seriously.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill McCarty" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
26 Aug 2005 09:55:51 PM |
|
|
Let me see if I understand you. Israel is justified in their action
against the Palestinians because it was GOD who gave them that land ?
Clearly, that leaves behind all concepts of justice, logic, reason,
fairness, compassion, and compromise. We are now talking about Faith
with a capital F. We are talking ALSO about a God who is a racist, and
a bigot motivated by the crudest form of mindless discrimination and
oppression. Grabbing Lebens Raum, went out with Hitler, but at least he
never claimed divine approval for his expansionism And greed.
That divine approval may be a central tenet of YOUR faith, but it has
NOTHING in common with mine ! On the contrary, I would find myself,
along with all Muslims, in TOTAL disagreement. My unity of opinion
with Muslims on this view, suggests that in choosing up sides for a
fight, logic would put me on THEIR side. In view of Muslim hostility
toward the US however, I see no compelling reason to choose EITHER side
and I'm convinced that if they wish to continue their age old
disputes, America is well advised to let them do so and stay out of it.
Asking any American to die because jews believe that God has chosen
them to succeed is the summit of stupidity. A pox on BOTH their houses
!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
27 Aug 2005 08:04:37 AM |
|
|
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125111351.872920.67100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Let me see if I understand you.
You don't
Israel is justified in their action
against the Palestinians because it was GOD who gave them that land ?
No Israel is justified in their action becasue it is a REACTION to terrorist
actions.
Clearly, that leaves behind all concepts of justice, logic, reason,
fairness, compassion, and compromise. We are now talking about Faith
with a capital F. We are talking ALSO about a God who is a racist, and
a bigot motivated by the crudest form of mindless discrimination and
oppression. Grabbing Lebens Raum, went out with Hitler, but at least he
never claimed divine approval for his expansionism And greed.
That divine approval may be a central tenet of YOUR faith, but it has
NOTHING in common with mine !
You are the one that said "If the european jews sincerely believe in
their gut that the territory belongs to them, then they will prevail."
I was telling you they sincerely believe in thier gut it was given to them
by God himself, it doesnt matter if I or you believe it or not.
On the contrary, I would find myself,
along with all Muslims, in TOTAL disagreement.
SHOCK Shock, I say!!!
My unity of opinion
with Muslims on this view, suggests that in choosing up sides for a
fight, logic would put me on THEIR side.
flawed logic, at best
In view of Muslim hostility toward the US however, I see no compelling
reason to choose EITHER side
You have no compelling reason to choose either side in view on Muslim
hostility toward the US? Well I do, I choose the US.
and I'm convinced that if they wish to continue their age old
disputes, America is well advised to let them do so and stay out of it.
Stay out of it, you mean when the kill Americans, we should do nothing?
Asking any American to die because jews believe that God has chosen
them to succeed is the summit of stupidity. A pox on BOTH their houses
no one has
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
27 Aug 2005 12:48:25 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FxZPe.50558$Ji4.27831@fed1read03...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125111351.872920.67100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Let me see if I understand you.
You don't
Israel is justified in their action
against the Palestinians because it was GOD who gave them that land ?
No Israel is justified in their action becasue it is a REACTION to
terrorist actions.
But the state of Israel was itself created through the use of terrorism.
It's a bit rich for the Israelis to now condemn another aspiring nation for
copying the actions that were so successful for the Israelis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
27 Aug 2005 07:42:43 PM |
|
|
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JH1Qe.24854$5m3.8924@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FxZPe.50558$Ji4.27831@fed1read03...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125111351.872920.67100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Let me see if I understand you.
You don't
Israel is justified in their action
against the Palestinians because it was GOD who gave them that land ?
No Israel is justified in their action becasue it is a REACTION to
terrorist actions.
But the state of Israel was itself created through the use of terrorism.
It's a bit rich for the Israelis to now condemn another aspiring nation
for copying the actions that were so successful for the Israelis.
You think the Ararbs are trying to kill 6 million of themseves so they can
have their own Holocaust? Israel was created because in its absence Jews
were mass murdered throughout history by savages with impunity. Israel was
created in response to the events of World War II. Israel was restored to
independence so that never again could someone commit mass murders of
hundreds of Jewish civilians and be left alive. Israel was created to be a
mechanism to kill any future mass murderers, any future Nazis. Israel's
basic existence must be to deny impunity to mass murderers of Jews.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
28 Aug 2005 02:23:17 AM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7M7Qe.50820$Ji4.48275@fed1read03...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JH1Qe.24854$5m3.8924@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FxZPe.50558$Ji4.27831@fed1read03...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125111351.872920.67100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Let me see if I understand you.
You don't
Israel is justified in their action
against the Palestinians because it was GOD who gave them that land ?
No Israel is justified in their action becasue it is a REACTION to
terrorist actions.
But the state of Israel was itself created through the use of terrorism.
It's a bit rich for the Israelis to now condemn another aspiring nation
for copying the actions that were so successful for the Israelis.
You think the Ararbs are trying to kill 6 million of themseves so they can
have their own Holocaust? Israel was created because in its absence Jews
were mass murdered throughout history by savages with impunity. Israel was
created in response to the events of World War II. Israel was restored to
independence so that never again could someone commit mass murders of
hundreds of Jewish civilians and be left alive. Israel was created to be a
mechanism to kill any future mass murderers, any future Nazis. Israel's
basic existence must be to deny impunity to mass murderers of Jews.
I agree that Israel's existence came into being as a result of the
Holocaust. However, you have totally skipped my point. You haven't addressed
the fact that Israel through Haganah and the Irgun were amongst the first
people to use terrorism (against the British) as a way of gaining a state.
