| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?4pi6IC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuwrc6KsKowqgqOsK3LiAg4pmlIFdvcmxkIFdhciBJSUkgMjAwNywgVGhlIExhc3QgMjAwMCBEYXlzLi4uSE9PUk9PICEgIC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuIOKZpeKYusKpwq7ihKI=?=" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2007 09:39:38 PM |
| Object: |
Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/17/c=
ontent_5614757.htm
Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103
www.chinaview.cn 2007-01-17 05:11:02
Special report: Tension escalates in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) -- A series of deadly attacks in Baghdad
killed at least 103 people and injured more that 240 on Tuesday,
casting shadows on security operation between the Iraqi government and
U=2ES. forces to curb violence.
Two car bombs and a suicide bomber killed 65 people and wounded132
near a university in eastern Baghdad, a well-informed Interior Ministry
official told Xinhua.
The blasts occurred at around 4:00 p.m. (1300 GMT) while many
students and employees in Al-Mustansriyah University, who finished
their courses and work, were waiting at an entrance for minibuses and
cars to take them home, the official said on condition of anonymity.
Two explosive-laden cars went off in short succession, killing
dozens of people. While many scared people were fleeing the scene,a
suicide bomber blew himself up, causing heavy casualties, the official
added.
Meanwhile, gunmen in a minivan and on two motorcycles sprayed
shoppers at a market in eastern Baghdad with automatic gunfire, killing
15 people and injuring 20, a police source told Xinhua.
Early in the morning, a roadside bomb went off near a police patrol
in central Baghdad, leaving four people dead and 10 others wounded.
At around midday, twin blasts near a Sunni mosque in Bab al-Sheikh
neighborhood in central Baghdad killed 15 people and injured 70 others.
Two hours later, a bomb-rigged minibus went off in Sadr City in
eastern Baghdad, killing four people and wounding 10 others.
The attacks coincided with a report released by the United Nations
that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in violence last year.
"The situation is particularly grave in Baghdad, where most
casualties and unidentified bodies that are daily recorded also bear
signs of torture," Gianni Magazzeni, the UN human rights chief in Iraq,
told reporters on Tuesday.
Magazzeni said the UN figures were compiled from information
obtained from the Iraqi Health Ministry, operation centers at hospitals
across the country and other agencies.
He rapped the Iraqi government for failing to curb violence and
blamed some militias, active inside police and army, for killings and
sectarian attacks.
"Without significant progress in the rule of law, sectarian
violence will continue indefinitely and eventually spiral out of
control," Magazzeni warned.
The latest carnage came days before Iraqi authorities and U.S.
forces are going to carry out a new security plan in Baghdad to crack
down on illegal militants from all sectors.
U.S. President George W. Bush also pledged to send additional
21,500 soldiers to Iraq, most of them to Baghdad. However, many doubt
if it will work.
Related:
UN: More than 34,000 Iraqis killed in 2006
BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) -- The United Nations said Tuesday that
more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed and about 35,600 people wounded in
2006.
The UN human rights report released here Tuesday said that last
year at least 34,452 Iraqis were killed and 35,685 people were wounded
in daily acts of violence across Iraq.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Center for Research on Globalization or your
dear old Uncle Wally for that matter.....HOOROO !
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=3DviewArticle&code=3D2007011=
5&articleId=3D4462
Bush=E2=80=99s New Plan: More Troops, More Death, More =E2=80=93 and Wider =
=E2=80=93 War
Global Research, January 15, 2007
rwor.org
In the face of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, tens of thousands
of U.S. military casualties, mounting difficulties in Iraq and the
Middle East, deepening divisions in the ruling class, and growing
anti-war opposition, last night Bush outlined his long-awaited =E2=80=9Cnew
plan.=E2=80=9D Escalation: more, potentially much more, of the same: more
troops, more death, more crimes, and more war =E2=80=93 possibly much more
and much wider war involving Iran and Syria. It means escalating and
intensifying the current, horrific dynamic between imperialist
McWorld/McCrusade on one hand and Islamic fundamentalist jihad on the
other. None of it is in the interests of the people =E2=80=93 in Iraq, in t=
he
U=2ES., or in the world.
While making a show of admitting certain mistakes and failures, and
appealing for bipartisan unity (on his terms) among the U.S. rulers,
Bush threw down a gauntlet of more death and sacrifice to those who
oppose the war: =E2=80=9CThe year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice
and resolve.=E2=80=9D
The New York Times (Jan 11) called it a huge presidential political
gamble: =E2=80=9CNot since Richard M. Nixon ordered American troops in
Vietnam to invade Cambodia in 1970 has a president taken such a risk
with an increasingly unpopular war.=E2=80=9D What makes Bush think he can g=
et
away with this? =E2=80=9CBush is taking a calculated gamble that no matter
how much hue and cry his new strategy may provoke,=E2=80=9D another New York
Times analysis noted, =E2=80=9Cin the end the American people will give him
more time to turn around the war in Iraq and Congress will not have the
political nerve to thwart him by cutting off money for the war.=E2=80=9D
So the question =E2=80=93 and the challenge =E2=80=93 is this: what are the=
people
going to do now? Our answer =E2=80=93 delivered by millions =E2=80=93 must =
be like
what millions did following the invasion of Cambodia: a resounding No!
An outpouring demanding this war stop =E2=80=93 now! And repudiating the
whole Bush program and demanding this criminal regime be driven from
power.
Much of Bush=E2=80=99s actual plan was left intentionally =E2=80=93 and omi=
nously
=E2=80=93 vague. He said another 21,500 troops would be sent to Iraq to
=E2=80=9Cstabilize=E2=80=9D Baghdad and step up attacks on anti-occupation =
Sunnis
in Anbar province. He claimed the Iraqi government would take steps
with the U.S. to halt sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias and
achieve =E2=80=9Cbenchmarks=E2=80=9D of stability, rebuilding and economic
development. He said this plan would succeed where previous plans had
failed. And he also made new threats against Iran and Syria.
This whole plan promises more bloody escalation =E2=80=93 in Iraq and beyon=
d=2E
With the torture of Abu Ghraib and the leveling of cities like Fallujah
in mind, it was chilling to hear Bush complain there had been =E2=80=9Ctoo
many restrictions=E2=80=9D on the actions of U.S. forces in the past. With
images of thousands of Iraqis rounded up and detained, innocent
civilians murdered at U.S. or Iraqi government checkpoints, and bodies
murdered in sectarian violence littering Baghdad streets, often
murdered by Iraqi death squads operating out of the police and
military, it was chilling to hear Bush promise: =E2=80=9CIraqi forces will
operate from local police stations; conducting patrols, setting up
checkpoints, and going door- to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad
residents.=E2=80=9D Bush=E2=80=99s complaint about =E2=80=9Crestrictions=E2=
=80=9D also implied
a threat to go after the Mahdi Army militia of Shia cleric Moqtada
Sadr, perhaps opening a second =E2=80=93 Shia =E2=80=93 front in the U.S.=
=E2=80=99s war
on the Iraqi people.
