In article <3RJmd.4660407$ic1.444454@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Let me underline that the fuckers GOT what they deserved.
So. that little toddler who lost a leg, the infant who looks like s/he lost an
eye, the baby that had had to have abdominal surgery .... they were all
terrorists/insurgents? I find that very hard to believe.
Perhaps you meant to say that those individuals who were involved in the
insurgency in Fallujah deserved it if they got it, but that's not what you said.
Woods
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
17 Nov 2004 09:20:14 PM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <3RJmd.4660407$ic1.444454@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Let me underline that the fuckers GOT what they deserved.
So. that little toddler who lost a leg, the infant who looks like s/he lost an
eye, the baby that had had to have abdominal surgery .... they were all
terrorists/insurgents? I find that very hard to believe.
Collateral casualties, to stop the very same but at a much bigger scale
by these insurgents fuckers every single day.
Perhaps you meant to say that those individuals who were involved in the
insurgency in Fallujah deserved it if they got it, but that's not what you said.
Woods
Of course it is. Don't you find it strange that you don't see the one
thousand times worst pictures posted here of what these fuckers
saddamites did to the Iraqi population?
The terrorists don't do everything they can, evacuate the towns, etc.,
to avoid innocent casualties, them, they wait until there is a lot of
innocent people and blow them to smithereens.
You would have hundreds and hundreds of TIMES more pictures of what
these fuckers Saddamites did to the civilian population of Iraq, which
they despise, but all that the losers can show is the few victims, which
are still indirect victims of the action necessary to stop thousands more.
You'd rather that these thousands more go on, and that you don't see
these pictures wouldn't you?
So would Annan, apparently, who is the ever weasel that doesn't belong
where he is.
Loser never propose viable alternative, but criticize the best that can
be done all the time. Tell me, is it because they wouldn't have the ball
to implement what has to be addressed, or that they would but are too
dishonest to admit it?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 06:25:52 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:OxUmd.3184958$yk.495859@news.easynews.com...
So would Annan, apparently, who is the ever weasel that doesn't belong
where he is.
Ah, the famous weasel retort. When confronted with reality toss the weasel
reply. Annan was da man when you could use him to justify the legality of
the invasion. He's since shot you down.
Loser never propose viable alternative, but criticize the best that can
be done all the time. Tell me, is it because they wouldn't have the ball
to implement what has to be addressed, or that they would but are too
dishonest to admit it?
The best alternative, even given the relatively short historical perspective
we have to look back on, was to leave the smart sanctions in place and avoid
an invasion. Tell me you haven't heard this before, Jean. So that when you
say we've offered no alternative you lie thru your teeth.
The invasion was a mistake. The only viable alternative is to try to undo
the neocon adventurism that put us there.
Once the invasion threshold was crossed and horror unleashed there was, of
course, no turning back. At least according to the neocon mindset. The
alternatives from that point on, however, are untenable to any person
dealing with reality. The French were correct when they said in advance of
the invasion that the toll on the Iraqi populace would more than likely be
devastating and not worth the risk. Another reality disregarded by you and
your conservative ilk.
History has yet to judge whether or not the French were correct in their
assessments of the long term impact of an invasion. Historical precedent,
Iran for example, shows considerable reason for genuine fear. I'm talking
about the long term effects of foreign imposition of a Western friendly
government and the rise of an Arab nationalism with it's foundation in
Muslim extremism.
The French (weasels) were correct in their pre-invasion assessment of Iraq's
WMD and nuclear programs. They were also correct in their assessment of
Saddam's conventional capabilities. They were also correct in their
statement before the Security Council that there were no operational
connections between Saddam and Al-Queda. All this is in accordance with the
9/11 Commission's (weasels) and the Duelfer Commission (weasels) findings.
Now, no reasonably intelligent human being would believe that the same
correct pre-invasion assessments and conclusions weren't clear to the Bush
Administration. (the real lying weasels)
Now add to this the fact that Mr. Bush's peers at the CFR (lying weasels)
have plainly stated that the Bush team (true lying weasels) disregarded
volumes of intelligence and clearly exaggerated their own assessments. What
you end up with is the fact that only a true lying weasel or weasel wannabe
(Jean Guernon) would say that an invasion that results in the killing of
tens of thousands of innocents was the only viable alternative. That's a
demonstrably dreamworld construct. It's a dreamworld that has the West
placing itself in dominance over the natural resources of a Muslim world
rife with militant anti-Western hatred.
Apparently the same people that thought the Iraqis would greet our soldiers
with flowers think that we'll be able to control that nation with a Western
backed "democratic" government. One that will allow us to leave American
military bases in that country to intimidate and control the region.
A real world assessment of the situation plainly puts the blame for the
horror confronting the Iraqi people at the feet of the Bush Administration
for their decision to pursue an illegal and clearly unjustified invasion of
Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 09:55:33 AM |
|
|
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:OxUmd.3184958$yk.495859@news.easynews.com...
So would Annan, apparently, who is the ever weasel that doesn't belong
where he is.
Ah, the famous weasel retort. When confronted with reality toss the weasel
reply. Annan was da man when you could use him to justify the legality of
the invasion. He's since shot you down.
The UN resolution justifies the intervention. There was no other. The
consensus had been established on that. And since there was no other
consensus, this should have been respected even by the parties who
didn't get the extension they wanted. Annan should have had the spine to
uphold it. But we know why he didn't. Michael has made a nice exposé on
his site about why. Yes, I expected him to be worthy of his job, and it
turns out he wasn't.
Loser never propose viable alternative, but criticize the best that can
be done all the time. Tell me, is it because they wouldn't have the ball
to implement what has to be addressed, or that they would but are too
dishonest to admit it?