The Israelis of all people should understand this tactic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill McCarty" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
28 Aug 2005 10:51:41 PM |
|
|
Yes, Doogie. Tell us please at what point did the jewish
terrorists who grabbed Palestinian land decide that terrorism was no
longer an acceptable practice in the struggle for dominance in that
miserable part of the world ? And how did they decide that terrorism
against OTHERS was OK, but that terrorism against THEM was a criminal
and shameful act worthy of compensation by American taxpayers to the
tune of BILLIONS of dollars per year. Year after year without end ?
Regards, BMc.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Why the Goons Murder (Was Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
28 Aug 2005 12:25:31 PM |
|
|
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FDdQe.53177$Il.24861@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7M7Qe.50820$Ji4.48275@fed1read03...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JH1Qe.24854$5m3.8924@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FxZPe.50558$Ji4.27831@fed1read03...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125111351.872920.67100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Let me see if I understand you.
You don't
Israel is justified in their action
against the Palestinians because it was GOD who gave them
that land ?
No Israel is justified in their action becasue it is a
REACTION to terrorist actions.
But the state of Israel was itself created through the use of
terrorism. It's a bit rich for the Israelis to now condemn
another aspiring nation for copying the actions that were so
successful for the Israelis.
You think the Ararbs are trying to kill 6 million of themseves
so they can have their own Holocaust? Israel was created
because in its absence Jews were mass murdered throughout
history by savages with impunity. Israel was created in
response to the events of World War II. Israel was restored to
independence so that never again could someone commit mass
murders of hundreds of Jewish civilians and be left alive.
Israel was created to be a mechanism to kill any future mass
murderers, any future Nazis. Israel's basic existence must be
to deny impunity to mass murderers of Jews.
I agree that Israel's existence came into being as a result of
the Holocaust. However, you have totally skipped my point. You
haven't addressed the fact that Israel through Haganah and the
Irgun were amongst the first people to use terrorism (against
the British) as a way of gaining a state. The Israelis of all
people should understand this tactic.
Doug Says: In truth, ALL nations "came into being" as a result
of terrorism. Revolution is terrorism from the point of view of
the established government. But since the world, including
Israel, has offered the Palestinians their own nation if they
would just stop murdering people left and right for the past 40
years, what "country" are the Palestinians terrorists fighting
for? Answer: They are perpetrating genocide against Jews, and
they want to destroy a country, Israel, not create one. Which
country are the Iranian backed radical Muslim murders fighting
for? What freedoms? They are not revolutionaries, and they are
not fighting for freedom, and they are not fighting to create a
nation, they are fighting to force people to adopt their
hare-brained so-called "religion" so that the Ayatollahs can rule
the world and force radical Islam on the populations of the
world. That is a religious crusade, not a "Revolution."
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kel" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the Goons Murder (Was Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
28 Aug 2005 01:09:44 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:ecmdnfP-DcsYbozeRVn-qw@comcast.com...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FDdQe.53177$Il.24861@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7M7Qe.50820$Ji4.48275@fed1read03...
"Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JH1Qe.24854$5m3.8924@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FxZPe.50558$Ji4.27831@fed1read03...
"Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125111351.872920.67100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Let me see if I understand you.
You don't
Israel is justified in their action
against the Palestinians because it was GOD who gave them that land
?
No Israel is justified in their action becasue it is a REACTION to
terrorist actions.
But the state of Israel was itself created through the use of
terrorism. It's a bit rich for the Israelis to now condemn another
aspiring nation for copying the actions that were so successful for the
Israelis.
You think the Ararbs are trying to kill 6 million of themseves so they
can have their own Holocaust? Israel was created because in its absence
Jews were mass murdered throughout history by savages with impunity.
Israel was created in response to the events of World War II. Israel was
restored to independence so that never again could someone commit mass
murders of hundreds of Jewish civilians and be left alive. Israel was
created to be a mechanism to kill any future mass murderers, any future
Nazis. Israel's basic existence must be to deny impunity to mass
murderers of Jews.
I agree that Israel's existence came into being as a result of the
Holocaust. However, you have totally skipped my point. You haven't
addressed the fact that Israel through Haganah and the Irgun were amongst
the first people to use terrorism (against the British) as a way of
gaining a state. The Israelis of all people should understand this
tactic.
Doug Says: In truth, ALL nations "came into being" as a result of
terrorism. Revolution is terrorism from the point of view of the
established government. But since the world, including Israel, has
offered the Palestinians their own nation if they would just stop
murdering people left and right for the past 40 years, what "country" are
the Palestinians terrorists fighting for?
Why do you talk such nonsense, Doug? The Israelis have NEVER offered the
Palistinians a state. Indeed, it is an article of faith in the Likud Party
to NEVER recognise a state of Palestine. Provide some link to where Israel
offered the Palestinians a state.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Miguel OPastel" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the Goons Murder (Was Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
29 Aug 2005 12:54:44 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:ecmdnfP-DcsYbozeRVn-qw@comcast.com...
|
| "Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| news:FDdQe.53177$Il.24861@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
| > news:7M7Qe.50820$Ji4.48275@fed1read03...
| >>
| >> "Kel" <ostermanuk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| >> news:JH1Qe.24854$5m3.8924@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >>>
| >>> "Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
| >>> news:FxZPe.50558$Ji4.27831@fed1read03...
| >>>>
| >>>> "Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >>>> news:1125111351.872920.67100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >>>>> Let me see if I understand you.