Even more ominously, Bush threatened a wider war in the region,
possibly direct attacks on Syria and Iran. After blaming them for
=E2=80=9Callowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move =
in
and out of Iraq=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cproviding material support for attack=
s on
American troops,=E2=80=9D Bush warned, =E2=80=9CWe will disrupt the attacks=
on our
forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And
we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry
and training to our enemies in Iraq.=E2=80=9D Would this mean attacks on
Iranians in Iraq? On the border? In Iran itself? This was left
intentionally vague. Bush also stated he had deployed another aircraft
carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf and was stepping up military
coordination with other pro-U.S. regimes in the region. MSNBC
Commentator Keith Olbermann noted that Bush was expanding the
=E2=80=9Cplaying field=E2=80=9D of the war, from Iraq to Iran. And the rece=
nt
shake-up of Bush=E2=80=99s war cabinet also points to a growing U.S. focus =
on
Iran and growing danger of an expanded war.
Bush also promised to =E2=80=9Cincrease the size of the active Army and
Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st
century.=E2=80=9D Bush couched all this as a great struggle between =E2=80=
=9Cthose
who believe in freedom and moderation=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cextremists who =
kill the
innocent.=E2=80=9D As we=E2=80=99ve analyzed in these pages, the entire U.S=
.. war on
Iraq =E2=80=93 and its =E2=80=9Cwar on terror=E2=80=9D have been based on l=
ies,
half-truths, and distortions in service of the needs of U.S.
imperialism. Now Bush=E2=80=99s pledge for an expanded military can only me=
an
more wars, more death, and more destruction =E2=80=93 over wider swaths of
the globe, in an attempt to solidify and expand the U.S. empire against
the needs and wishes of billions around the world.
Bush warned =E2=80=9Cin Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are
engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global
war on terror.=E2=80=9D Indeed, what happens in Iraq and the Middle East are
central =E2=80=93 not to the hopes and needs of humanity =E2=80=93 but to t=
he U.S.
rulers=E2=80=99 drive for unchallenged and unchallengeable global dominance.
The stakes are huge for them, and Bush=E2=80=99s new escalation is a huge
gamble =E2=80=93 one commentator called it double-or-nothing =E2=80=93 which
carries with it enormous risks and no guarantee of success.
Bush=E2=80=99s actions starkly illustrate the fact that U.S. democracy is
actually a dictatorship of a capitalist-imperialist ruling class,
overseen by not one, but two political parties representing the needs
and interests of that system. In November, millions voted resoundingly
against the war, yet last night that vote counted for nothing. Bush was
making the decisions, he told us, based on his understanding of the
needs of the system, regardless of what the people want. In fact, it
has been reported that his =E2=80=9Csurge=E2=80=9D of troops was underway e=
ven
before his speech.
And finally, it was also clear that nothing good will come out of this
situation unless millions of people take the responsibility to stop
this criminal carnage. The opposition Democrats complained about
Bush=E2=80=99s speech and new plans =E2=80=93 reflecting their real concern=
s as
part of the political establishment that the gambit might backfire, as
well as their needs to contain the anger of millions whose faith in the
political order is being shaken. Yet they were unwilling =E2=80=93 or unable
=E2=80=93 to take a stand fully in opposition to the war, much less to put
forward a plan for actually stopping it.
Anyone listening to Bush=E2=80=99s speech, the Democrats=E2=80=99 response =
and the
subsequent discussion in the bourgeois media didn=E2=80=99t hear anyone
demanding this war stop, that it stop now, and the whole criminal cabal
who launched it =E2=80=93 and have committed many other crimes =E2=80=93 be
impeached and/or driven from power.
Most Democrats who commented on Bush=E2=80=99s speech agreed with the basic
terms he had laid out =E2=80=93 even blaming Iraqis, not the U.S., for the
growing catastrophe. Senator ***** Durbin, who gave the official
Democratic Party response, complained that the Iraqis shouldn=E2=80=99t be
allowed to =E2=80=9Ccall 911" for American support every time they need help
=E2=80=93 as if the Iraqis forced the U.S. to illegally invade their countr=
y,
based on WMD lies, and wreak death and destruction.
Presidential candidate Barack Obama declared the U.S. had done
everything imaginable for the Iraqi people, and he wasn=E2=80=99t going to
=E2=80=9Cre-litigate=E2=80=9D the war. In other words, there would be no di=
scussion
of, let alone accountability for, the war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed by the U.S. in launching and carrying out the war
and occupation and that have shaped its very nature, objectives, and
results. He agreed with Bush on =E2=80=9Cbenchmarks=E2=80=9D for the Iraqi
government, and that there was nothing wrong with =E2=80=9Cmaking sure=E2=
=80=9D
that Iran and Syria weren=E2=80=99t making =E2=80=9Cmischief=E2=80=9D in Ir=
aq. He
promised the Democrats would not =E2=80=9Cstrand=E2=80=9D U.S. troops in Ir=
aq, who
would be assured of =E2=80=9Call the resources necessary=E2=80=9D for their=
safety
and accomplish their missions. And he agreed with Bush that Iraq
wasn=E2=80=99t a Democratic or a Republican problem, it was an =E2=80=9CAme=
rican
problem=E2=80=9D and he wanted to be part of a =E2=80=9Csolution.=E2=80=9D
Even those Democrats who may genuinely oppose the war as a catastrophe
for U.S. power and influence, and want to see it ended, are lashed to
the same strategic imperial necessities confronting Bush =E2=80=93 including
support for the U.S. military and the troops =E2=80=93 and the fear that, as
Bush stated, the consequences of failure are so enormous for the rulers
they can=E2=80=99t afford to lose.
Senator Ted Kennedy introduced legislation requiring Congressional
approval before troop levels can be increased. Yet when asked if the
Democrats would block funding for the =E2=80=9Csurge,=E2=80=9D he acknowled=
ged they
wouldn=E2=80=99t and the vote would be largely symbolic: =E2=80=9CThe horse=
will be
out of the barn by the time we get there.=E2=80=9D The request for money
would come at the end of January or in early February and would take
another two months for Congress to act. =E2=80=9CBy that time, the troops
will already be there,=E2=80=9D he said. =E2=80=9CAnd then we=E2=80=99ll be=
asked, are we
going to deny the body armor to the young men and women over there?=E2=80=
=9D
The Democrats have proven unwilling to fully unleash the one force that
could stop this war =E2=80=93 the millions who hate the war. Even Time
magazine summed up that the Democrats were =E2=80=9Cmore bark than bite=E2=
=80=9D on
Iraq. This amounts to fiddling while Bush burns down Iraq and the
Middle East.