The best alternative, even given the relatively short historical perspective
we have to look back on, was to leave the smart sanctions in place and avoid
an invasion. Tell me you haven't heard this before, Jean. So that when you
say we've offered no alternative you lie thru your teeth.
Oh, here? I am talking abut Fellujah here. Annan comments, criticism in
fact. Total weasel. I can't believe I looked up to him to represent the
rights of the UN. And I must be fair, he did until he made that
declaration "if you wish" when asked after commenting on the lack of
consensus when it was time the implementation of 1441, if by that it
meant that it was illegal. Ever since he weaseled out on his own turf I
have lost any respect for him. Let alone faith.
The invasion was a mistake. The only viable alternative is to try to undo
the neocon adventurism that put us there.
Nah, the invasion was not a mistake, the lack of support was. If those
who want it to be a mistake had then make an amendment saying that it is
not the serious consequences at the first breach but further
resolutions, if they didn't specify the sentence "many times repeated"
to Saddam, held off by the conditional cease-fire, then maybe. But they
have nothing to justify their weaseling out. What they did is tantamount
to an attack on their American allies.
[snip paragraph of same French butt licking ***** replied here above]
History has yet to judge whether or not the French were correct in their
assessments of the long term impact of an invasion.
This is another thing that Chirac has said today in his interview,
history will judge who was right. Which I found also fair, not arrogant,
for a man who destroyed the potential for any near future consensus at
the UN by sheer stubbornness and arrogance. He was as humble as Bush who
said the same thing.
Historical precedent,
Iran for example, shows considerable reason for genuine fear. I'm talking
about the long term effects of foreign imposition of a Western friendly
government and the rise of an Arab nationalism with it's foundation in
Muslim extremism.
Well that was history. I don't, know how old you are and if you have any
idea how the world was really working 50 years ago, but the fear here is
artificial, Iran has not been bothered by the West, even as they
financed Hezbollah and gave rise to terrorists. Now that they are a
threat with their bomb making, gee this week I was so pleased when they
announced they would stop the enrichment, albeit in order to avoid UN
sanctions, but days later an opposition party demonstrate that they
actively doing the opposite. How many times have they played that game!
Gee, if they just could stop aggression, they would reap a lot more
appreciation, then things they genuinely can be fearful of because of
their aggressiveness.
[snip paragraphs of same French butt licking ***** replied above]
Now add to this the fact that Mr. Bush's peers at the CFR (lying weasels)
have plainly stated that the Bush team (true lying weasels) disregarded
volumes of intelligence and clearly exaggerated their own assessments. What
*****.
J.
[snip more total *****]
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 10:59:07 AM |
|
|
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:OxUmd.3184958$yk.495859@news.easynews.com...
So would Annan, apparently, who is the ever weasel that doesn't belong
where he is.
Ah, the famous weasel retort. When confronted with reality toss the
weasel
reply. Annan was da man when you could use him to justify the legality
of
the invasion. He's since shot you down.
The UN resolution justifies the intervention.
The resolutions were owned by the Security Council. The Anglo-American
invasion sets a precedent for individual states enforcing UN resolutions
according to their own interpretations and under their own auspices. That's
a highly dangerous not to mention absurd precedent.
<snip>
Loser never propose viable alternative, but criticize the best that can
be done all the time. Tell me, is it because they wouldn't have the ball
to implement what has to be addressed, or that they would but are too
dishonest to admit it?
The best alternative, even given the relatively short historical
perspective
we have to look back on, was to leave the smart sanctions in place and
avoid
an invasion. Tell me you haven't heard this before, Jean. So that when
you
say we've offered no alternative you lie thru your teeth.
Oh, here? I am talking abut Fellujah here.
I'm talking about the invasion here and how events have cascaded off that
initial error.
The invasion was a mistake. The only viable alternative is to try to
undo
the neocon adventurism that put us there.
Nah, the invasion was not a mistake, the lack of support was.
And there would have been no lack of support if the Bush/Blair program had
submitted to the Security Council's ownership of the resolutions.
But we ignore the salient fact here. That is the fact that the Bush and
Blair administration's primary focus was to rid the world of an Iraqi WMD
threat when there was clear evidence that there was no threat. That's why
there was no support in the Security Council. The French spoke of this
evidence IN the Security Council.
Again, the threat lie had to be played up in order to get the American
people to back the invasion. NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY WOULD HAVE GONE TO WAR
IN IRAQ SIMPLY TO ENFORCE A UN RESOLUTION. The resolution argument is only
employed by neoconservatives who can no longer defend the invasion on the
current evidence. Evidence that was available before the invasion.
Evidence most of which was "disregarded" and then some of which was
"exaggerated" by the Bush and Blair administrations.
If those
who want it to be a mistake had then make an amendment saying that it is
not the serious consequences at the first breach but further
resolutions, if they didn't specify the sentence "many times repeated"
to Saddam, held off by the conditional cease-fire, then maybe. But they
have nothing to justify their weaseling out. What they did is tantamount
to an attack on their American allies.
[snip paragraph of same French butt licking ***** replied here above]
History has yet to judge whether or not the French were correct in their
assessments of the long term impact of an invasion.
This is another thing that Chirac has said today in his interview,
history will judge who was right.
Right, when you have another fundamentalist regime with a nuke tipped
missile in the Middle East. When you have yet ANOTHER hostile regime in
place that is angry over Western control and interference in their own
affairs.
