| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"DGVREIMAN" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2004 02:10:30 PM |
| Object: |
MUSLIMS MURDER VAN GOGH |
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:cmb28p$8gp$1@news.utelfla.com...
In rec.arts.tv FDR <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com>
quoted an entire
article to insert in the center:
: Bush should be forced to apologize for taking 1000 American
soldiers lives.
Do learn to use your editor, boy.
\
Doug Says: America is at war. Congress approved the war. The
war is being fought by our troops to protect and preserve the
sanctity and culture of the United States from radical Islam.
Radical Islam is at war with the world in a world-wide attempt to
force the world to adopt a religious ideology that is so
draconian and idiotic it forces entire nations to return to the
philosophy of the backward 8th Century. Radical Islam will not
allow any of their followers to read more than one book. The
women of radical Islamists are slaves, or worse.
When anyone produces a film or book that tells the truth about
radical Islam (such as Herr Theo Van Gogh's Dutch Film
"Submission") that producer or author is targeted to be murdered
by the radical Muslim clerics. Mr. Van Gogh was murdered over
his film titled "Submission"- that makes "Submission" a must see
for the rest of the world. That flim tells the truth in respect
to how Muslim's treat their women and I was contacted personally
by Mr. Van Gogh's staff in respect to an article I wrote in that
respect about two years past.
Europe has embraced these Muslim monsters and now, as Theo Van
Gogh's murder exemplifies, Europe must lie in the bed it made for
itself by refusing to fight these radical Muslim maniacs.
During war, soldiers are killed and civilians are killed. If
there were not casualties, it would not be called war. Our
congress and our military knew that some of the lives of our most
loyal, most brave, would be lost in this war when they declared
war was necessary after the 911 massacres. The amazing fact is
that although President Bush has managed to liberate 50 million
people, turn two enemy nations into two staunch allies, and he
did it all with less casualties than the Democrats lost in a
single week of combat in Vietnam, speaks volumes toward the Bush
victories being the most one sided and successful military
missions in the history of the United States. If you know of any
better, then post them.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
| User: "Thomas Curmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: MUSLIMS MURDER VAN GOGH |
06 Nov 2004 08:15:30 AM |
|
|
DGVREIMAN wrote:
Our
congress and our military knew that some of the lives of our most
loyal, most brave, would be lost in this war when they declared
war was necessary after the 911 massacres.
Congress did not declare war against Iraq. It gave the president the
power to conduct necessary actions to protect the US.
The amazing fact is
that although President Bush has managed to liberate 50 million
people,
He's "liberated" 100,000. Whoever is in Iraq, and still living, is not
liberated.
Soon enough they'll be living in a theocratic Islamic country, certainly
not free. This is supposedly what we liberated the Afghanis from, but
what we will have caused the Iraqi's to be subjected to.
But what the hell, that's what these Christain extremists whant for the
United States.
turn two enemy nations into two staunch allies,
Yes, they welcome us with open arms. Can't you tell by the roadside bombs?
As long as "we" can choose their leader and government there will be a
semblance of commaraderie. But if we allow them the democracy they wre
promised, they'll become another Iran, and officially express their real
disdain for us.
and he
did it all with less casualties than the Democrats lost in a
single week of combat in Vietnam,
Maybe if you get to choose the week.
How big of you to dismiss over 1000 dead Americans, killed in an illegal
war that never should have been. Typical chicken ***** chicken hawk.
speaks volumes toward the Bush
victories being the most one sided and successful military
missions in the history of the United States. If you know of any
better, then post them.
I'm sure there are. But you seem to assume that these military actions
are finished, that American lives are safe and secure. We quite possibly
ain't seen nothing yet.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: MUSLIMS MURDER VAN GOGH |
06 Nov 2004 01:56:30 PM |
|
|
"Thomas Curmudgeon" <eat@spam.yum> wrote in message
news:L_4jd.213032$a85.117181@fed1read04...
DGVREIMAN wrote:
Our
congress and our military knew that some of the lives of our
most
loyal, most brave, would be lost in this war when they
declared
war was necessary after the 911 massacres.
Congress did not declare war against Iraq. It gave the
president the power to conduct necessary actions to protect the
US.
Doug Says: Congress gave the President the *option* to use
military force to remove Saddam. This authorization was provided
under the War Powers Act. Obviously, Congress resolved that
based upon President Bush's *exclusive* option, without the
requirement to return to Congress, a war could be waged in Iraq.