| >>>>
| >>>> You don't
| >>>>
| >>>> Israel is justified in their action
| >>>>> against the Palestinians because it was GOD who gave them
| >>>>> that land ?
| >>>>
| >>>> No Israel is justified in their action becasue it is a
| >>>> REACTION to terrorist actions.
| >>>
| >>> But the state of Israel was itself created through the use of
| >>> terrorism. It's a bit rich for the Israelis to now condemn
| >>> another aspiring nation for copying the actions that were so
| >>> successful for the Israelis.
| >>
| >> You think the Ararbs are trying to kill 6 million of themseves
| >> so they can have their own Holocaust? Israel was created
| >> because in its absence Jews were mass murdered throughout
| >> history by savages with impunity. Israel was created in
| >> response to the events of World War II. Israel was restored to
| >> independence so that never again could someone commit mass
| >> murders of hundreds of Jewish civilians and be left alive.
| >> Israel was created to be a mechanism to kill any future mass
| >> murderers, any future Nazis. Israel's basic existence must be
| >> to deny impunity to mass murderers of Jews.
| >
| > I agree that Israel's existence came into being as a result of
| > the Holocaust. However, you have totally skipped my point. You
| > haven't addressed the fact that Israel through Haganah and the
| > Irgun were amongst the first people to use terrorism (against
| > the British) as a way of gaining a state. The Israelis of all
| > people should understand this tactic.
|
| Doug Says: In truth, ALL nations "came into being" as a result
| of terrorism. Revolution is terrorism from the point of view of
| the established government. But since the world, including
| Israel, has offered the Palestinians their own nation if they
| would just stop murdering people left and right for the past 40
| years, what "country" are the Palestinians terrorists fighting
| for? Answer: They are perpetrating genocide against Jews, and
| they want to destroy a country, Israel, not create one. Which
| country are the Iranian backed radical Muslim murders fighting
| for? What freedoms? They are not revolutionaries, and they are
| not fighting for freedom, and they are not fighting to create a
| nation, they are fighting to force people to adopt their
| hare-brained so-called "religion" so that the Ayatollahs can rule
| the world and force radical Islam on the populations of the
| world. That is a religious crusade, not a "Revolution."
|
| Doug Grant (Tm)
| >
| >
|
|
They are fighting for the same reason rednecks fought in the Civil War. To
get the foreign fuckers out of here!
M
.
|
|
|
| User: "i2p6 west" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the Goons Murder (Was Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
29 Aug 2005 08:23:54 PM |
|
|
Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
|
They are fighting for the same reason rednecks fought in the Civil War. To
get the foreign fuckers out of here!
Yep. It is just that simple.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
26 Aug 2005 12:15:02 AM |
|
|
Bill McCarty wrote:
According to Cindy Sheehan there would be no terrorism if the jews
got out of Palestine and the Americans got out of Iraq. What are the
chances of a serious examination of this view by the main stream media
in the US ?
So, the Diaspora should never have come to an end just so's you can
have some peace and quiet?
I don't see your dilemma: The adults are handling the situation for
you. Just go back to sleep and quit worrying about stuff you can't
understand.
---
Art
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill McCarty" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
26 Aug 2005 08:48:25 AM |
|
|
It's quite true. There's a LOT about Bush's Iraq war that I
don't understand. That's what prompts me, I guess, to pose a few
simple questions. For instance, I don't under stand the Weapons of
Mass Destruction scam that Bush tried to use as a pretense for a war
against a third world nation which never attacked us. I don't
understand the Bush effort to tie Iraq to the 9-11 attack when there is
not a SHRED of evidence to link them. I don't understand the cozy
hand-holding relationship between Bush and Saudi Arabia. A nation
which, as leader of the OPEC cartel, has been raping the US consumer
for years - with nary a murmur of complaint from the White House. I
don't understand why a very small tail (Israel) is able to wag a very
large dog (the US)and fill the halls of Congress with fear and
trembling. I don't understand why our news media has adopted a
posture of groveling acceptance of our predicament and refuses to
address matters related to US interests. But what I REALLY don't
understand is why posing these questions seems to act like a knife
slowly twisting in your gut.
Have a nice day, BMc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
27 Aug 2005 02:00:08 AM |
|
|
Bill McCarty wrote:
It's quite true. There's a LOT about Bush's Iraq war that I
don't understand.
Well, it might help to shake off the fog if you'd stop referring to it
as "Bush's" Iraq war.
It ain't. It's my Iraq war and your Iraq war. Bush is my servant. Yours
too.
He had 75% approvals going into Iraq. And WMD's was only one of three
justifications given for the invasion.
That's what prompts me, I guess, to pose a few
simple questions. For instance, I don't under stand the Weapons of
Mass Destruction scam that Bush tried to use as a pretense for a war
against a third world nation which never attacked us.
He got the idear from Geraldo. You remember Al Capone's vaults,
don'tchya?
I don't
understand the Bush effort to tie Iraq to the 9-11 attack when there is
not a SHRED of evidence to link them.
Dubya never "tied" Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. He called Saddam Hussein a
terrorist, which he was, and said that the Ba'athist regime in Iraq was
a terrorist regime, which it was.
Something you need to remember is that those 9/11 attackers were all
dead...on 9/11.
Why attack Afghanistan? Only because it would make Mrs. Grundy feel
good about those nasty terrorists.
Besides, Mohammed Atta was an Egyptian who recently had been living in
Hamburg, Germany.
He certainly wasn't an Afghan.
Most of the attackers were Saudis.
Al Qaeda did you say?