The time is now for millions to clearly confront what this escalation
means and to act decisively. To confront the fact that =E2=80=9CU.S.
interests=E2=80=9D is a euphemism for U.S. imperialist domination of the
Middle East. To break with the notion that people in Iraq, the Middle
East or in the U.S. should make common cause with these global
marauders and death merchants.
We=E2=80=99ve seen what this war is about and the carnage that results. An
estimated 655,000 Iraqis have already paid for this U.S. invasion and
occupation with their lives. How many more Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, and
U=2ES. lives will be spent in the U.S. rulers' imperial pursuit? Everyone
must now do more, much more, to stop this war and this regime =E2=80=93 to
take responsibility for this great, historic effort; to sacrifice for
it; and to put ourselves on the line for it. Not to do so now, after
this war=E2=80=99s horror and criminality have been made clearer and cleare=
r,
would amount to immoral complicity in the countless deaths and untold
destruction that are coming.
And the opposite is also true. The Bush regime has never been more
isolated from the people and more exposed. More and more are turning
against the war with every new Bush lie, and every new Bush horror.
Those feelings must now be turned into active, militant, determined and
courageous opposition. That =E2=80=93 and nothing short of that =E2=80=93 c=
ould
change everything =E2=80=93 unleashing a new and liberating force in
unimaginable ways =E2=80=93 and stop this regime and end its unbounded,
ongoing, and escalating war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Center for Research on Globalization or your
dear old Uncle Wally for that matter.....HOOROO !
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
16 Jan 2007 10:25:40 PM |
|
|
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia killes a
Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for eternity?
J.
"? .·:*¨¨*:·.·:*¨¨*:·. ? World War III 2007, The Last 2000 Days...HOOROO !
..·:*¨¨*:·. ??©®T" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> a écrit dans le message de
news: 1169005177.990895.48030@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/17/content_5614757.htm
Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103
www.chinaview.cn 2007-01-17 05:11:02
Special report: Tension escalates in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) -- A series of deadly attacks in Baghdad
killed at least 103 people and injured more that 240 on Tuesday,
casting shadows on security operation between the Iraqi government and
U.S. forces to curb violence.
Two car bombs and a suicide bomber killed 65 people and wounded132
near a university in eastern Baghdad, a well-informed Interior Ministry
official told Xinhua.
The blasts occurred at around 4:00 p.m. (1300 GMT) while many
students and employees in Al-Mustansriyah University, who finished
their courses and work, were waiting at an entrance for minibuses and
cars to take them home, the official said on condition of anonymity.
Two explosive-laden cars went off in short succession, killing
dozens of people. While many scared people were fleeing the scene,a
suicide bomber blew himself up, causing heavy casualties, the official
added.
Meanwhile, gunmen in a minivan and on two motorcycles sprayed
shoppers at a market in eastern Baghdad with automatic gunfire, killing
15 people and injuring 20, a police source told Xinhua.
Early in the morning, a roadside bomb went off near a police patrol
in central Baghdad, leaving four people dead and 10 others wounded.
At around midday, twin blasts near a Sunni mosque in Bab al-Sheikh
neighborhood in central Baghdad killed 15 people and injured 70 others.
Two hours later, a bomb-rigged minibus went off in Sadr City in
eastern Baghdad, killing four people and wounding 10 others.
The attacks coincided with a report released by the United Nations
that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in violence last year.
"The situation is particularly grave in Baghdad, where most
casualties and unidentified bodies that are daily recorded also bear
signs of torture," Gianni Magazzeni, the UN human rights chief in Iraq,
told reporters on Tuesday.
Magazzeni said the UN figures were compiled from information
obtained from the Iraqi Health Ministry, operation centers at hospitals
across the country and other agencies.
He rapped the Iraqi government for failing to curb violence and
blamed some militias, active inside police and army, for killings and
sectarian attacks.
"Without significant progress in the rule of law, sectarian
violence will continue indefinitely and eventually spiral out of
control," Magazzeni warned.
The latest carnage came days before Iraqi authorities and U.S.
forces are going to carry out a new security plan in Baghdad to crack
down on illegal militants from all sectors.
U.S. President George W. Bush also pledged to send additional
21,500 soldiers to Iraq, most of them to Baghdad. However, many doubt
if it will work.
Related:
UN: More than 34,000 Iraqis killed in 2006
BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) -- The United Nations said Tuesday that
more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed and about 35,600 people wounded in
2006.
The UN human rights report released here Tuesday said that last
year at least 34,452 Iraqis were killed and 35,685 people were wounded
in daily acts of violence across Iraq.
======================================================
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Center for Research on Globalization or your
dear old Uncle Wally for that matter.....HOOROO !
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070115&articleId=4462
Bush's New Plan: More Troops, More Death, More - and Wider - War
Global Research, January 15, 2007
rwor.org
In the face of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, tens of thousands
of U.S. military casualties, mounting difficulties in Iraq and the
Middle East, deepening divisions in the ruling class, and growing
anti-war opposition, last night Bush outlined his long-awaited "new
plan." Escalation: more, potentially much more, of the same: more
troops, more death, more crimes, and more war - possibly much more
and much wider war involving Iran and Syria. It means escalating and
intensifying the current, horrific dynamic between imperialist
McWorld/McCrusade on one hand and Islamic fundamentalist jihad on the
other. None of it is in the interests of the people - in Iraq, in the
U.S., or in the world.
While making a show of admitting certain mistakes and failures, and
appealing for bipartisan unity (on his terms) among the U.S. rulers,
Bush threw down a gauntlet of more death and sacrifice to those who
oppose the war: "The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice
and resolve."
The New York Times (Jan 11) called it a huge presidential political
gamble: "Not since Richard M. Nixon ordered American troops in
Vietnam to invade Cambodia in 1970 has a president taken such a risk
with an increasingly unpopular war." What makes Bush think he can get
away with this? "Bush is taking a calculated gamble that no matter
how much hue and cry his new strategy may provoke," another New York
Times analysis noted, "in the end the American people will give him
more time to turn around the war in Iraq and Congress will not have the
political nerve to thwart him by cutting off money for the war."
So the question - and the challenge - is this: what are the people
going to do now? Our answer - delivered by millions - must be like
what millions did following the invasion of Cambodia: a resounding No!
An outpouring demanding this war stop - now! And repudiating the
whole Bush program and demanding this criminal regime be driven from
power.
Much of Bush's actual plan was left intentionally - and ominously
- vague. He said another 21,500 troops would be sent to Iraq to
"stabilize" Baghdad and step up attacks on anti-occupation Sunnis
in Anbar province. He claimed the Iraqi government would take steps
with the U.S. to halt sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias and
achieve "benchmarks" of stability, rebuilding and economic
development. He said this plan would succeed where previous plans had
failed. And he also made new threats against Iran and Syria.
This whole plan promises more bloody escalation - in Iraq and beyond.