(If you wish I will post the actual Resolution). Congress also
approved, one year earlier, a Resolution allowing the President
at his *exclusive option* again, to use military force against
all international terrorists and against all those that aid or
harbor terrorists. Saddam clearly was targeted by both war
resolutions passed by Congress.
The amazing fact is
that although President Bush has managed to liberate 50
million
people,
He's "liberated" 100,000. Whoever is in Iraq, and still living,
is not liberated.
Soon enough they'll be living in a theocratic Islamic country,
certainly not free. This is supposedly what we liberated the
Afghanis from, but what we will have caused the Iraqi's to be
subjected to.
But what the hell, that's what these Christain extremists whant
for the United States.
Doug Says: The Afghans were liberated from the Taliban, and the
Iraqis were liberated from Saddam. The Iranians are trying to
take over, and they will fail and be defeated. Then we will
liberate the Iranians.
turn two enemy nations into two staunch allies,
Yes, they welcome us with open arms. Can't you tell by the
roadside bombs?
Doug Says: The Iraqi Army and Police force are fighting along
side our troops against invaders into their country. These
invaders are terrorists, and we would be fighting them anyway.
Of course Iraq and Afghanistan are now American allies. And of
course we are all fighting a common enemy - radical Islam.
As long as "we" can choose their leader and government there
will be a semblance of commaraderie. But if we allow them the
democracy they wre promised, they'll become another Iran, and
officially express their real disdain for us.
Doug Says: There are three factions in Iraq. Kurd, Sunni, and
Shiite. The Iraq Constitution does not allow any religious order
to take control of the Government. So clearly Iraq cannot become
another Iran, and since we must address the Iranian problem and
soon, it is more likely that Iran will become more like Iraq, a
Democracy in the making. That is not to say we won't have
trouble with the goons in Iran and Iraq, but their days are
numbered once the draconian government of Iran has been toppled.
and he
did it all with less casualties than the Democrats lost in a
single week of combat in Vietnam,
Maybe if you get to choose the week.
How big of you to dismiss over 1000 dead Americans, killed in
an illegal war that never should have been. Typical chicken
***** chicken hawk.
Doug Says: Congress approved this war - it is not illegal.
Moreover, I dismiss nothing. I do however, deal in the reality
that some wars are necessary, and in war we will suffer
casualties.
speaks volumes toward the Bush
victories being the most one sided and successful military
missions in the history of the United States. If you know of
any
better, then post them.
I'm sure there are. But you seem to assume that these military
actions are finished, that American lives are safe and secure.
We quite possibly ain't seen nothing yet.
Doug Says: There will be mop up operations in both Iraq and
Afghanistan for years to come, but that will be mostly handled by
Iraqi and Afghanistan Armies and police - with American air power
in support. The main action to come is with Iran. Iran, at this
time, is trying to buy time and it will agree to anything and
promise everything to the French, Germans and Brits, and then
continue to secretly build their nuclear bombs. If Iran allows
us to *verify* their actions, and they dismantle their bomb
making equipment, then and only then will we avoid a war with
Iran in the next couple of years - however, we will be required
at some time in the future to invade Iran if their screaming loon
Government stays intact.
But first, Fallujah must fall - and then Iran.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thelasian" |
|
| Title: Re: MUSLIMS MURDER VAN GOGH |
07 Nov 2004 12:59:48 AM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message news:<a-adneJTSc32sRDcRVn-2g@comcast.com>...
"Thomas Curmudgeon" <eat@spam.yum> wrote in message
news:L_4jd.213032$a85.117181@fed1read04...
DGVREIMAN wrote:
Our
congress and our military knew that some of the lives of our
most
loyal, most brave, would be lost in this war when they
declared
war was necessary after the 911 massacres.
Congress did not declare war against Iraq. It gave the
president the power to conduct necessary actions to protect the
US.
Doug Says: Congress gave the President the *option* to use
military force to remove Saddam. This authorization was provided
under the War Powers Act. Obviously, Congress resolved that
based upon President Bush's *exclusive* option, without the
requirement to return to Congress, a war could be waged in Iraq.
(If you wish I will post the actual Resolution). Congress also
approved, one year earlier, a Resolution allowing the President
at his *exclusive option* again, to use military force against
all international terrorists and against all those that aid or
harbor terrorists. Saddam clearly was targeted by both war
resolutions passed by Congress.
The amazing fact is
that although President Bush has managed to liberate 50
million
people,
He's "liberated" 100,000. Whoever is in Iraq, and still living,
is not liberated.