First off, there ain't no organisation called "al-Qaeda." And there
never was. "Al Qaeda" refers to a now abandoned guesthouse and compound
in Peshawar. It's the nickname the CIA gave Bin Laden's group when they
confiscated a computer disk named "al-Qaeda" which was a kind of
registry for visitors to that house.
The name of the organization Bin Laden founded is called (in English)
"The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders."
Everyone calls it "al-Qaeda" because they don't think you have the
mental capacity to understand that the group really has a much longer
and more esoteric name.
And yes they were in Afghanistan, and they were arming and financing
the Taliban who were fighting the war lords and various drug empires
for control of the country.
But the World Islamic Front wasn't only in Afghanistan. It had branches
and operatives in an estimated 22 countries at the time of the 9/11
attacks.
But the war on terrorism isn't ONLY about The World Islamic Front
anyway, as you should well know.
It's about Mohammed Atta and the thousands like him that are and have
been breeding in the Middle East and Indonesia, and Sudan and, well,
all around the world for quite some time.
Another important thing to remember is that The World Islamic Front
isn't really a terrorist group, anyway. It's a network, a kind of
support network for Islamic Terrorism. They supplied the tools and
training and money to many, many groups and organizations and
individuals. Perhaps as many as 30,000. Maybe more.
Because Iraq had Salman Pak, and given its recent history, its dabbling
in international terrorism with Abu Nidal and the Mukharabat hit
squads and terrosits in Europe, and the fact that China had set up
post sanction agreements to monopolize Iraqi oil and had gone a long
way towards arming and financially propping up Hussein, America had to
invade Iraq.
Period.
And, in invading Iraq we well understood that Mohammed Atta, where ever
he might be these days, would take great pains to get to Iraq by boat,
by train, by plane and automobile to come to Iraq and fight the holy
war there.
Instead of Detroit, Houston and Pittsburgh PA.
"If you invade, they will come."
I don't understand the cozy
hand-holding relationship between Bush and Saudi Arabia.
That's been going on since 1936 and it's the US, not just Bush--you
just weren't paying attention before.
The Saudis sat out the 1973 war with Israel. They were the ones who
broke OPEC's stranglehold in the late Seventies. They arrested Bin
Laden. House arrest, anyway. He escaped to Afghanistan/Sudan, but he
had to sever most of his ties to his rich family in Saudi Arabia to do
so.
The Saudis play ball with us. Much to the peril of the House of Saud.
They're high priority targets of the World Islamic Front.
A nation
which, as leader of the OPEC cartel, has been raping the US consumer
for years - with nary a murmur of complaint from the White House.
You haven't been watching very closely.
I
don't understand why a very small tail (Israel) is able to wag a very
large dog (the US)and fill the halls of Congress with fear and
trembling.
That's a long story, and it involves the Cold War more than anything
happening today.
Suffice it to say, Carter was very happy to have Israel there after
Pahlavi's corrupt regime was replaced by the Revolutionary Guards and
their Mullahs in Tehran. And then the Soviets initiated a coup in Kabul
and invaded Afghanistan.
He was so sure that the Persian Gulf was going to be seized that he
formulated the Carter Doctrine, which outlined America's willingness to
go to thermal nuclear war over access to the Straights of Hormuz.
One of the few acceptable things Jimmy did before we fired him.
I don't understand why our news media has adopted a
posture of groveling acceptance of our predicament and refuses to
address matters related to US interests.
You've never heard of Seymour Hersh, have you?
But what I REALLY don't
understand is why posing these questions seems to act like a knife
slowly twisting in your gut.
But it doesn't, Silly Boy. Your ignorance is what irritates me. But
ignorance ain't stupidity, and it IS a reversible condition.
Have a nice day, BMc.
You too, Sweety. :-)
---
Art
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Agosta" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
27 Aug 2005 02:21:10 AM |
|
|
"Art" <arty_faque@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125126008.653014.268520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill McCarty wrote:
It's quite true. There's a LOT about Bush's Iraq war that I
don't understand.
Well, it might help to shake off the fog if you'd stop referring to it
as "Bush's" Iraq war.
It ain't. It's my Iraq war and your Iraq war. Bush is my servant. Yours
too.
Get off it. This is Bush's war, and no one else's, except for the mindless
cows that bought his tripe hook line and sinker.
Bush wanted it. He sold it. He had his cronies lie in order to justify it.
He lied to justify it. He got the war he WANTED.
HE pulled the trigger.
The truth hurts, now just live with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
27 Aug 2005 03:32:12 AM |
|
|
John Agosta wrote:
"Art" <arty_faque@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125126008.653014.268520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill McCarty wrote:
It's quite true. There's a LOT about Bush's Iraq war that I
don't understand.
Well, it might help to shake off the fog if you'd stop referring to it
as "Bush's" Iraq war.
It ain't. It's my Iraq war and your Iraq war. Bush is my servant. Yours
too.
Get off it. This is Bush's war, and no one else's, except for the mindless
cows that bought his tripe hook line and sinker.
Bush wanted it. He sold it. He had his cronies lie in order to justify it.
He lied to justify it. He got the war he WANTED.
HE pulled the trigger.
The truth hurts, now just live with it.
Sweety, I think it's a grand thing that he lied about the WMD's. It was
just plausible enough to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.
Just like the unnecessary and illadvised move to embed American Press
with front line units. This administration was HOPING that you'd get a
magic marker and some poster board and go marching around the White
House and Crawford for the CNN cameras.
Holding the American public's hand was never part of the strategy.
Telling the truth is not part of the mandate America placed on Dubya
September 12, 2001.
Your morale isn't factored in, because it's not necessary to the
effort.