With the torture of Abu Ghraib and the leveling of cities like Fallujah
in mind, it was chilling to hear Bush complain there had been "too
many restrictions" on the actions of U.S. forces in the past. With
images of thousands of Iraqis rounded up and detained, innocent
civilians murdered at U.S. or Iraqi government checkpoints, and bodies
murdered in sectarian violence littering Baghdad streets, often
murdered by Iraqi death squads operating out of the police and
military, it was chilling to hear Bush promise: "Iraqi forces will
operate from local police stations; conducting patrols, setting up
checkpoints, and going door- to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad
residents." Bush's complaint about "restrictions" also implied
a threat to go after the Mahdi Army militia of Shia cleric Moqtada
Sadr, perhaps opening a second - Shia - front in the U.S.'s war
on the Iraqi people.
Even more ominously, Bush threatened a wider war in the region,
possibly direct attacks on Syria and Iran. After blaming them for
"allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in
and out of Iraq" and "providing material support for attacks on
American troops," Bush warned, "We will disrupt the attacks on our
forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And
we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry
and training to our enemies in Iraq." Would this mean attacks on
Iranians in Iraq? On the border? In Iran itself? This was left
intentionally vague. Bush also stated he had deployed another aircraft
carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf and was stepping up military
coordination with other pro-U.S. regimes in the region. MSNBC
Commentator Keith Olbermann noted that Bush was expanding the
"playing field" of the war, from Iraq to Iran. And the recent
shake-up of Bush's war cabinet also points to a growing U.S. focus on
Iran and growing danger of an expanded war.
Bush also promised to "increase the size of the active Army and
Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st
century." Bush couched all this as a great struggle between "those
who believe in freedom and moderation" and "extremists who kill the
innocent." As we've analyzed in these pages, the entire U.S. war on
Iraq - and its "war on terror" have been based on lies,
half-truths, and distortions in service of the needs of U.S.
imperialism. Now Bush's pledge for an expanded military can only mean
more wars, more death, and more destruction - over wider swaths of
the globe, in an attempt to solidify and expand the U.S. empire against
the needs and wishes of billions around the world.
Bush warned "in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are
engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global
war on terror." Indeed, what happens in Iraq and the Middle East are
central - not to the hopes and needs of humanity - but to the U.S.
rulers' drive for unchallenged and unchallengeable global dominance.
The stakes are huge for them, and Bush's new escalation is a huge
gamble - one commentator called it double-or-nothing - which
carries with it enormous risks and no guarantee of success.
Bush's actions starkly illustrate the fact that U.S. democracy is
actually a dictatorship of a capitalist-imperialist ruling class,
overseen by not one, but two political parties representing the needs
and interests of that system. In November, millions voted resoundingly
against the war, yet last night that vote counted for nothing. Bush was
making the decisions, he told us, based on his understanding of the
needs of the system, regardless of what the people want. In fact, it
has been reported that his "surge" of troops was underway even
before his speech.
And finally, it was also clear that nothing good will come out of this
situation unless millions of people take the responsibility to stop
this criminal carnage. The opposition Democrats complained about
Bush's speech and new plans - reflecting their real concerns as
part of the political establishment that the gambit might backfire, as
well as their needs to contain the anger of millions whose faith in the
political order is being shaken. Yet they were unwilling - or unable
- to take a stand fully in opposition to the war, much less to put
forward a plan for actually stopping it.
Anyone listening to Bush's speech, the Democrats' response and the
subsequent discussion in the bourgeois media didn't hear anyone
demanding this war stop, that it stop now, and the whole criminal cabal
who launched it - and have committed many other crimes - be
impeached and/or driven from power.
Most Democrats who commented on Bush's speech agreed with the basic
terms he had laid out - even blaming Iraqis, not the U.S., for the
growing catastrophe. Senator ***** Durbin, who gave the official
Democratic Party response, complained that the Iraqis shouldn't be
allowed to "call 911" for American support every time they need help
- as if the Iraqis forced the U.S. to illegally invade their country,
based on WMD lies, and wreak death and destruction.
Presidential candidate Barack Obama declared the U.S. had done
everything imaginable for the Iraqi people, and he wasn't going to
"re-litigate" the war. In other words, there would be no discussion
of, let alone accountability for, the war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed by the U.S. in launching and carrying out the war
and occupation and that have shaped its very nature, objectives, and
results. He agreed with Bush on "benchmarks" for the Iraqi
government, and that there was nothing wrong with "making sure"
that Iran and Syria weren't making "mischief" in Iraq. He
promised the Democrats would not "strand" U.S. troops in Iraq, who
would be assured of "all the resources necessary" for their safety
and accomplish their missions. And he agreed with Bush that Iraq
wasn't a Democratic or a Republican problem, it was an "American
problem" and he wanted to be part of a "solution."
Even those Democrats who may genuinely oppose the war as a catastrophe
for U.S. power and influence, and want to see it ended, are lashed to
the same strategic imperial necessities confronting Bush - including
support for the U.S. military and the troops - and the fear that, as
Bush stated, the consequences of failure are so enormous for the rulers
they can't afford to lose.
Senator Ted Kennedy introduced legislation requiring Congressional
approval before troop levels can be increased. Yet when asked if the
Democrats would block funding for the "surge," he acknowledged they
wouldn't and the vote would be largely symbolic: "The horse will be
out of the barn by the time we get there." The request for money
would come at the end of January or in early February and would take
another two months for Congress to act. "By that time, the troops
will already be there," he said. "And then we'll be asked, are we
going to deny the body armor to the young men and women over there?"
The Democrats have proven unwilling to fully unleash the one force that
could stop this war - the millions who hate the war. Even Time
magazine summed up that the Democrats were "more bark than bite" on
Iraq. This amounts to fiddling while Bush burns down Iraq and the
Middle East.
The time is now for millions to clearly confront what this escalation
means and to act decisively. To confront the fact that "U.S.
interests" is a euphemism for U.S. imperialist domination of the
Middle East. To break with the notion that people in Iraq, the Middle
East or in the U.S. should make common cause with these global
marauders and death merchants.
We've seen what this war is about and the carnage that results. An
estimated 655,000 Iraqis have already paid for this U.S. invasion and
occupation with their lives. How many more Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, and
U.S. lives will be spent in the U.S. rulers' imperial pursuit? Everyone
must now do more, much more, to stop this war and this regime - to
take responsibility for this great, historic effort; to sacrifice for
it; and to put ourselves on the line for it. Not to do so now, after
this war's horror and criminality have been made clearer and clearer,
would amount to immoral complicity in the countless deaths and untold
destruction that are coming.
And the opposite is also true. The Bush regime has never been more
isolated from the people and more exposed. More and more are turning
against the war with every new Bush lie, and every new Bush horror.
Those feelings must now be turned into active, militant, determined and
courageous opposition. That - and nothing short of that - could
change everything - unleashing a new and liberating force in
unimaginable ways - and stop this regime and end its unbounded,
ongoing, and escalating war.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Center for Research on Globalization or your
dear old Uncle Wally for that matter.....HOOROO !