Cite a reference for what Chirac said that puts his comments in their proper
perspective. Did Chirac say it was necessary to remove Saddam via an
invasion 19 months ago? That would be in contradiction to the stated French
stance in the Security Council in the winter of 2003.
snip<
Historical precedent,
Iran for example, shows considerable reason for genuine fear. I'm
talking
about the long term effects of foreign imposition of a Western friendly
government and the rise of an Arab nationalism with it's foundation in
Muslim extremism.
Well that was history. I don't, know how old you are and if you have any
idea how the world was really working 50 years ago, but the fear here is
artificial, Iran has not been bothered by the West, even as they
financed Hezbollah and gave rise to terrorists. Now that they are a
threat with their bomb making, gee this week I was so pleased when they
announced they would stop the enrichment, albeit in order to avoid UN
sanctions, but days later an opposition party demonstrate that they
actively doing the opposite. How many times have they played that game!
Gee, if they just could stop aggression, they would reap a lot more
appreciation, then things they genuinely can be fearful of because of
their aggressiveness.
You now have a hostile fundamentalist Muslim government in Iran in large
part because of a US manufactured coup in Iran in 1954 that overthrew a
democratically elected government and installed the Shah to serve Western
economic interests. If you don't like Iran's support of Hezbollah then
thank the Dulles brothers and Kermit Roosevelt.
America rules? Surely you aren't blind enough to think that Arabs and
Persians are going to submit to that are you? Just because you say so?
Surely you don't think that Muslim fundametalists won't mine any more
nationalistic furor the United States creates in the region, do you?
Wise up, Jean. You have to be smart enough to know that the only way you're
going to defeat Muslim terrorism is to drain the swamp that spawns the
disease. Stop manipulating, controlling the lives of millions of Muslims
and push for freedom and justice in Palestine.
[snip paragraphs of same French butt licking ***** replied above]
Now add to this the fact that Mr. Bush's peers at the CFR (lying
weasels)
have plainly stated that the Bush team (true lying weasels) disregarded
volumes of intelligence and clearly exaggerated their own assessments.
What
*****.
You've been shown the reality of the situation again and blind yourself.
Well at least this is the ***** reply and not the weasel reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 11:39:26 AM |
|
|
John F Lemke a écrit:
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:OxUmd.3184958$yk.495859@news.easynews.com...
So would Annan, apparently, who is the ever weasel that doesn't belong
where he is.
Ah, the famous weasel retort. When confronted with reality toss the
weasel
reply. Annan was da man when you could use him to justify the legality
of
the invasion. He's since shot you down.
The UN resolution justifies the intervention.
The resolutions were owned by the Security Council. The Anglo-American
invasion sets a precedent for individual states enforcing UN resolutions
according to their own interpretations and under their own auspices. That's
a highly dangerous not to mention absurd precedent.
The UN resolution were owned by the SC indeed. The weasels who didn't
respect them weren't relevant. Those who were were the US and Britain.
Period. No argument. There was no other resolution, the betrayal of
their signature of those who weaseled out is on their head, and history
will judge them.
<snip more ***** about the ownership of the resolution the real owners being thoise who respected their signature with the SC>
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 01:04:35 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:i75nd.3214117$yk.502018@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
The resolutions were owned by the Security Council. The Anglo-American
invasion sets a precedent for individual states enforcing UN resolutions
according to their own interpretations and under their own auspices.
That's
a highly dangerous not to mention absurd precedent.
The UN resolution were owned by the SC indeed. The weasels who didn't
respect them weren't relevant. Those who were were the US and Britain.
Period. No argument. There was no other resolution, the betrayal of
their signature of those who weaseled out is on their head, and history
will judge them.
But, Jean, the weasels ARE relevant. The weasels told the truth. The
weasels spoke in advance of the truth that was found in Iraq. They spoke of
sanctions that were working. They spoke of the horror an invasion would
wreak on an innocent population.
History is bearing out the lies of Bush and Blair. The weasel's *****
turned out to be the inarguable truth.
<snip more ***** about the ownership of the resolution the real
owners being thoise who respected their signature with the SC>
J.
Snip, *****, weasels. Weak, paltry arguments in the face of the lessons
of history and in the face of recent revelation. Your relevance, your own
truth is witnessed by those three ignorant and dismissive words, Jean. This
is what your position has been reduced to in the face of the truth.
In the face of such a position, a mindset that reflects the current
administration, the attitudes of the current powers that be, how can the
errors of the past and the pain of the present keep from being repeated?
They can't be. History will judge indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 09:46:36 PM |
|
|
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:i75nd.3214117$yk.502018@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
The resolutions were owned by the Security Council. The Anglo-American
invasion sets a precedent for individual states enforcing UN resolutions
according to their own interpretations and under their own auspices.
That's
a highly dangerous not to mention absurd precedent.
The UN resolution were owned by the SC indeed. The weasels who didn't
respect them weren't relevant. Those who were were the US and Britain.
Period. No argument. There was no other resolution, the betrayal of
their signature of those who weaseled out is on their head, and history
will judge them.
But, Jean, the weasels ARE relevant. The weasels told the truth. The
weasels spoke in advance of the truth that was found in Iraq. They spoke of
sanctions that were working. They spoke of the horror an invasion would
wreak on an innocent population.
History is bearing out the lies of Bush and Blair. The weasel's *****
turned out to be the inarguable truth.
*****. The weasels lied and as they couldn't know better than the
best intelligence agencies in the world. That Saddam was playing a game
still couldn't be assessed, and still is not beyond the shadow of a
doubt, and it would have never have been assessed without the intervention.
As for the horror that the Alqaeda and the Saddamites do, the regime
would still be doing it to Iraqis in a more subtle fashion.