The World Islamic Front never fights strength. It fights hapless and
unarmed secretaries and stockbrokers. And it fights them when and where
it pleases.
The World Islamic Front would NEVER NEVER NEVER have fought the US
Military in Iraq if it thought that the US had a clear mandate at home,
and a firm and broad coalition of Nations fighting alongside her. As in
Operation: Desert Storm.
WMD egg on face, negative pundit commentary, embedded press, Seymour
Hersh--this all saw to it that we wouldn't appear motivated or prepared
to actually war with the savage sons a bitches. We've never appeared
strong with our public face.
And it's painfully obvious that this was always planned.
The World Islamic Front would only fight the American Military if it
appeared under strength, and the American public appeared demoralized
and ready to cut and run. Only then would it commit its best Kamikaze
warriors to the fight.
Funny thing about Kamikazee Warriors. You can only use them once. Like
a bullet.
And like bullets, if ya keep firing your gun over and over again,
pretty soon you're out of ammo.
---
Art
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Agosta" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
27 Aug 2005 12:59:05 PM |
|
|
"Art" <arty_faque@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125131532.169500.145570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John Agosta wrote:
"Art" <arty_faque@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125126008.653014.268520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill McCarty wrote:
It's quite true. There's a LOT about Bush's Iraq war that I
don't understand.
Well, it might help to shake off the fog if you'd stop referring to it
as "Bush's" Iraq war.
It ain't. It's my Iraq war and your Iraq war. Bush is my servant.
Yours
too.
Get off it. This is Bush's war, and no one else's, except for the
mindless
cows that bought his tripe hook line and sinker.
Bush wanted it. He sold it. He had his cronies lie in order to justify
it.
He lied to justify it. He got the war he WANTED.
HE pulled the trigger.
The truth hurts, now just live with it.
Sweety, I think it's a grand thing that he lied about the WMD's. It was
just plausible enough to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.
Just like the unnecessary and illadvised move to embed American Press
with front line units. This administration was HOPING that you'd get a
magic marker and some poster board and go marching around the White
House and Crawford for the CNN cameras.
Holding the American public's hand was never part of the strategy.
Telling the truth is not part of the mandate America placed on Dubya
September 12, 2001.
Your morale isn't factored in, because it's not necessary to the
effort.
The World Islamic Front never fights strength. It fights hapless and
unarmed secretaries and stockbrokers. And it fights them when and where
it pleases.
The World Islamic Front would NEVER NEVER NEVER have fought the US
Military in Iraq if it thought that the US had a clear mandate at home,
and a firm and broad coalition of Nations fighting alongside her. As in
Operation: Desert Storm.
WMD egg on face, negative pundit commentary, embedded press, Seymour
Hersh--this all saw to it that we wouldn't appear motivated or prepared
to actually war with the savage sons a bitches. We've never appeared
strong with our public face.
And it's painfully obvious that this was always planned.
The World Islamic Front would only fight the American Military if it
appeared under strength, and the American public appeared demoralized
and ready to cut and run. Only then would it commit its best Kamikaze
warriors to the fight.
Funny thing about Kamikazee Warriors. You can only use them once. Like
a bullet.
And like bullets, if ya keep firing your gun over and over again,
pretty soon you're out of ammo.
---
Art
Toots, I think you need to put the crack pipe down.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill McCarty" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
30 Aug 2005 01:39:22 AM |
|
|
It ain't. It's my Iraq war and your Iraq war. Bush is my >servant. Yours too.
Iraq never attacked me and never attacked my country. Bush may hope
for support from all Americans when he makes a blunder. But hoping
and getting are two different things. LBJ looked for support for his
blunders too and went quietly into retirement when he failed to get it.
He had 75% approvals going into Iraq. And WMD's was only one of >three justifications given for the invasion.
Yes, it took a while before his lies were uncovered.
Dubya never "tied" Iraq to the 9/11 attacks.
Sorry Art. This is simply NOT TRUE. Google on the words Bush Iraq 9-11
and you'll find a DOZEN references to Bush linking Iraq to the 9-11
attack.
Why attack Afghanistan? Only because it would make Mrs. Grundy >feel good about those nasty terrorists. Al Qaeda did you say?
I never mentioned Afghanistan or Al Queda. What's your point ?
But the war on terrorism isn't ONLY about The World Islamic >ront
I wish you Bushites would get a handle on the English language.
Terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. You can't fight a war against a
tactic. Part of our problem in the mid east is that we have never
gained a clear understanding of our objective or how to reach it.
It's about Mohammed Atta and the thousands like him that are >and have been breeding in the Middle East and Indonesia, and >Sudan and, well, all around the world for quite some time.
Yes, for about as long as we have been meddling in that part of the
world posing as peace brokers, while providing arms and money to
Islam's sworn enemy and maneuvering to grab as much oil as we can
get. It makes me ASHAMED of what we call our government. How can you
NOT be ashamed of our action there ?
America had to invade Iraq.
Nonsense. Bush decided to go to war long before 9-11 and then ran
around looking for reasons to justify it. His flunky, Perlowitz at the
Pentagon admitted frankly that WMD was the only plausible reason they
could advance for the war and so that was their story right up until
the moment it fell completely apart.
Period.
The problem with your periods is that they don't seem to call an end
to anything.
And, in invading Iraq we well understood that Mohammed Atta, >where ever he might be these days, would take great pains to >get to Iraq by boat,.....
We understood nothing of the kind. Except that Sadam fought a war
against the Muslim extremists and wanted no part of them.
