THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN

Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus
User:	"=?utf-8?B?4pi6IC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuwrc6KsKowqgqOsK3LiAg4pmlIFdvcmxkIFdhciBJSUkgMjAwNywgVGhlIExhc3QgMjAwMCBEYXlzLi4uSE9PUk9PICEgIC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuIOKZpeKYusKpwq7ihKI=?="
Date:	01 Feb 2007 08:34:22 PM
Object:	THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/1/31/17399/4452
THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN
by populistamerica
Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 05:39:09 PM EST
....The troop surge is about provoking and preparing war with Iran and
has nothing to do with stabilizing Iraq. The plan is to escalate
tension further so sectarian violence divides the Middle East along
ethnic lines. It has always been divide and rule. Wake up people and
take America back for our children and our childrens' children. We are
running out of time but time enough remains for us to act...
Commentary :: ::
"In a Time of Universal Deceit - Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary
Act."
- George Orwell
Why an escalation and why now when tens of thousands, up to half a
million Americans have taken to the streets to of Washington, DC to
implore congress that you cannot oppose the war and still fund it. The
citizenry has made it clear that we absolutely do not support Bush's
immoral illegal war against Iraq and failed foreign policy in fighting
the war o terror. Bush cannot even claim that he has made the American
people safer especially since the borders were and are still wide
open, our ports are not secure, and his administration failed even to
implement the 9-11 commission recommendations for protecting the
country.
The BBC released a poll on Jan 23rd, 2007 which clearly shows that the
view of the US's role in the world has deteriorated both
internationally and domestically. When asked about US military
presence in the Middle East, an average of 68% of respondents across
25 countries including the US, answered that our country "provokes
more conflict than it prevents". Now that the rubber stamp Republican
controlled Senate has been dethroned, members of the President's own
party have expressed public concern over the Decider's planned
escalation of the war, the real question remains - Why a troop
escalation or 'surge' and why now? Is it really to stabilize Baghdad
and ease the sectarian violence or does the Decider have something
even more sinister in mind like provoking a Greater Middle East War
with planned conventional and even nuclear air strikes against Iran's
nuclear power infrastructure?
Retired USAF Colonel Sam Gardiner wrote an article entitled, The
Pieces Are Being Put in Place, released January 13th, 2007 "The pieces
are moving. They'll be in place by the end of February. The United
States will be able to escalate military operations against Iran. The
White House keeps saying there are no plans to attack Iran. Obviously,
the facts suggest otherwise. Equally as clear, the Iranians will read
what the Administrations is doing not what it is saying. It is
possible the White House strategy is just implementing a strategy to
put pressure on Iran on a number of fronts, and this will never amount
to anything. On the other hand, if the White House is on a path to
strike Iran, we'll see a few more steps unfold."
What are some of those steps? We already have a few clear signs that
the United States is provoking dissent and supporting opposition
groups in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, not to mention that our second
carrier group has moved into the Persian Gulf something that has not
happened since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. On January 25, 2007,
Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, gave clear warning that his
country was prepared to use military force to prevent Tehran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon. "Israeli military officials warned this
week that Israel - acting alone or in coordination with the US - could
launch preemptive military strikes against Iran before the end of this
year."
On Jan 15th, Michael Roston released an article about a leaked Jan.
9th memo from the banking division of ING Group entitled "Attacking
Iran: The market impact of a surprise Israeli strike on its nuclear
facilities." The ING memo was first sent to Raw Story as an anonymous
tip and confirmed by staff at the bank's emerging markets office. The
full PDF documents can be downloaded at this link for the Jan. 9
report, and this link for the Jan. 15 update. The bank sees February
or March as a timeline for an Israeli or US strike on Iran. They were
warning their investors that should such an attack take place it could
be catastrophic for the world. "Geopolitical tension will likely rise
in February/March, impacting on risk appetite and asset prices across
the board."
Whether it's Israel or the United States that actually does the
initial bombing, the fact is any strikes against Iran whether
conventional or nuclear in capability only promises to destabilize the
fragile world order even further and force the entire world to unite
against the pre-emptive strike doctrine of the United States as
outlined by the Project for a New American Century's document
"Rebuilding America's Defenses." The Neo-Conservatives currently
running this country and still in power, believe "The United States is
the world's only superpower, combining preeminent military power,
global technological leadership, and the world's largest economy.
Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which
includes the world's other leading democratic powers. At present the
United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should
aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the
future as possible."
General Leonid Ivashov, once chief of the Military cooperation
department at the Russian federation's Ministry of defense and Joint
chief of staff of the Russian armies, and current vice-president of
the Academy on geopolitical affairs; wrote in a article called "Iran
Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack" dated Jan 24th, 2007, in
which he said, "The war in Iraq was just one element in a series of
steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase
in the process of getting closer to dealing with Iran and other
countries, which the US declared or will declare rouge. However it is
not easy for the US to get involved in yet another military campaign
while Iraq and Afghanistan are not "pacified" (the US lacks the
resources necessary for the operation). Besides, protests against the