That terrorists flock there is indeed because of weasels who empower
them. THIS was unpredictable.
There was clear resolution unanimously signed, and when it was time to
implement it, because they couldn't obtain a 4 months delay which would
have changed NOTHING, according to the chief inspector of the time, even
six months would not have allowed us to find out he said, anyway,
because they couldn't pass their amendment, they disregarded the
unanimous resolution, which still stood. This is really sabotaging the
UN SC, and it is the weasels who did it,. No one else. The legitimate
ones here are those who upheld their signatures.
J.
<snip more ***** about the ownership of the resolution the real
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 10:20:10 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:w0end.5330221$6p.863760@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
But, Jean, the weasels ARE relevant. The weasels told the truth. The
weasels spoke in advance of the truth that was found in Iraq. They
spoke of
sanctions that were working. They spoke of the horror an invasion would
wreak on an innocent population.
History is bearing out the lies of Bush and Blair. The weasel's
*****
turned out to be the inarguable truth.
*****. The weasels lied and as they couldn't know better than the
best intelligence agencies in the world.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you actually thinking about what you're
posting before you hit the send button? Are you so lost in the propaganda
myths that you're blind to the obvious? Have you lost your mind?
JEAN!!!!!!!!!!! Your best intelligence agencies in the whole wide world are
now being castigated for their failures, their ineptitude for being so wrong
about their assessments. The CIA is supposedly being gone thru with a fine
toothed comb because they "blew the call" on the WMDs and everything else.
The "weasels" couldn't know better than the "best" who got it almost totally
"wrong"?
The weasels had it right ahead of time and you're calling them liars. All
you have to do is read the transcripts of the Security Council meetings in
the winter of '03. It's as clear and clean as the black type on a white
page.
Well, ol' buddy, you've finally, simply and completely debunked, destroyed
and irrevocably disemboweled yourself.
And I didn't even have to call you an ***** licker to help you do it. Didn't
even have to suggest that you go drown yourself. Didn't have to call you an
***** or say one ***** you, did I?
You could go ahead and gloat about the election tho but I wouldn't if I were
you. In the long run history will determine that you're a loser on that
subject too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 11:48:34 PM |
|
|
Doesn't change one iota of what I said.
J.
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:w0end.5330221$6p.863760@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
But, Jean, the weasels ARE relevant. The weasels told the truth. The
weasels spoke in advance of the truth that was found in Iraq. They
spoke of
sanctions that were working. They spoke of the horror an invasion would
wreak on an innocent population.
History is bearing out the lies of Bush and Blair. The weasel's
*****
turned out to be the inarguable truth.
*****. The weasels lied and as they couldn't know better than the
best intelligence agencies in the world.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you actually thinking about what you're
posting before you hit the send button? Are you so lost in the propaganda
myths that you're blind to the obvious? Have you lost your mind?
JEAN!!!!!!!!!!! Your best intelligence agencies in the whole wide world are
now being castigated for their failures, their ineptitude for being so wrong
about their assessments. The CIA is supposedly being gone thru with a fine
toothed comb because they "blew the call" on the WMDs and everything else.
The "weasels" couldn't know better than the "best" who got it almost totally
"wrong"?
The weasels had it right ahead of time and you're calling them liars. All
you have to do is read the transcripts of the Security Council meetings in
the winter of '03. It's as clear and clean as the black type on a white
page.
Well, ol' buddy, you've finally, simply and completely debunked, destroyed
and irrevocably disemboweled yourself.
And I didn't even have to call you an ***** licker to help you do it. Didn't
even have to suggest that you go drown yourself. Didn't have to call you an
***** or say one ***** you, did I?
You could go ahead and gloat about the election tho but I wouldn't if I were
you. In the long run history will determine that you're a loser on that
subject too.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
19 Nov 2004 07:08:37 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:SOfnd.5334477$6p.864190@news.easynews.com...
Doesn't change one iota of what I said.
J.
:-)
That it doesn't my, man. :-)
Let's walk backward on what you say about the French being liars.
They lied but what they said in advance of the invasion about Iraq turned
out to be true.
What they said turned out to be true even tho they didn't have to invade
Iraq to know the truth.
They didn't have the "best" intelligence agencies but what they said turned
out to be true.
They're lying weasels but what they said is thoroughly compatible with what
the Duelfer and 9/11 Commissions concluded.
An invasion would likely have an horrific effect on innocent citizens, Iraqi
society as a whole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
22 Nov 2004 07:53:00 PM |
|
|
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message news:<5f-dndRRIK0VbQDcRVn-ow@locallink.net>...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:SOfnd.5334477$6p.864190@news.easynews.com...
Doesn't change one iota of what I said.
J.
:-)
That it doesn't my, man. :-)
Let's walk backward on what you say about the French being liars.
Let's talk about your ' carving up the middle east' book that claims
you are a liar ;)
They're lying weasels
No, the book you claimed was correct. and it abolished all realities
that America carved up the middle east ;)
BTW all Universities agree with me and the book. Looks like you are
still a liar ;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 04:47:32 PM |
|
|
In article <OxUmd.3184958$yk.495859@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <3RJmd.4660407$ic1.444454@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Let me underline that the fuckers GOT what they deserved.
So. that little toddler who lost a leg, the infant who looks like s/he lost
an
eye, the baby that had had to have abdominal surgery .... they were all
terrorists/insurgents? I find that very hard to believe.
Collateral casualties, to stop the very same but at a much bigger scale
by these insurgents fuckers every single day.
Perhaps you meant to say that those individuals who were involved in the
insurgency in Fallujah deserved it if they got it, but that's not what you
said.