===========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
17 Jan 2007 08:18:35 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia killes a
Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right along
beside them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
17 Jan 2007 09:56:29 AM |
|
|
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia killes a
Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right along
beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed, until
it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in virtually every
way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures by the SC members,
there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the Al Jazirah media amongst
others. If the evidence that there is no spine by these betrayers, which is
what made the situation 100 times worst, it can hardly be attributed to
those who just did what they all had signed on to do.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate these
massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse for killing
innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for each others. Imagine
against other religions!
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
17 Jan 2007 10:59:36 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia killes
a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right along
beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed, until
it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in virtually every
way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures by the SC members,
there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the Al Jazirah media
amongst others. If the evidence that there is no spine by these betrayers,
which is what made the situation 100 times worst, it can hardly be
attributed to those who just did what they all had signed on to do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had been saying
was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's neighbors.
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate these
massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse for killing
innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for each others.
Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent cadre of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others thruout
America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and tyranny to
Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos, Salvadorans on and on
and on for the control of resources and for the sake of their own wealth and
power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs, these
American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn brightly in hell
with a fork in their asses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 11:28:00 AM |
|
|
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
46idna7szcIqYzPYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia killes
a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right along
beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed,
until it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in virtually
every way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures by the SC
members, there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the Al Jazirah
media amongst others. If the evidence that there is no spine by these
betrayers, which is what made the situation 100 times worst, it can
hardly be attributed to those who just did what they all had signed on to
do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had been
saying was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's
neighbors.
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
Bah, all this is false. the only unilaterality was that of the signature of
the UNSC, and it was the breach of the resolution in virtually every way
that commanded this action. And there were all that, dozens of hurriedly
emptied WMD labs, all alegedly shipped to Syria, but that didn,t matter,
since it was the breach of the UN resolutions that mattered, according to it
anyway, not to the clowns who spat on their signature in order to have
backshishs from Saddam.
But the majority of people are clowns too since they love being the butt of
the joke as long as it satisfies their hate for the USA. Doesn,t change
reality.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate these
massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse for
killing innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for each
others. Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent cadre of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others thruout
America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and tyranny to
Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos, Salvadorans on and
on and on for the control of resources and for the sake of their own
wealth and power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs, these
American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn brightly in
hell with a fork in their asses.
Yeah yeah, changhe the subject by quoting things that would require 20 pages
to rectify. Pfff.
Doesn't change what is happening since this UN resolution sanctioned
invasion, that those who kill innocents Muslims and other denomination
unarmed civilians, in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, are Muslims. That you
dump the guilt of the terrorists on the USA doesn't change an iota of
reality.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 04:40:33 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:A6Orh.146200$rv4.9125@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
46idna7szcIqYzPYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia
killes a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right along
beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed,
until it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in
virtually every way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures
by the SC members, there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the
Al Jazirah media amongst others. If the evidence that there is no spine
by these betrayers, which is what made the situation 100 times worst, it
can hardly be attributed to those who just did what they all had signed
on to do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had been
saying was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's
neighbors.
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
Bah, all this is false. the only unilaterality was that of the signature
of the UNSC, and it was the breach of the resolution in virtually every
way that commanded this action. And there were all that, dozens of
hurriedly emptied WMD labs, all alegedly shipped to Syria
but that didn,t matter, since it was the breach of the UN resolutions that
mattered, according to it anyway, not to the clowns who spat on their
signature in order to have backshishs from Saddam.
But the majority of people are clowns too since they love being the butt
of the joke as long as it satisfies their hate for the USA. Doesn,t change
reality.
Reality? You're still grasping at and clinging to "allegations" to support
your position. You can't deal with the reality that nothing was found.
What was found in Iraq was exactly what the Bush Administration said was
there prior to the 9/11 attacks.
The UN legally owned those resolutions, Jean, and the UN never sanctioned
the invasion. We all knew you'd end up clinging long after an enlightened
majority began showing the Bushites the door. Remember what happened here
last November?
We don't have to argue with you folks for long, Jean. We just have to watch
the truth come out. As it does you'll just keep providing comic relief.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate
these massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse for
killing innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for each
others. Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent cadre of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others
thruout America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and
tyranny to Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos,
Salvadorans on and on and on for the control of resources and for the
sake of their own wealth and power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs, these
American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn brightly in
hell with a fork in their asses.
Yeah yeah, changhe the subject by quoting things that would require 20
pages to rectify. Pfff.
Doesn't change what is happening since this UN resolution sanctioned
invasion, that those who kill innocents Muslims and other denomination
unarmed civilians, in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, are Muslims. That
you dump the guilt of the terrorists on the USA doesn't change an iota of
reality.
Placing American sin in historical perspective is changing the subject?
Sorry if reality is too complicated for you to grasp, Jean. Pfff.
You're lying if you're claiming the UN sanctioned the invasion. More
mischaracterization. It's all your ilk have left.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 11:49:40 PM |
|
|
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
xYWdnezMwcz-ajLYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:A6Orh.146200$rv4.9125@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
46idna7szcIqYzPYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia
killes a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right
along beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed,
until it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in
virtually every way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures
by the SC members, there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the
Al Jazirah media amongst others. If the evidence that there is no spine
by these betrayers, which is what made the situation 100 times worst,
it can hardly be attributed to those who just did what they all had
signed on to do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had been
saying was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's
neighbors.
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
Bah, all this is false. the only unilaterality was that of the signature
of the UNSC, and it was the breach of the resolution in virtually every
way that commanded this action. And there were all that, dozens of
hurriedly emptied WMD labs, all alegedly shipped to Syria
but that didn,t matter, since it was the breach of the UN resolutions that
mattered, according to it anyway, not to the clowns who spat on their
signature in order to have backshishs from Saddam.
But the majority of people are clowns too since they love being the butt
of the joke as long as it satisfies their hate for the USA. Doesn,t
change reality.
Reality? You're still grasping at and clinging to "allegations" to
support your position. You can't deal with the reality that nothing was
found. What was found in Iraq was exactly what the Bush Administration
said was there prior to the 9/11 attacks.
I just told you, he shipped tons of material to Syria, this is a proven
fact, of what? of dozens of totally bio-research labs huriedly emptied out
and clean out.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
"In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have
been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer
evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies
suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence -
hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all
traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts (...)"
This site shows also that quote:
"Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may
have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;"
What they left behind? Same article:
a.. A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi
Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and
suitable for continuing CBW research.
a.. A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW
agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were
explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
a.. Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's
home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
a.. New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean
Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were
not declared to the UN.
etc., etc. there are lots of pictures as well.
The UN legally owned those resolutions, Jean, and the UN never sanctioned
the invasion. We all knew you'd end up clinging long after an enlightened
majority began showing the Bushites the door. Remember what happened here
last November?