Bush's attempt to put them in bed together, was a fabrication at a
time when his other fabrications had been punched full of holes.
by train, by plane and automobile to come to Iraq and fight the >holy war there. Instead of Detroit, Houston and Pittsburgh PA.
Why can't you admit the simple truth, If they are over HERE. it's
because WE are over THERE ! And we meddled in THEIR affairs FIRST !
That's been going on since 1936 and it's the US, not just Bush->you just weren't paying attention before. You haven't been watching very closely.
Is that your way of saying you don't understand this cozy handholding
either ? Will you at least admit if the Saudis were trying to run the
OPEC scam in the US they could and would go to JAIL for it ? Bush's
relationship with these robber barons makes sense only because he has
visions of being a robber baron himself.
The Saudis play ball with us.
God help us of they ever decide to exploit their position as leader of
the biggest gang of crooks the world has ever seen.
I don't understand why a very small tail (Israel) is able to >wag a very large dog (the US)and fill the halls of Congress >with fear and trembling.
That's a long story, and it involves the Cold War more than anything
happening today.
Apparently that's your way of saying you don't understand it
either.
He was so sure that the Persian Gulf was going to be seized >that he formulated the Carter Doctrine, which outlined >America's willingness to go to thermal nuclear war over access >to the Straights of Hormuz.
America's groveling for oil is a contemptible thing and any decent
government would have taken steps to end it long ago.
But it doesn't, Silly Boy. Your ignorance is what irritates me. >But ignorance ain't stupidity, and it IS a reversible >condition.
Part of the fun in asking impertinent questions is seeing people who
are unable to address the message trying to demonize the messenger.
Have a nice day Artie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
31 Aug 2005 12:00:08 AM |
|
|
Bill McCarty wrote:
It ain't. It's my Iraq war and your Iraq war. Bush is my >servant. Yours too.
Iraq never attacked me and never attacked my country. Bush may hope
for support from all Americans when he makes a blunder. But hoping
and getting are two different things. LBJ looked for support for his
blunders too and went quietly into retirement when he failed to get it.
The idea of America is that you're not disenfranchised, even when you
didn't vote for the guy who gets in. However, it sounds a lot like
you feel disenfranchised.
Somebody attacked the United States, in the United States, September
11th, 2001.
Who was it? And why?
If this isn't central to your original Impertinent Question, I don't
know what is.
He had 75% approvals going into Iraq. And WMD's was only one of >three justifications given for the invasion.
Yes, it took a while before his lies were uncovered.
No, it didn't even take 3 months before the deception about the WMD's
was uncovered.
I know that Gops are STILL claiming that they might have been there all
along but were spirited away to Syria before, or right after, the
invasion.
This is very unlikely, to say the least.
The Iraqi WMD projects had all come to an end before 1995, and most, if
not all, stockpiles had been destroyed around that time.
However, I'll give the Gops this: had we not invaded, it was only a
matter of time before the WMD's reappeared. This much is almost
certain.
Dubya never "tied" Iraq to the 9/11 attacks.
Sorry Art. This is simply NOT TRUE. Google on the words Bush Iraq 9-11
and you'll find a DOZEN references to Bush linking Iraq to the 9-11
attack.
Bill, you can't just read the headers in a Google search. You have to
actually read the articles. And read them critically.
I did just as you suggested, and found the first 12 of those articles
stated flatly what I already wrote: Dubya never "tied" Iraq to the 9/11
attacks. Most say this in the first paragraphs.
Initially, his administration investigated Iraq in order to discover
any ties that might exist--and yes, they had previously considered
striking Iraq--but this was only prudent considering the dynamics and
how the situation there had degenerated since 1998.
But hell, /I/ was thinking Iraq the entire afternoon of 9/11, myself.
You woudn't have investigated and entertained the same options?
This investigation has been interpreted by many to mean that he was
seeking those ties.
True or not, and I'm not saying one way or the other, he never publicly
made a direct connection between them. Never.
Nor was a direct link necessary to justify bringing military action
against the regime in Baghdad, anyway.
Why attack Afghanistan? Only because it would make Mrs. Grundy >feel good about those nasty terrorists. Al Qaeda did you say?
I never mentioned Afghanistan or Al Queda. What's your point ?
My point is how are you gonna prevent another 9/11 style attack on US
soil?
Attacking Afghanistan isn't even a good first step.
Except that it plays well in Peoria.
But then, sending Capone to Alcatraz played well in Peoria too, and
even convinced a few hicks and rubes that the FBI was damaging the Mob.
Which it certainly was NOT. The Mob was stronger in Chicago and
elsewhere AFTER Capone was shoved out of the way.
Reports and estimates are conflicting and unreliable, but perhaps only
3,500 Taliban and so-called "al-Qaeda" fighters were killed there
during OPERATION: ENDURING FREEDOM. That leaves an estimated 30,000 to
70,000 to go. In as many as 20-70 different countries.
I was attempting to show how removing the Ba'athists in Iraq and
installing a legitimate Democratic Republic in Baghdad IS a good first
step.
But the war on terrorism isn't ONLY about The World Islamic >ront
I wish you Bushites would get a handle on the English language.
Terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. You can't fight a war against a
tactic. Part of our problem in the mid east is that we have never
gained a clear understanding of our objective or how to reach it.
I'm not a Bushite. I'm not even a Gop. If I happen to agree with you, I
don't really care what color your flag is. Same for any disagreements.
The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders
(so-called al-Qaeda) isn't a tactic, it's a multi-organization. The
Islamic Republic of Iran isn't a tactic, it's a militant nation
dedicated to spreading religious-based xenophobic nationalism
throughout the Islamic World.