Woods
Of course it is. Don't you find it strange that you don't see the one
thousand times worst pictures posted here of what these fuckers
saddamites did to the Iraqi population?
I'm not sure how that's relevent, but no, I don't find it strange. If the
insurgents are killing Iraqi civilians, there's no benefit to them to give us
video feed or photographs of that, and obviously our military (and media) isn't
there when such events may occur. So, I should think a lack of photos of such
things to be expected.
The terrorists don't do everything they can, evacuate the towns, etc.,
to avoid innocent casualties, them, they wait until there is a lot of
innocent people and blow them to smithereens.
You would have hundreds and hundreds of TIMES more pictures of what
these fuckers Saddamites did to the civilian population of Iraq, which
they despise, but all that the losers can show is the few victims, which
are still indirect victims of the action necessary to stop thousands more.
You'd rather that these thousands more go on, and that you don't see
these pictures wouldn't you?
So would Annan, apparently, who is the ever weasel that doesn't belong
where he is.
Loser never propose viable alternative, but criticize the best that can
be done all the time. Tell me, is it because they wouldn't have the ball
to implement what has to be addressed, or that they would but are too
dishonest to admit it?
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I had/have a problem with your
belief that there should not be much/any sympathy spend on terrorists, which is
erroneous. I was merely pointing out that you were not clear in your statement.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 05:28:35 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <3RJmd.4660407$ic1.444454@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Let me underline that the fuckers GOT what they deserved.
So. that little toddler who lost a leg, the infant who looks like s/he
lost an eye, the baby that had had to have abdominal surgery .... they
were all terrorists/insurgents? I find that very hard to believe.
Collateral casualties, to stop the very same but at a much bigger scale
by these insurgents fuckers every single day.
Perhaps you meant to say that those individuals who were involved in
the insurgency in Fallujah deserved it if they got it, but that's not
what you said.
Woods
Of course it is. Don't you find it strange that you don't see the one
thousand times worst pictures posted here of what these fuckers
saddamites did to the Iraqi population?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Starting an unjustified war without
support and with poor planning and no exit strategy doesn't somehow
make what Saddam did less bad. Jean, your logic is flawed.
Before it was about enforcing UN Resolutions, and now you're saying
it was about about avenging Iraqi killings by Saddam or somehow
preventing some possible future atrocities. Which is it? UN
Resolutions or preventing something that could happen at some
indefinite future date?
The terrorists don't do everything they can, evacuate the towns, etc.,
to avoid innocent casualties, them, they wait until there is a lot of
innocent people and blow them to smithereens.
You would have hundreds and hundreds of TIMES more pictures of what
these fuckers Saddamites did to the civilian population of Iraq, which
they despise, but all that the losers can show is the few victims, which
are still indirect victims of the action necessary to stop thousands
more.
You'd rather that these thousands more go on, and that you don't see
these pictures wouldn't you?
So would Annan, apparently, who is the ever weasel that doesn't belong
where he is.
Loser never propose viable alternative, but criticize the best that can
be done all the time. Tell me, is it because they wouldn't have the ball
to implement what has to be addressed, or that they would but are too
dishonest to admit it?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 09:28:09 AM |
|
|
R. Foreman a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <3RJmd.4660407$ic1.444454@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Let me underline that the fuckers GOT what they deserved.
So. that little toddler who lost a leg, the infant who looks like s/he
lost an eye, the baby that had had to have abdominal surgery .... they
were all terrorists/insurgents? I find that very hard to believe.
Collateral casualties, to stop the very same but at a much bigger scale
by these insurgents fuckers every single day.
Perhaps you meant to say that those individuals who were involved in
the insurgency in Fallujah deserved it if they got it, but that's not
what you said.
Woods
Of course it is. Don't you find it strange that you don't see the one
thousand times worst pictures posted here of what these fuckers
saddamites did to the Iraqi population?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Starting an unjustified war without
support and with poor planning and no exit strategy doesn't somehow
make what Saddam did less bad. Jean, your logic is flawed.
The war was started by Saddam, and the intervention was justified since
it was the breach of the conditions of the cease fire that he breached
for 13 years, and even after a last chance resolution, in 6 ways beside
all the WMDs clauses. All it took is one.
Before it was about enforcing UN Resolutions, and now you're saying
it was about about avenging Iraqi killings by Saddam or somehow
preventing some possible future atrocities. Which is it? UN
Resolutions or preventing something that could happen at some
indefinite future date?
No, I never said that it was about avenging Iraqi killing, the regime
elimination was about enforcing the UN resolution, the killers are
Saddamites and foreign Muslim (mostly Arab) AlQaeda sympathizers that
are as much killers as they would be under the guise of legality.
Even Chirac, in an interview today on the BBC said that it was a
necessary thing to remove him, which was really something to hear since
he still maintains that the consensus for 1441 was not a consensus once
it was time to implement it. I don't know how he can say both. But at
least he admits that much.
Me I maintain it is the UN resolution. But they have to deal with the
consequences alone since there is a virtual betrayal of their signatures
by these weasels, led by France, who know say it was a necessary thing
to remove him. I have to find the transcript of that interview in the
BBC so you see. It cut in half the anger I had towards France for being
responsible for much of the mess, not only by not involving itself, but
by making a perfectly legal thing something that wasn't because they
didn't win. The consensus was still with the unanimously signed document
that remained when their amendment didn't work. It was perverse not to
admit it. More perverse than Annan is by criticizing going after the
thousands of terrorists who kills many more Iraqis than the numbers they
are, because they are the main ones at the origin of the support the
illegal combatants got. Annan only shows further his irrelevancy. France
did much worse. But as I say, there seem to be some kind of weird
rationalization even if Chirac insist he doesn't change his mind. Anyway.