No. Buit the UN is those who signed the resolution, not those who weaseled
out of it. The weasels had no say in the implementation of the resolution
once they had weaseled out. The UNSC was effectively thiose who didn't,
We don't have to argue with you folks for long, Jean. We just have to
watch the truth come out. As it does you'll just keep providing comic
relief.
The anti-adminsitration hype by the media and you clowns doesn't change the
absolute truth and the logic of it all.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate
these massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse
for killing innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for
each others. Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent cadre of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others
thruout America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and
tyranny to Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos,
Salvadorans on and on and on for the control of resources and for the
sake of their own wealth and power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs,
these American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn
brightly in hell with a fork in their asses.
Yeah yeah, changhe the subject by quoting things that would require 20
pages to rectify. Pfff.
Doesn't change what is happening since this UN resolution sanctioned
invasion, that those who kill innocents Muslims and other denomination
unarmed civilians, in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, are Muslims. That
you dump the guilt of the terrorists on the USA doesn't change an iota of
reality.
Placing American sin in historical perspective is changing the subject?
Sorry if reality is too complicated for you to grasp, Jean. Pfff.
You're lying if you're claiming the UN sanctioned the invasion. More
mischaracterization. It's all your ilk have left.
No, you are if you say otherwise.
The UN sanctioned resolution 687 and the last chance resolution was just the
las tchance to implement it. There was a recognition that Saddam had failed
it, in fact he failed not only the WMD cooperation, he also ffailed
virtually all the other clauses after this last chance of a conditional
cease fire between the US led coalition and Iraq.
There was an attempt to change the serious consequence into a mere regime
change which the French promised to veto. So it never went through, and all
that was left on the table was the implementation of 687.
All the weasels who disagreed had dealing trhough a back door with Saddam.
Doesn't change the absolute truth about this.
But it is sad to see the media ***** America and the world with such lies as
you spread after the betrayal of the French.
All this why? Just because they don't like the face of Bush?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
19 Jan 2007 12:10:51 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
xYWdnezMwcz-ajLYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:A6Orh.146200$rv4.9125@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
46idna7szcIqYzPYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de ne=
ws:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia
killes a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right
along beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed,
until it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in
virtually every way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatur=
es
by the SC members, there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by t=
he
Al Jazirah media amongst others. If the evidence that there is no sp=
ine
by these betrayers, which is what made the situation 100 times worst,
it can hardly be attributed to those who just did what they all had
signed on to do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had been
saying was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's
neighbors.
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
Bah, all this is false. the only unilaterality was that of the signatu=
re
of the UNSC, and it was the breach of the resolution in virtually every
way that commanded this action. And there were all that, dozens of
hurriedly emptied WMD labs, all alegedly shipped to Syria
but that didn,t matter, since it was the breach of the UN resolutions t=
hat
mattered, according to it anyway, not to the clowns who spat on their
signature in order to have backshishs from Saddam.
But the majority of people are clowns too since they love being the bu=
tt
of the joke as long as it satisfies their hate for the USA. Doesn,t
change reality.
Reality? You're still grasping at and clinging to "allegations" to
support your position. You can't deal with the reality that nothing was
found. What was found in Iraq was exactly what the Bush Administration
said was there prior to the 9/11 attacks.
I just told you, he shipped tons of material to Syria, this is a proven
fact, of what? of dozens of totally bio-research labs huriedly emptied out
and clean out.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.h=
tml
"In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have
been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer
evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies
suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence -
hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all
traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts (...)"
This site shows also that quote:
"Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and =
may
have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;"
What they left behind? Same article:
a.. A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi
Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and
suitable for continuing CBW research.
a.. A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW
agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were
explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
a.. Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's
home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
a.. New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean
Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were
not declared to the UN.
etc., etc. there are lots of pictures as well.
The UN legally owned those resolutions, Jean, and the UN never sanction=
ed
the invasion. We all knew you'd end up clinging long after an enlighte=
ned
majority began showing the Bushites the door. Remember what happened h=
ere
last November?
No. Buit the UN is those who signed the resolution, not those who weaseled
out of it. The weasels had no say in the implementation of the resolution
once they had weaseled out. The UNSC was effectively thiose who didn't,
We don't have to argue with you folks for long, Jean. We just have to
watch the truth come out. As it does you'll just keep providing comic
relief.
The anti-adminsitration hype by the media and you clowns doesn't change t=
he
absolute truth and the logic of it all.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate
these massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse
for killing innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for
each others. Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent cadre=
of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others
thruout America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and
tyranny to Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos,
Salvadorans on and on and on for the control of resources and for the
sake of their own wealth and power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs,
these American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn
brightly in hell with a fork in their asses.
Yeah yeah, changhe the subject by quoting things that would require 20
pages to rectify. Pfff.
Doesn't change what is happening since this UN resolution sanctioned
invasion, that those who kill innocents Muslims and other denomination
unarmed civilians, in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, are Muslims. Th=
at
you dump the guilt of the terrorists on the USA doesn't change an iota=
of
reality.
Placing American sin in historical perspective is changing the subject?
Sorry if reality is too complicated for you to grasp, Jean. Pfff.
You're lying if you're claiming the UN sanctioned the invasion. More
mischaracterization. It's all your ilk have left.
No, you are if you say otherwise.
The UN sanctioned resolution 687 and the last chance resolution was just =
the
las tchance to implement it. There was a recognition that Saddam had fail=
ed
it, in fact he failed not only the WMD cooperation, he also ffailed
virtually all the other clauses after this last chance of a conditional
cease fire between the US led coalition and Iraq.
There was an attempt to change the serious consequence into a mere regime
change which the French promised to veto. So it never went through, and a=
ll
that was left on the table was the implementation of 687.
All the weasels who disagreed had dealing trhough a back door with Saddam.
Doesn't change the absolute truth about this.
But it is sad to see the media ***** America and the world with such lies =
as
you spread after the betrayal of the French.
All this why? Just because they don't like the face of Bush?
Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
19 Jan 2007 03:06:37 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1169187051.308347.162470@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Jean Guernon wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
xYWdnezMwcz-ajLYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:A6Orh.146200$rv4.9125@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
46idna7szcIqYzPYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia
killes a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right
along beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone
backed,
until it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in
virtually every way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their
signatures
by the SC members, there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by
the
Al Jazirah media amongst others. If the evidence that there is no
spine
by these betrayers, which is what made the situation 100 times
worst,
it can hardly be attributed to those who just did what they all had
signed on to do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had
been
saying was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's
neighbors.
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
Bah, all this is false. the only unilaterality was that of the
signature
of the UNSC, and it was the breach of the resolution in virtually
every
way that commanded this action. And there were all that, dozens of
hurriedly emptied WMD labs, all alegedly shipped to Syria
but that didn,t matter, since it was the breach of the UN resolutions
that
mattered, according to it anyway, not to the clowns who spat on their
signature in order to have backshishs from Saddam.