While you can, indeed, fight a tactic, you can also fight an
organization and/or a nation.
Which is what the United States is doing. All at the same time.
It's about Mohammed Atta and the thousands like him that are
and have been breeding in the Middle East and Indonesia, and
Sudan and, well, all around the world for quite some time.
Yes, for about as long as we have been meddling in that part of the
world posing as peace brokers, while providing arms and money to
Islam's sworn enemy and maneuvering to grab as much oil as we can
get. It makes me ASHAMED of what we call our government. How can you
NOT be ashamed of our action there ?
Well, this is what I'd call tunnelvision of a sort. So I can't agree
with your premise enough to answer the question.
Firstly, most of America's imported oil comes from Cent-South America,
not the Persian Gulf.
Secondly, Saddam's main battle tank was the Soviet designed T-80. His
long range missiles came from Russia and North Korea. During the
Iran-Iraq war, we provided intelligence, non-military supplies and 40
Bell Helicopters. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, West Germany, France,
Argentina, the Soviets and China provided every thing else, like
bullets, missiles, bombs, guns and AFV's.
Thirdly, the Brits were in the Middle East long before the US.
The USSR was in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, etc., a long
time before we even had a foothold anywhere close. The CIA under
Kennedy, for instance, had to use young murderers like Saddam Hussein
in order to assassinate Soviet Agents in the area.
The Soviet Union had moved in and set up shop after WWII.
Uncle Sam was a Johnny-Come-Lately to Middle Eastern affairs.
We've ONLY armed Israel and Pahlavi's regime in Iran. We've NEVER been
on good enough terms with any other countries in the region to actually
trust them or ARM THEM (with very minor exceptions).
Israel and Iran under the Shah were often the only two states keeping
the region from complete Soviet Domination during the darkest years of
the Cold War.
The Persian Gulf is far more important to our allies than it is to us.
Carter sold some AWACS command and control planes to Saudi Arabia. The
next thing you know, they walked out of OPEC talks and blew the ceiling
off OPEC production restrictions. Kuwait followed suit. OPEC's
solidarity had come to an end. The price of oil came a tumblin' down.
Economies all over the world began to recover.
I'm supposed to be ashamed of pragmatism in our foreign policy? Psst:
Pragmatism is the only valid basis for foreign policy.
Anything else is self-defeating hypocrisy. The truth of which can be
demonstrated historically.
America had to invade Iraq.
Nonsense. Bush decided to go to war long before 9-11 and then ran
around looking for reasons to justify it.
Yes, China had made it impossible to resolve the long-standing crisis
in Iraq peacefully.
Military action had been the only viable solution there since the
mid-to late-90's.
His flunky, Perlowitz at the
Pentagon admitted frankly that WMD was the only plausible reason they
could advance for the war and so that was their story right up until
the moment it fell completely apart.
Not just plausible, it was the legal justification.
However, despite the fact that there were no longer WMD's in Iraq, it
is a fact that Iraq was not in compliance with the 1991 UN ceasefire
agreement. They were further warned that they were not in compliance
with UNSC Resolution 1441 (2002). They were told, repeatedly both
publicly and through diplomatic channels that they must comply with
1441 or face the gravest of consequences.
Maybe Saddam thought that Zemin would save him, even at the last. But
Beijing wasn't quite ready to go toe to toe with us.
Period.
The problem with your periods is that they don't seem to call an end
to anything.
And, in invading Iraq we well understood that Mohammed Atta, >where ever he might be these days, would take great pains to >get to Iraq by boat,.....
We understood nothing of the kind. Except that Sadam fought a war
against the Muslim extremists and wanted no part of them.
Bush's attempt to put them in bed together, was a fabrication at a
time when his other fabrications had been punched full of holes.
This opinion is not supportable. Abu Nidal and his organization were
operating out of Iraq from the mid-Eighties until Nidal's
assassination in 2002. Salman Pak was a military base used by the
Mukharabat to train foreign Islamic terrorists in, among other things,
techniques for hijacking commercial airliners. Mukharabat agents in
Germany and England engaged in terrorist attacks (though not against
random innocents) throughout the 90's. Saddam had sought ties with Bin
Laden, and his lieutenants met with Bin Laden operatives in the Sudan
in 1999.
Saddam wasn't the only Arab leader fearful of the Mullahs and their
expansionist regime in Tehran. He received much cooperation from Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait during the Iran-Iraq War. This doesn't mean
he, and they, didn't do business with Islamic terrorists. He and they
did. Hell, he even did business with Iran before and after the war.
CIA had discovered the hard way that Shi'ites and Sunnis could and
were cooperating in Islamic terrorists activities. This cooperation was
documented as early as 1983.
Saddam did business with Islamic terrorists. His Ba'ath connections
to Syrian Hamas and the PLO, for instance, are well understood.
Saddam's vision was a Pan-Arab State. Khomeini's vision was a
Pan-Islamic Caliphate. These ideals conflicted, yes. But all the
parties involved were/are also pragmatic.
by train, by plane and automobile to come to Iraq and fight the >holy war there. Instead of Detroit, Houston and Pittsburgh PA.
Why can't you admit the simple truth, If they are over HERE. it's
because WE are over THERE ! And we meddled in THEIR affairs FIRST !
Yes, well. Why not explain to us /why/ we meddled in their affairs? It
surely was NOT for no reason.
Explain what the Soviets were doing there first.
Explain why the Chinese are there now. And Bill, it's CHINA who kept
Saddam armed and a viable threat to the region throughout the UN
Sanctions. It was CHINA who has armed Iran both conventionally and gave
them the technology they needed to complete their own Atomic Bomb.