politics of the Washington neocons intensify all over the world." He
goes on to say that, "Some people tend to believe that concerns over
the world's protests can stop the US. I don't think so.
The importance of this factor should not be overstated. In the past, I
have spent hours talking to Milosevic, trying to convince him that
NATO was preparing to attack Yugoslavia. For a long time, he could not
believe this and kept telling me: 'Just read the UN Charter. What
grounds will they have to do it?' But they did it. They ignored the
international law outrageously and did it. What do we have now? Yes,
there was a shock, there was indignation. But the result is exactly
what the aggressors wanted - Milosevic is dead, Yugoslavia is
partitioned, and Serbia is colonized - NATO officers have set up their
headquarters in the country's ministry of defense. The same things
happened to Iraq. There were a shock and indignation. But what matters
to the Americans is not how big the shock is, but how high are the
revenues of their military-industrial complex." General Ivashov warned
the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week that he
expects the US to strike Iran by the end of April.
Recently (Jan 13) the Bush administration ordered a raid on an Iranian
office in Irbil and detained five people to investigate whether they
were involved in "illegal or terrorist" activity. More recently (Jan
23rd) Bush authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to take "whatever actions
are necessary to counter Iranian agents deemed a threat to American
troops or the Iraqi public." Think the Decider is trying to provoke
Iran into attacking US forces so that he will have the pre-text to
broaden the war with Iran? The same thing happened in the lead up to
the invasion in Iraq. The bombing campaign against Iraq began long
before the start of the official war. The US had pretty much wiped out
all radar facilities annd air defenses before the official invasion.
Bush was hoping that Saddam Hussein would retaliate so that he would
have an 'easier' time justifying his war. because Saddam would not
retaliate, Bush was forced into making up lies to cojure public
support for the war.
On Jan. 22nd, an article appeared in the Dubai paper called the Gulf
News entitled "Is Bush planning war against Iran?" which opeed with
"It is now clear that the US President George W. Bush has decided to
confront Iran - politically, economically and militarily - rather than
engage it in negotiations, as he was advised to do by James Baker and
Lee Hamilton in their Iraq Study Group report." The Guardian of London
just released an article called, "Iran Warned As Troop Surge Begins."
The article cofirms the Gulf News article as stated, "The Bush
administration rejected calls last month by the bipartisan Iraq Study
Group led by the former secretary of state, James Baker, to open
dialogue with Iran and has opted instead for a new confrontational
approach."
The mainstream news in all parts of the world outside of the US has
been widely reporting that many intelligence services from many
countries believe that the White House plans to strike Iran before
Bush and Cheney lose power and leave office in 2008, and before Blair
leaves office in April of 2007. In fact, the World Economic Forum
opened January 24 with discussion and a warning from the Secretary
General of the League of Arab States Amr Moussa, "There is a 50/50
chance the United States will attack Iran and any such strike would
risk spreading sectarian violence through the Middle East... we hope
that it won't happen. Attacking Iran would be counterproductive."
Moussa also said - the United States needs to move from use of
military force towards dialogue, both to resolve the violence in Iraq
and to reduce U.S.-Iranian tensions. He added that he favoured
proposals for talks with Iran and Syria. "If there were to be a war,
other genies will get out of the bottle. You cannot imagine the impact
on the Gulf countries, on the Mediterranean."
Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan
administration, wrote an article called - Bush Is About To Attack Iran
- Why Can't Americans See It? "...bankers and businessmen from such US
allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the
coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the Middle East
and the world... Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting
another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned
attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught
on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without
the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate
world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs.
But Congress and the Media--and the demonstration in Washington--are
focused on Iraq."
If you still don't believe that the US or Israel will attack Iran,
please check out William Thomas' story released Ja 25th, 2007 called
"Wrestling With The Devil Behind The Story Of Israel's Aborted Nuclear
Strike." Thomas asserts in his article that Israel as recently as Jan.
7th attempted to send fighters ito Iran to bomb the its nuclear
facilities. The bombing did not take place because Us fighters
intercepted them enroute over Iraq and forced them to turn back
without their payload delivery. "According to this very reliable
source, on two previous occasions Israeli fighter-bombers armed with
nuclear bombs have headed "downtown" before being turned back over
Iraq. The January 7th mission, which trespassed beyond 160 station
before being recalled by Israeli authorities, comprised three IAF
F-16s. Each carried conventional munitions - as well as a single 20-
kiloton nuclear bomb. The atomic detonation that razed the city of
Hiroshima and killed 140,000 people outright was a 13-kiloton blast.
[Agence France-Presse Aug 6/05]"
We are living in very serious times. The American public is being kept
in the dark so that the Decider can get away with enflaming World War
III which started after the attack of September 11th, 2001. Call your
Congress people and tell them to force the President to stop his
insane pursuit to 'escalate' war with Iran. The troop surge is about
provoking and preparing war with Iran and has nothing to do with
stabilizing Iraq. The plan is to escalate tension further so sectarian
violence divides the Middle East along ethnic lines. It has always
been divide and rule. Wake up people and take America back for our
children and our childrens' children. We are running out of time but
time enough remains for us to act.
by Zen Garcia [send him email], who is an activist and writer in
Athens, GA. Zen is a Populist Party columnist.
==================================
.