J.
The terrorists don't do everything they can, evacuate the towns, etc.,
to avoid innocent casualties, them, they wait until there is a lot of
innocent people and blow them to smithereens.
You would have hundreds and hundreds of TIMES more pictures of what
these fuckers Saddamites did to the civilian population of Iraq, which
they despise, but all that the losers can show is the few victims, which
are still indirect victims of the action necessary to stop thousands
more.
You'd rather that these thousands more go on, and that you don't see
these pictures wouldn't you?
So would Annan, apparently, who is the ever weasel that doesn't belong
where he is.
Loser never propose viable alternative, but criticize the best that can
be done all the time. Tell me, is it because they wouldn't have the ball
to implement what has to be addressed, or that they would but are too
dishonest to admit it?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 05:29:01 PM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
R. Foreman a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <3RJmd.4660407$ic1.444454@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Let me underline that the fuckers GOT what they deserved.
So. that little toddler who lost a leg, the infant who looks like s/he
lost an eye, the baby that had had to have abdominal surgery .... they
were all terrorists/insurgents? I find that very hard to believe.
Collateral casualties, to stop the very same but at a much bigger scale
by these insurgents fuckers every single day.
Perhaps you meant to say that those individuals who were involved in
the insurgency in Fallujah deserved it if they got it, but that's not
what you said.
Woods
Of course it is. Don't you find it strange that you don't see the one
thousand times worst pictures posted here of what these fuckers
saddamites did to the Iraqi population?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Starting an unjustified war without
support and with poor planning and no exit strategy doesn't somehow
make what Saddam did less bad. Jean, your logic is flawed.
The war was started by Saddam, and the intervention was justified since
it was the breach of the conditions of the cease fire that he breached
for 13 years, and even after a last chance resolution, in 6 ways beside
all the WMDs clauses. All it took is one.
Before it was about enforcing UN Resolutions, and now you're saying
it was about about avenging Iraqi killings by Saddam or somehow
preventing some possible future atrocities. Which is it? UN
Resolutions or preventing something that could happen at some
indefinite future date?
No, I never said that it was about avenging Iraqi killing, the regime
elimination was about enforcing the UN resolution, the killers are
Saddamites and foreign Muslim (mostly Arab) AlQaeda sympathizers that
are as much killers as they would be under the guise of legality.
Even Chirac, in an interview today on the BBC said that it was a
necessary thing to remove him, which was really something to hear since
he still maintains that the consensus for 1441 was not a consensus once
it was time to implement it. I don't know how he can say both. But at
least he admits that much.
Me I maintain it is the UN resolution.
My gripe isn't really about Saddam or even the war (though it
was poorly planned, and our people are in a mess because of it).
I could care less if Saddam lives or dies, and I'm sure the Iraqis
are mostly glad to be rid of him.
My gripe is about the stupidity of Bush. The neocon thinkers
give him a very simple task, sell the war, and he can't do it.
The best rat-brained idea he can think up is some possible
attack on the US at some indefinite time in the future. He
would have been better off saying we were still at war from
10 years ago, and technically he would have been right, and
he wouldn't have needed the UN and he may have had more support
in the world.
He ushered in a very dangerous precedent, that of pre-emptive
war to secure a safe future. Hitler also had a vision for
Germany's future, the 1000 year Reich, and he set about
pre-emptive attacks to realize that vision.
The world thinks Bush is stupid and dangerous.
But they have to deal with the
consequences alone since there is a virtual betrayal of their signatures
by these weasels, led by France, who know say it was a necessary thing
to remove him. I have to find the transcript of that interview in the
BBC so you see. It cut in half the anger I had towards France for being
responsible for much of the mess, not only by not involving itself, but
by making a perfectly legal thing something that wasn't because they
didn't win. The consensus was still with the unanimously signed document
that remained when their amendment didn't work. It was perverse not to
admit it. More perverse than Annan is by criticizing going after the
thousands of terrorists who kills many more Iraqis than the numbers they
are, because they are the main ones at the origin of the support the
illegal combatants got. Annan only shows further his irrelevancy. France
did much worse. But as I say, there seem to be some kind of weird
rationalization even if Chirac insist he doesn't change his mind. Anyway.
J.
The terrorists don't do everything they can, evacuate the towns, etc.,
to avoid innocent casualties, them, they wait until there is a lot of
innocent people and blow them to smithereens.
You would have hundreds and hundreds of TIMES more pictures of what
these fuckers Saddamites did to the civilian population of Iraq, which
they despise, but all that the losers can show is the few victims, which
are still indirect victims of the action necessary to stop thousands
more.
You'd rather that these thousands more go on, and that you don't see
these pictures wouldn't you?
So would Annan, apparently, who is the ever weasel that doesn't belong
where he is.
Loser never propose viable alternative, but criticize the best that can
be done all the time. Tell me, is it because they wouldn't have the ball
to implement what has to be addressed, or that they would but are too
dishonest to admit it?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
18 Nov 2004 11:33:38 PM |
|
|
R. Foreman a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
R. Foreman a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <3RJmd.4660407$ic1.444454@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Let me underline that the fuckers GOT what they deserved.
So. that little toddler who lost a leg, the infant who looks like s/he
lost an eye, the baby that had had to have abdominal surgery .... they
were all terrorists/insurgents? I find that very hard to believe.
Collateral casualties, to stop the very same but at a much bigger scale
by these insurgents fuckers every single day.
Perhaps you meant to say that those individuals who were involved in
the insurgency in Fallujah deserved it if they got it, but that's not
what you said.