Explain the consequences for us, Western Europe, Japan, and the people
of the Middle East if we HADN'T interfered.
That's been going on since 1936 and it's the US, not just Bush->you just weren't paying attention before. You haven't been watching very closely.
Is that your way of saying you don't understand this cozy handholding
either ? Will you at least admit if the Saudis were trying to run the
OPEC scam in the US they could and would go to JAIL for it ? Bush's
relationship with these robber barons makes sense only because he has
visions of being a robber baron himself.
The record shows that Saudi Arabia helped end OPEC's stranglehold.
The Saudis play ball. Hell, /I'd/ hold the Prince's hand too.
The Saudis play ball with us.
God help us of they ever decide to exploit their position as leader of
the biggest gang of crooks the world has ever seen.
That's why we hold their hands.
Diplomacy is ALWAYS based on pragmatism.
Without pragmatism there is no peace, for instance.
I don't understand why a very small tail (Israel) is able to >wag a very large dog (the US)and fill the halls of Congress >with fear and trembling.
That's a long story, and it involves the Cold War more than anything
happening today.
Apparently that's your way of saying you don't understand it
either.
No, but this statement may be your way of saying that you're a little
hard of reading.
Bill, you're the one who asked the question. If ya don't like the
answer, then you should explain why. And be prepared to support your
position.
If ya wanna be taken seriously.
He was so sure that the Persian Gulf was going to be seized >that he formulated the Carter Doctrine, which outlined >America's willingness to go to thermal nuclear war over access >to the Straights of Hormuz.
America's groveling for oil is a contemptible thing and any decent
government would have taken steps to end it long ago.
You have a computer? It's made of oil. You know how many watts a 3
ghz processor pulls? Throw it away. Sell your house and rent a small
apartment within walking/bicycle distance of work. Go to bed at 8:00 pm
before it's completely dark. Stop eating canned goods because
they're all grown and shipped by using lots and lots of oil.
Processed foods, clothes, medicine-are you kidding?
Or invent a better way.
But stop waiting for government to give you better options. They
didn't discover oil, nor did they discover ways to use it. The IC
engine wasn't invented by a government. The government only knows how
to tax innovation, not how to achieve it.
Government's not the answer...you are.
And the Government's not to blame for providing a way for you to get
what you want. And you want that light bulb to light up when you flick
the switch.
Right now, all the Government can do is attempt to enforce the Carter
Doctrine (which is not exactly like groveling). It's what keeps it
all going, and keeps lights burning in Japan and Western Europe and in
the New Democracies in Eastern Europe.
And in doing so, it must put up with your complaints that it is doing
so. Like a dog biting the hand that feeds it. And your complaints
originate from your computer...which is virtually dripping with oil.
But it doesn't, Silly Boy. Your ignorance is what irritates me. >But ignorance ain't stupidity, and it IS a reversible >condition.
Part of the fun in asking impertinent questions is seeing people who
are unable to address the message trying to demonize the messenger.
Have a nice day Artie.
Demonizing the messenger? I did that by answering your
"impertinent" questions?
---
Art
.
|
|
|
| User: "marika" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
01 Sep 2005 06:37:56 PM |
|
|
Art wrote:
The idea of America is that you're not disenfranchised, even when you
didn't vote for the guy who gets in.
he is SO congenial. he lives in a building not too far from and I wish
I would see him in
the hallways and what not. but not yet
However, it sounds a lot like
you feel disenfranchised.
Somebody attacked the United States, in the United States, September
11th, 2001.
Who was it? And why?
If this isn't central to your original Impertinent Question, I don't
know what is.
He had 75% approvals going into Iraq. And WMD's was only one of >three justifications given for the invasion.
Yes, it took a while before his lies were uncovered.
No, it didn't even take 3 months before the deception about the WMD's
was uncovered.
I know that Gops are STILL claiming that they might have been there all
along but were spirited away to Syria before, or right after, the
invasion.
what doesn't add up is that three months ago, when this one gop first
took the
shuttle, he was going to the USDA for management classes for his new
role and was excited about his new management supervisor type job. i
asked him about this and none of it made sense
This is very unlikely, to say the least.
the fact that he is so distant now with me suggests he was forced out.
he
doesn't want to explain and or thinks i may know something
unfavorable. it just doesn't work that way.
mk5000
I have climbed the highest mountain
I have run through the fields
Only to be with you
Only to be with you
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chance Hopkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
26 Aug 2005 02:35:00 AM |
|
|
"Art" <arty_faque@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125033302.280340.239680@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill McCarty wrote:
According to Cindy Sheehan there would be no terrorism if the jews
got out of Palestine and the Americans got out of Iraq. What are the
chances of a serious examination of this view by the main stream media
in the US ?
So, the Diaspora should never have come to an end just so's you can
have some peace and quiet?
I don't see your dilemma: The adults are handling the situation for
you. Just go back to sleep and quit worrying about stuff you can't
understand.
Inferiority complex?
---
Art
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # Ninety Seven |
26 Aug 2005 12:17:57 AM |
|
|
On 25 Aug 2005 22:01:05 -0700, "Bill McCarty" <billmccarty@yahoo.com>
wrote:
According to Cindy Sheehan there would be no terrorism if the jews
got out of Palestine and the Americans got out of Iraq. What are the
chances of a serious examination of this view by the main stream media
in the US ?
There also would be no islamic terrorism if all Moslems were
slaughtered.
Sheehan is ignorant. There was terrorism before Israel and the US
presence in Iraq. There will be terrorism after.
--
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