Soon enough they'll be living in a theocratic Islamic country,
certainly not free. This is supposedly what we liberated the
Afghanis from, but what we will have caused the Iraqi's to be
subjected to.
But what the hell, that's what these Christain extremists whant
for the United States.
Doug Says: The Afghans were liberated from the Taliban, and the
Iraqis were liberated from Saddam. The Iranians are trying to
take over, and they will fail and be defeated. Then we will
liberate the Iranians.
turn two enemy nations into two staunch allies,
Yes, they welcome us with open arms. Can't you tell by the
roadside bombs?
Doug Says: The Iraqi Army and Police force are fighting along
side our troops against invaders into their country. These
invaders are terrorists, and we would be fighting them anyway.
Of course Iraq and Afghanistan are now American allies. And of
course we are all fighting a common enemy - radical Islam.
As long as "we" can choose their leader and government there
will be a semblance of commaraderie. But if we allow them the
democracy they wre promised, they'll become another Iran, and
officially express their real disdain for us.
Doug Says: There are three factions in Iraq. Kurd, Sunni, and
Shiite. The Iraq Constitution does not allow any religious order
to take control of the Government. So clearly Iraq cannot become
another Iran, and since we must address the Iranian problem and
soon, it is more likely that Iran will become more like Iraq, a
Democracy in the making. That is not to say we won't have
trouble with the goons in Iran and Iraq, but their days are
numbered once the draconian government of Iran has been toppled.
and he
did it all with less casualties than the Democrats lost in a
single week of combat in Vietnam,
Maybe if you get to choose the week.
How big of you to dismiss over 1000 dead Americans, killed in
an illegal war that never should have been. Typical chicken
***** chicken hawk.
Doug Says: Congress approved this war - it is not illegal.
Moreover, I dismiss nothing. I do however, deal in the reality
that some wars are necessary, and in war we will suffer
casualties.
speaks volumes toward the Bush
victories being the most one sided and successful military
missions in the history of the United States. If you know of
any
better, then post them.
I'm sure there are. But you seem to assume that these military
actions are finished, that American lives are safe and secure.
We quite possibly ain't seen nothing yet.
Doug Says: There will be mop up operations in both Iraq and
Afghanistan for years to come, but that will be mostly handled by
Iraqi and Afghanistan Armies and police - with American air power
in support. The main action to come is with Iran. Iran, at this
time, is trying to buy time and it will agree to anything and
promise everything to the French, Germans and Brits, and then
continue to secretly build their nuclear bombs. If Iran allows
us to *verify* their actions, and they dismantle their bomb
making equipment, then and only then will we avoid a war with
Iran in the next couple of years - however, we will be required
at some time in the future to invade Iran if their screaming loon
Government stays intact.
Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some
facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned:
1- The Bushehr reactor--which was started under the Shah with US
support--is not a weapons proliferation threat since it is a
lightwater
reactor which is under IAEA safeguard. Even the IAEA itself admits
that much.
Proof:
UN clears Iran nuclear facility
The head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has said
Russia's nuclear co-operation with Iran is no longer a matter of
concern.
(SOURCE: BBC Online Tuesday, 29 June, 2004)
2- Note how news articles confuse a nuclear "weapons" program with
a plain "nuclear program". In fact according to Article 4 of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an "INALIENABLE RIGHT"
to possess nuclear technology, as does any othe country. Several other
nations use the same technology too, such as Brazil and Holland and
Japan. So a nuclear program is not the same as a nuclear weapons
program.
3- A common refrain is that Iran's nuclear program can't possibly be
for anything except weapons because Iran has so much oil and natural
gas. In fact Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive
oil and gas because of rising domestic consumption and the reliance on
the sale oil and gas for earning hard currency. The Stanford Research
Institute advised the Shah's government that Iran could not rely on
oil and gas for energy way back in the mid 1970's. Other nations which
have extensive oil and gas resources also have nuclear energy - such
as Russia and the USA. Iran has also been experimenting with
geothermal energy and wind-turbines, as well as building its largest
hydroengery dam.
4- There is in fact no evidence of an actual nuclear WEAPONS program
in Iran, as admitted by the IAEA itself - there is only the INFERENCE
that Iran COULD ONE DAY POSSIBLY use the civilian technology that it
has a right to posses, to build a nuclear weapon IF it needs to do so.
Needless to say, ANY TECHNOLOGY "could" be used to make nukes, and so
could any country. And the reason why Iran would want to build nukes
is to DEFEND ITSELF.