But the majority of people are clowns too since they love being the
butt
of the joke as long as it satisfies their hate for the USA. Doesn,t
change reality.
Reality? You're still grasping at and clinging to "allegations" to
support your position. You can't deal with the reality that nothing
was
found. What was found in Iraq was exactly what the Bush Administration
said was there prior to the 9/11 attacks.
I just told you, he shipped tons of material to Syria, this is a proven
fact, of what? of dozens of totally bio-research labs huriedly emptied
out
and clean out.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
"In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have
been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer
evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies
suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence -
hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all
traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts (...)"
This site shows also that quote:
"Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and
may
have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;"
What they left behind? Same article:
a.. A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the
Iraqi
Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring
and
suitable for continuing CBW research.
a.. A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW
agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were
explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
a.. Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's
home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
a.. New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean
Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin
were
not declared to the UN.
etc., etc. there are lots of pictures as well.
The UN legally owned those resolutions, Jean, and the UN never
sanctioned
the invasion. We all knew you'd end up clinging long after an
enlightened
majority began showing the Bushites the door. Remember what happened
here
last November?
No. Buit the UN is those who signed the resolution, not those who
weaseled
out of it. The weasels had no say in the implementation of the
resolution
once they had weaseled out. The UNSC was effectively thiose who didn't,
We don't have to argue with you folks for long, Jean. We just have to
watch the truth come out. As it does you'll just keep providing comic
relief.
The anti-adminsitration hype by the media and you clowns doesn't change
the
absolute truth and the logic of it all.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate
these massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no
excuse
for killing innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for
each others. Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent
cadre of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others
thruout America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and
tyranny to Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos,
Salvadorans on and on and on for the control of resources and for
the
sake of their own wealth and power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs,
these American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn
brightly in hell with a fork in their asses.
Yeah yeah, changhe the subject by quoting things that would require
20
pages to rectify. Pfff.
Doesn't change what is happening since this UN resolution sanctioned
invasion, that those who kill innocents Muslims and other
denomination
unarmed civilians, in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, are Muslims.
That
you dump the guilt of the terrorists on the USA doesn't change an
iota of
reality.
Placing American sin in historical perspective is changing the
subject?
Sorry if reality is too complicated for you to grasp, Jean. Pfff.
You're lying if you're claiming the UN sanctioned the invasion. More
mischaracterization. It's all your ilk have left.
No, you are if you say otherwise.
The UN sanctioned resolution 687 and the last chance resolution was just
the
las tchance to implement it. There was a recognition that Saddam had
failed
it, in fact he failed not only the WMD cooperation, he also ffailed
virtually all the other clauses after this last chance of a conditional
cease fire between the US led coalition and Iraq.
There was an attempt to change the serious consequence into a mere
regime
change which the French promised to veto. So it never went through, and
all
that was left on the table was the implementation of 687.
All the weasels who disagreed had dealing trhough a back door with
Saddam.
Doesn't change the absolute truth about this.
But it is sad to see the media ***** America and the world with such lies
as
you spread after the betrayal of the French.
All this why? Just because they don't like the face of Bush?
Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.
So according to you, the media, chosing exclusively the personalities who
twart the facts, has a liberal bias against the US president.
Thank you very much for this admission.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
20 Jan 2007 12:45:55 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Doesn't change the absolute truth about this.
But it is sad to see the media ***** America and the world with such lies
as
you spread after the betrayal of the French.
All this why? Just because they don't like the face of Bush?
Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.
It was spelled incorrectly. "All this why ? Just because they don't
'LICK' the face of Bush ?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
20 Jan 2007 01:45:20 PM |
|
|
You wish.
J.
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns98BDF1C10F9A2rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Doesn't change the absolute truth about this.
But it is sad to see the media ***** America and the world with such lies
as
you spread after the betrayal of the French.
All this why? Just because they don't like the face of Bush?
Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.
It was spelled incorrectly. "All this why ? Just because they don't
'LICK' the face of Bush ?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 08:24:37 PM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
You're lying if you're claiming the UN sanctioned the invasion.
You're so judgemental. Did the UN sanction the bombing of Belgrade? And
by the way, did you know the former president believes Bush and Blair
did not need a new resolution to conduct the invasion?
CNN - February 9, 2003
[excerpt] "I still hope the United Nations can act together on this,
and I still think there's a chance we can, and there's still a chance
that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm," Clinton said.
He said Bush is "doing the right thing now" by gathering international
support, but said he doesn't believe another U.N. resolution is needed
to go to war with Iraq.
"As a matter of international law, I don't think it's required,"
Clinton said. [end excerpt]
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 11:27:00 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
You're lying if you're claiming the UN sanctioned the invasion.
You're so judgemental. Did the UN sanction the bombing of Belgrade?
Clinton never claimed any UN resolutions as justification for
attacking the serbs. Bush and company did seek UN approval
before invading Iraq, and claimed those resolutions were his
justification.
I'll bet you wonder why people don't follow your brand of
logic, Stephen. You really should get back to school and
take some logical reasoning courses.
And
by the way, did you know the former president believes Bush and Blair
did not need a new resolution to conduct the invasion?
CNN - February 9, 2003
[excerpt] "I still hope the United Nations can act together on this,
and I still think there's a chance we can, and there's still a chance
that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm," Clinton said.
He said Bush is "doing the right thing now" by gathering international
support, but said he doesn't believe another U.N. resolution is needed
to go to war with Iraq.
"As a matter of international law, I don't think it's required,"
Clinton said. [end excerpt]
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
19 Jan 2007 12:09:38 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
You're lying if you're claiming the UN sanctioned the invasion.
You're so judgemental. Did the UN sanction the bombing of Belgrade?
Clinton never claimed any UN resolutions as justification for
attacking the serbs.
CNN - October 6, 1998
[excerpt] Clinton again demanded that Milosevic live up to the U.N.
resolution and declare an immediate cease-fire, withdraw Serbian
security forces, allow unhindered access for humanitarian relief
operations and begin "real negotiations" with Kosovo Albanians "to find
a peaceful and permanent solution to their rightful demand for
autonomy."
Clinton said that Richard Holbrooke, senior U.S. envoy for the Balkans,
would reiterate in Tuesday's talks in Belgrade that Milosevic must
comply with the U.N. demands, or face consequences. [end excerpt]
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9810/06/kosovo.03/
Bush and company did seek UN approval before invading
Iraq, and claimed those resolutions were his justification.
I see, so according to your "logic" it's okay to attack a sovereign
nation as long as you DON'T seek UN approval. Got it.
I'll bet you wonder why people don't follow your brand of
logic, Stephen. You really should get back to school and
take some logical reasoning courses.
Oh the irony.
And
by the way, did you know the former president believes Bush and Blair
did not need a new resolution to conduct the invasion?