Woods
Of course it is. Don't you find it strange that you don't see the one
thousand times worst pictures posted here of what these fuckers
saddamites did to the Iraqi population?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Starting an unjustified war without
support and with poor planning and no exit strategy doesn't somehow
make what Saddam did less bad. Jean, your logic is flawed.
The war was started by Saddam, and the intervention was justified since
it was the breach of the conditions of the cease fire that he breached
for 13 years, and even after a last chance resolution, in 6 ways beside
all the WMDs clauses. All it took is one.
Before it was about enforcing UN Resolutions, and now you're saying
it was about about avenging Iraqi killings by Saddam or somehow
preventing some possible future atrocities. Which is it? UN
Resolutions or preventing something that could happen at some
indefinite future date?
No, I never said that it was about avenging Iraqi killing, the regime
elimination was about enforcing the UN resolution, the killers are
Saddamites and foreign Muslim (mostly Arab) AlQaeda sympathizers that
are as much killers as they would be under the guise of legality.
Even Chirac, in an interview today on the BBC said that it was a
necessary thing to remove him, which was really something to hear since
he still maintains that the consensus for 1441 was not a consensus once
it was time to implement it. I don't know how he can say both. But at
least he admits that much.
Me I maintain it is the UN resolution.
My gripe isn't really about Saddam or even the war (though it
was poorly planned, and our people are in a mess because of it).
I could care less if Saddam lives or dies, and I'm sure the Iraqis
are mostly glad to be rid of him.
My gripe is about the stupidity of Bush. The neocon thinkers
give him a very simple task, sell the war, and he can't do it.
The best rat-brained idea he can think up is some possible
attack on the US at some indefinite time in the future. He
would have been better off saying we were still at war from
10 years ago, and technically he would have been right, and
he wouldn't have needed the UN and he may have had more support
in the world.
He ushered in a very dangerous precedent, that of pre-emptive
war to secure a safe future. Hitler also had a vision for
Germany's future, the 1000 year Reich, and he set about
pre-emptive attacks to realize that vision.
The world thinks Bush is stupid and dangerous.
But that is the weasels' continual lie.
Bush went to the House/senate to obtain authorization for the war based
on the breach of the UN resolutions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
determine that: 1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) (... US security) [nor]
"(B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And he went on before the American public (state of the nation) with the
same reason:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand
by its demand that Iraq disarm.
(...)
"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last
casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed
to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he
systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological,
and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing
to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not
economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even
cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam
Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt
for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You anti-US administration weasels refuse to admit that. You make up
some other *****. And then you go on and you believe your lie.
J.
But they have to deal with the
consequences alone since there is a virtual betrayal of their signatures
by these weasels, led by France, who know say it was a necessary thing
to remove him. I have to find the transcript of that interview in the
BBC so you see. It cut in half the anger I had towards France for being
responsible for much of the mess, not only by not involving itself, but
by making a perfectly legal thing something that wasn't because they
didn't win. The consensus was still with the unanimously signed document
that remained when their amendment didn't work. It was perverse not to
admit it. More perverse than Annan is by criticizing going after the
thousands of terrorists who kills many more Iraqis than the numbers they
are, because they are the main ones at the origin of the support the
illegal combatants got. Annan only shows further his irrelevancy. France
did much worse. But as I say, there seem to be some kind of weird
rationalization even if Chirac insist he doesn't change his mind. Anyway.
J.
The terrorists don't do everything they can, evacuate the towns, etc.,
to avoid innocent casualties, them, they wait until there is a lot of
innocent people and blow them to smithereens.
You would have hundreds and hundreds of TIMES more pictures of what
these fuckers Saddamites did to the civilian population of Iraq, which
they despise, but all that the losers can show is the few victims, which
are still indirect victims of the action necessary to stop thousands
more.
You'd rather that these thousands more go on, and that you don't see
these pictures wouldn't you?
So would Annan, apparently, who is the ever weasel that doesn't belong
where he is.
Loser never propose viable alternative, but criticize the best that can
be done all the time. Tell me, is it because they wouldn't have the ball
to implement what has to be addressed, or that they would but are too
dishonest to admit it?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
19 Nov 2004 12:48:10 PM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
But that is the weasels' continual lie.
And he went on before the American public (state of the nation) with the
same reason:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand
by its demand that Iraq disarm.
You anti-US administration weasels refuse to admit that. You make up
some other *****. And then you go on and you believe your lie.
J.
Like I said, he chose the stupidest possible reason for launching
a war. Stupidity is attacking someone for something they may do
in the future.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Su Zanadu" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
21 Nov 2004 04:33:45 AM |
|
|
R. Foreman wrote:
Like I said, he chose the stupidest
possible reason for launching a war.
Even despite that *high* IQ of his!
Stupidity is attacking someone for
something they may do in the future.
And such "stupidity" will come back to haunt us.
Now we have opened up the "kick-*****" doors for someone to wage a
pre-emptive strike against us before we do something as "stupid" as
that....again.
Bush may as well have a sign taped to his back saying "KICK ME/STOP US!"
SuZanne
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
22 Nov 2004 09:09:34 AM |
|
|
tugbertswife@webtv.net (Su Zanadu)
wrote:
R. Foreman wrote:
Like I said, he chose the stupidest
possible reason for launching a war.
Even despite that *high* IQ of his!
Yes the Prdeisdent does have a higher IQ and much more integrity and guts than
the guy you supported.
Stupidity is attacking someone for
something they may do in the future.
And such "stupidity" will come back to >haunt us.
That you two think preemption is stupid, just shows how stupid you both are.