Proof:
"IAEA: No evidence of Iran nukes
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has found 'no
evidence' Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons...
SOURCE: AP Monday, November 10, 2003
" 'The United States has no concrete evidence of a nuclear-weapons
program,' Albright told me. 'It's just an inference. There's no
smoking gun.' "
SOURCE: New Yorker by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Issue of 2004-06-28
"One Vienna-based diplomat who follows the IAEA expressed concern that
hard-liners from the United States and some of its allies were
conducting a smear campaign against Iran that was similar to what it
did to Iraq before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam
Hussein...David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and
president of the Institute for Science and International Security
(ISIS) believes Tehran wants to keep the nuclear option open, but said
the United States had a weak case for its view that Tehran is rushing
to complete an atomic bomb. 'They have weak evidence. I think even
(the U.S. hard-liners) are worried they don't have a case," Albright
said, adding that the U.S. policy of confronting and isolating Iran
was 'bankrupt' and might push Iran to rush to get the bomb. 'The
hard-liners in the U.S. could really trigger Iran to race to get a
nuclear weapon,' he added."
SOURCE: REUTERS Mon Aug 23, 2004
FURTHERMORE, the traces of enriched uranium found in Iran were shown
to be from contamination, just as Iran claimed.
U.N. traces uranium to tainted equipment.
Findings Could Hurt U.S. Effort On Iran
By Dafna Linzer
(The Washington Post Wednesday 11 August 2004 )
5- Iran can't be compared to Iraq: The bombing of Iraq's Osirak
reactor did not signficantly affect Iraq's nuclear program, since the
centrifuge sites were not bombed. If anything, it encouraged them to
speed up the process. But in any case, Iran has signed the Additional
Protocol which permits IAEA inspections anywhere-anytime, and Iraq had
not. Iraq also used chemical weapons and invaded its neighbors- with
the
blessing and support of the USA, by the way.
6- In fact, according to the NonProliferation Treaty, not only is Iran
entitled to have nuclear technology, but other countries are required
to share their nuclear technology. That was the quid-pro-quo that the
nuclear-haves and have-nots agreed upon when they signed the NPT.
However, the nuclear-haves are not living up to their side of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty bargain.
7- Don't mix up Iran and North Korea either: Currently, Iran has
signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and its nuclear installations are
all under IAEA safeguards - unlike North Korea.
8- If Iran is attacked, Iran will withdraw from the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (as it is legally do pursuant to Article X) and will start
working on a nuclear weapons program in earnest. Centrifuge sites will
pop up like mushrooms all over the country - too many to be bombed -
and the IAEA inspectors will not be around to check them. Within 6
mos. the first nuclear test will occur, and within a year Iran's
missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads.
9- The people of Iran will rally to support their government if Iran
is attacked, as their nationalism is stirred by such an act. Iran's
decision to develop nuclear deterrence will occur with the full
support of the people of the government too, so changing governments
will not change the decision to build nukes. Iranians know that their
country has a right to nuclear technology, they are proud of their
nuclear accomplishments, and have a long history of resenting foreign
superpowers trying to deprive them of their rights.
10- Attacking Iran's nuclear installations will prove once and for all
to the people of Iran the necessity of obtaining nuclear weapons as a
deterrence. There are already many Iranians who believe that Iran
should withdraw from the NonProliferation Treaty since the US has
failed to abide by ITS OWN obligations under the same treaty (to share
nuclear technology,
and to get rid of its own nuclear weapons)and the US has also embarked
on a program to make "user-friendly" mini-nukes instead (which are
more likely to be actually used.) Furthermore, Iran is surrounded by
nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable states that threaten Iran's security.
So yes, by all means, go ahead and bomb or try to invade Iran and see
what happens.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Big Bush Mandate" |
|
| Title: Re: MUSLIMS MURDER VAN GOGH |
06 Nov 2004 08:25:36 AM |
|
|
"Thomas Curmudgeon" <eat@spam.yum> wrote in message
news:L_4jd.213032$a85.117181@fed1read04...
DGVREIMAN wrote:
Our
congress and our military knew that some of the lives of our most
loyal, most brave, would be lost in this war when they declared
war was necessary after the 911 massacres.
Congress did not declare war against Iraq. It gave the president the power
to conduct necessary actions to protect the US.
The amazing fact is
that although President Bush has managed to liberate 50 million
people,
He's "liberated" 100,000.
No, he has liberated 50,000,000.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