CNN - February 9, 2003
[excerpt] "I still hope the United Nations can act together on this,
and I still think there's a chance we can, and there's still a chance
that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm," Clinton said.
He said Bush is "doing the right thing now" by gathering international
support, but said he doesn't believe another U.N. resolution is needed
to go to war with Iraq.
"As a matter of international law, I don't think it's required,"
Clinton said. [end excerpt]
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
20 Jan 2007 01:10:02 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
You're so judgemental. Did the UN sanction the bombing of Belgrade?
Clinton never claimed any UN resolutions as justification for
attacking the serbs.
CNN - October 6, 1998
[excerpt] Clinton again demanded that Milosevic live up to the U.N.
resolution and declare an immediate cease-fire, withdraw Serbian
security forces, allow unhindered access for humanitarian relief
operations and begin "real negotiations" with Kosovo Albanians "to find
a peaceful and permanent solution to their rightful demand for
autonomy."
Let me restate (for the intellect-impaired).
Clinton DID NOT USE any UN Resolutions as justification for
bombing the Serb army which was just invading Kosovo for
the purpose of mass extermination of Kosovo Muslims.
Bush DID USE UN Resolutions as justificaiton for invading
Iraq which had not violated any neighboring territory
for over 10 years.
You see any difference there Einstein ? I know you're a smart
guy Stephen, but sometimes you're barely worth my time of day
to talk to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
20 Jan 2007 01:27:29 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
You're so judgemental. Did the UN sanction the bombing of Belgrade?
Clinton never claimed any UN resolutions as justification for
attacking the serbs.
CNN - October 6, 1998
[excerpt] Clinton again demanded that Milosevic live up to the U.N.
resolution and declare an immediate cease-fire, withdraw Serbian
security forces, allow unhindered access for humanitarian relief
operations and begin "real negotiations" with Kosovo Albanians "to find
a peaceful and permanent solution to their rightful demand for
autonomy."
Let me restate (for the intellect-impaired).
Clinton DID NOT USE any UN Resolutions as justification for
bombing the Serb army which was just invading Kosovo for
the purpose of mass extermination of Kosovo Muslims.
Are you blind? Did you not read the CNN excerpt above?
Bush DID USE UN Resolutions as justificaiton for invading
Iraq which had not violated any neighboring territory
for over 10 years.
So now you're qualifying the UN Resolutions based on the actions of
Milosevic vs. Saddam? A UN Resolution is a UN Resolution, no matter
which President uses it as a justification to attack a sovereign
nation.
You see any difference there Einstein ? I know you're a smart
guy Stephen, but sometimes you're barely worth my time of day
to talk to.
Oh the irony.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
20 Jan 2007 01:53:47 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
You're so judgemental. Did the UN sanction the bombing of
Belgrade?
Clinton never claimed any UN resolutions as justification for
attacking the serbs.
CNN - October 6, 1998
[excerpt] Clinton again demanded that Milosevic live up to the U.N.
resolution and declare an immediate cease-fire, withdraw Serbian
security forces, allow unhindered access for humanitarian relief
operations and begin "real negotiations" with Kosovo Albanians "to
find
a peaceful and permanent solution to their rightful demand for
autonomy."
Let me restate (for the intellect-impaired).
Clinton DID NOT USE any UN Resolutions as justification for
bombing the Serb army which was just invading Kosovo for
the purpose of mass extermination of Kosovo Muslims.
Are you blind? Did you not read the CNN excerpt above?
Did you have some point to make ? You should just make the
point instead of referring to the article which refers to the
events which relate to your point.
Bush DID USE UN Resolutions as justificaiton for invading
Iraq which had not violated any neighboring territory
for over 10 years.
So now you're qualifying the UN Resolutions based on the actions of
Milosevic vs. Saddam? A UN Resolution is a UN Resolution, no matter
which President uses it as a justification to attack a sovereign
nation.
Using words longer than 6 letters in a non-coherant sentence
is not a substitute for a valid argument. You're not saying
anything here Stephen.
You see any difference there Einstein ? I know you're a smart
guy Stephen, but sometimes you're barely worth my time of day
to talk to.
Oh the irony.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
20 Jan 2007 02:05:22 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
You're so judgemental. Did the UN sanction the bombing of
Belgrade?
Clinton never claimed any UN resolutions as justification for
attacking the serbs.
CNN - October 6, 1998
[excerpt] Clinton again demanded that Milosevic live up to the U.N.
resolution and declare an immediate cease-fire, withdraw Serbian
security forces, allow unhindered access for humanitarian relief
operations and begin "real negotiations" with Kosovo Albanians "to
find
a peaceful and permanent solution to their rightful demand for
autonomy."
Let me restate (for the intellect-impaired).
Clinton DID NOT USE any UN Resolutions as justification for
bombing the Serb army which was just invading Kosovo for
the purpose of mass extermination of Kosovo Muslims.
Are you blind? Did you not read the CNN excerpt above?
Did you have some point to make ? You should just make the
point instead of referring to the article which refers to the
events which relate to your point.
The point is obvious. You flatly stated that Clinton did not use a UN
Resolution as justification to attack Milosevic, yet the article I
posted shows you to be factually incorrect (as you all too often are).
Bush DID USE UN Resolutions as justificaiton for invading
Iraq which had not violated any neighboring territory
for over 10 years.
So now you're qualifying the UN Resolutions based on the actions of
Milosevic vs. Saddam? A UN Resolution is a UN Resolution, no matter
which President uses it as a justification to attack a sovereign
nation.
Using words longer than 6 letters in a non-coherant sentence
is not a substitute for a valid argument. You're not saying
anything here Stephen.
Yes, I said a UN Resolution is a UN Resolution, no matter which
President uses it as a justification to attack a sovereign nation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
21 Jan 2007 04:18:13 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
You're so judgemental. Did the UN sanction the bombing of
Belgrade?
Clinton never claimed any UN resolutions as justification for
attacking the serbs.
CNN - October 6, 1998
[excerpt] Clinton again demanded that Milosevic live up to the
U.N.
resolution and declare an immediate cease-fire, withdraw Serbian
security forces, allow unhindered access for humanitarian relief
operations and begin "real negotiations" with Kosovo Albanians "to
find
a peaceful and permanent solution to their rightful demand for
autonomy."
Let me restate (for the intellect-impaired).
Clinton DID NOT USE any UN Resolutions as justification for
bombing the Serb army which was just invading Kosovo for
the purpose of mass extermination of Kosovo Muslims.
Are you blind? Did you not read the CNN excerpt above?
Did you have some point to make ? You should just make the
point instead of referring to the article which refers to the
events which relate to your point.
The point is obvious. You flatly stated that Clinton did not use a UN
Resolution as justification to attack Milosevic, yet the article I
posted shows you to be factually incorrect (as you all too often are).
Post the article again. I usually don't read what you write
because you usually don't have anything to say. You do have
an article that says that don't you... or were you just making
that up ?
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