Now we have opened up the "kick-*****" >doors for someone to wage a
pre-emptive strike against us before we >do something as "stupid" as
that....again.
LOL!!! More clueless stupidity, WTF do you think 9-11 was?
Bush may as well have a sign taped to >his back saying "KICK ME/STOP US!"
SuZanne
Go watch some cartoons, it's about the level on which you can function, leave
politics and world events to those who actually can understand them.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
21 Nov 2004 08:07:10 AM |
|
|
In article <2315-41A06F09-215@storefull-3217.bay.webtv.net>, (Su Zanadu) wrote:
R. Foreman wrote:
Like I said, he chose the stupidest
possible reason for launching a war.
Even despite that *high* IQ of his!
Stupidity is attacking someone for
something they may do in the future.
And such "stupidity" will come back to haunt us.
Now we have opened up the "kick-*****" doors for someone to wage a
pre-emptive strike against us before we do something as "stupid" as
that....again.
We've opened the door for *anyone* to decide to wage a pre-emptive strike
against another country.
Bush may as well have a sign taped to his back saying "KICK ME/STOP US!"
Like I've been saying, he's painted a big ol' red bull's eye on the US of A and
every one of its citizens - for no good reason.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
22 Nov 2004 09:10:47 AM |
|
|
woodswun@tepidmail.com >(Woodswun)
wrote:
tugbertswife@webtv.net (Su Zanadu) wrote:
R. Foreman wrote:
Like I said, he chose the stupidest
possible reason for launching a war.
Even despite that *high* IQ of his!
Stupidity is attacking someone for
something they may do in the future.
And such "stupidity" will come back to haunt us.
Now we have opened up the "kick-*****" doors for someone to wage a
pre-emptive strike against us before we do something as "stupid" as
that....again.
We've opened the door for *anyone* to decide to wage a pre-emptive strike
against another country.
Bush may as well have a sign taped to >>his back saying "KICK ME/STOP US!"
Like I've been saying, he's painted a big >ol' red bull's eye on the US of A
and every one of its citizens - for no >good reason.
Woods
Cluess *****!!!
The USA has been under attack from Islamic Terrorists for over 10 years, wake
the ***** up.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
20 Nov 2004 02:55:40 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:48:10 GMT, "R. Foreman"
<eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Like I said, he chose the stupidest possible reason for launching
a war. Stupidity is attacking someone for something they may do
in the future.
Right. A preemptive atrocity. Thousands killed/maimed/disabled;
families torn apart - a country in utter chaos - no exit strategy
which leaves our soldiers forced to stay the course.
"Oh hey - by the way world: There wasn't any WMDs! Sorry! But..
bu.. but we *did* liberate the Iraqi people!!"
I honestly can barely stand watching/reading the news anymore.
Dani
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
22 Nov 2004 09:06:23 AM |
|
|
Dani
wrote:
"R. Foreman"
<eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Like I said, he chose the stupidest possible reason for launching
a war. Stupidity is attacking someone for something they may do
in the future.
Right. A preemptive atrocity. Thousands >killed/maimed/disabled;
families torn apart - a country in utter >chaos - no exit strategy
which leaves our soldiers forced to stay >the course.
There were thousands killed/maimed/disabled; families torn apart - a country in
utter chaos - when Saddam was in power, at least now Iraq has a chance to elect
it's own leaders and hope for the future.
Under Saddam's heel they had no hope at all, but that is what you seem to
prefer.
I honestly can barely stand >watching/reading the news anymore.
Dani
That's normal for people with low IQ's.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Fallujah in pictures |
21 Nov 2004 04:51:10 AM |
|
|
R. Foreman a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
But that is the weasels' continual lie.
And he went on before the American public (state of the nation) with the
same reason:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand
by its demand that Iraq disarm.
You anti-US administration weasels refuse to admit that. You make up
some other *****. And then you go on and you believe your lie.
J.
Like I said, he chose the stupidest possible reason for launching
a war. Stupidity is attacking someone for something they may do
in the future.
But this was not the reason. How many times must I repeat it before you
get it?
The stupid war was launched by Saddam against Kuwait to begin with, when
the coalition got this authorization of force against him to dislodge
him from there, and then there was a truce, which halted the elimination
of the regime by a conditional cease fire.
He never complied even if he agreed to it, and the lifting of the cease
fire was never implemented. But they made a last chance resolution,
which was not only one to set up a new inspection regime back up, but to
reminded him he had to abide by all of the clauses of the 687e
resolution or else he would face the serious consequences.
They didn't tell him they would forgive him for any breach, they
reminded him that it was conditional.
Saddam didn't comply. I don't see how there could have been a pardon.
THere were no amendment, It eludes me how weasels think.
This is the reason, the UN resolution, and what did the UN weasels do?
Make themselves irrelevant by denying it when there was no other
resolution, no provision not to implement it, nothing.
You think the UN is relevant still? There are no other international
bodies, true, unfortunately. But they are worthless now for world
conflict. Any other conflict where they would put their foot down and
threaten serious consequences would be dismissed because of this
precedent, even if the legit members of the UN implemented it here, they
are still questioning even this, the weasels there are a bunch of clowns
now including Annan. I don't see how another conflict can go through
them. There will have to be a change of representatives. Unlikely to
happen, so there you are, an irrelevant UN, at the brink of nuclear
confrontation, by whom Nostradamus branded the next Islamic aggressor,
and the first AC.
Indeed, if not for the UN resolution the US would not have intervened.
But there was no other artificial reason. I wish it was about something
else. Like that Iran and North Korea would already be disarmed. But the
UN behavior may lead to getting matters done without this now, since,
obsolete body of clowns.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