User: "Jean Guernon"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	02 Feb 2007 07:01:22 AM

"? .�:*��*:�.�:*��*:�. ? World War III 2007, The Last 2000 Days...HOOROO !
..�:*��*:�. ??��T" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> a �crit dans le message de
news: 1170383662.260300.33330@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/1/31/17399/4452

THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN

by populistamerica

Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 05:39:09 PM EST

...The troop surge is about provoking and preparing war with Iran and
has nothing to do with stabilizing Iraq. The plan is to escalate
tension further so sectarian violence divides the Middle East along
ethnic lines. It has always been divide and rule. Wake up people and

[Snip the rest of the *****]
Nah,. just to prevent the Iranian Hitler from making nukes to wipe off
Isra�l.
But yes it is true that the hundreds of billions Iran spent in trying to do
just that in war efforts to take over Iraq is a bonus.
Gee all we see here is terrorists propaganda. Sad.
J.
.

User: "John Lemke"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	02 Feb 2007 08:34:58 AM

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:CCGwh.27087$Oa.12066@edtnps82...

"? .�:*��*:�.�:*��*:�. ? World War III 2007, The Last 2000 Days...HOOROO !
.�:*��*:�. ??��T" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> a �crit dans le message
de news: 1170383662.260300.33330@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

[Snip the rest of the *****]

Nah,. just to prevent the Iranian Hitler from making nukes to wipe off
Isra�l.

And to prevent further American aggression in the region. Nukes are one way
of making imperialist scum think twice. That's why the Soviets and the
Chinese developed them after we did.
I doubt that Iran is going to be standing idly by and let another American
backed coup or another illegal invasion threaten their freedom again.

But yes it is true that the hundreds of billions Iran spent in trying to
do just that in war efforts to take over Iraq is a bonus.

It's an onerous bonus our extremely unpopular chimp president will have us
paying for for generations.

Gee all we see here is terrorists propaganda. Sad.

Not as sad as all the robotic neocon propaganda and proven
mischaracterization.
.

User: "Steven Douglas"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	07 Feb 2007 09:54:49 PM

On Feb 2, 6:34 am, "John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:

"Jean Guernon" <jguer...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:CCGwh.27087$Oa.12066@edtnps82...

"? .=B7:*=A8=A8*:=B7.=B7:*=A8=A8*:=B7. ? World War III 2007, The Last 2=

000 Days...HOOROO !

.=B7:*=A8=A8*:=B7. ??=A9=AET" <stargatedecember2...@yahoo.ca> a =E9crit=

dans le message

denews: 1170383662.260300.33__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a6=

3jfAD$z__@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/1/31/17399/4452

THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN

by populistamerica

Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 05:39:09 PM EST

...The troop surge is about provoking and preparing war with Iran and
has nothing to do with stabilizing Iraq. The plan is to escalate
tension further so sectarian violence divides the Middle East along
ethnic lines. It has always been divide and rule. Wake up people and

[Snip the rest of the *****]

Nah,. just to prevent the Iranian Hitler from making nukes to wipe off
Isra=EBl.

And to prevent further American aggression in the region. Nukes are one =

way

of making imperialist scum think twice. That's why the Soviets and the
Chinese developed them after we did.

Amazing. Your own country is imperialist scum, but the Soviets and
Chinese aren't? You are twisted.
.

User: "Jean Guernon"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	02 Feb 2007 10:28:16 AM

The invasion was not illegal, it was made from a legally binding resolution
of the UN. That weasels refused to honor their signature because of
corruption doesn't make it illegal. Only those who honored theirs, were
decisional in this. The resolution didn't go away because France (which, by
the way is betraying the West again, and is presenting its ***** again to the
Muslims extremists, to the Iranian Hitler this time, about its nukes, saying
"well, one or two is not so bad") promised to veto another one, one that
proposed regime change instead of the liftring of the cease fire (invasion).
This is propaganda, and is wotrth only shitting on. And no, imperialism is
not from the West, it is from the Muslim terrorists supporting states who
want nothing more than spread their domination. The US doesNt, dominate, it
helps people be free of domionation, and that is what pisses you off.
Well, good! Go kiss their ***** and enjoy their state oppression if you don't
like the freedom of the West, loser.
J.
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
O9ednSIMx4SO0V7YnZ2dnUVZ_qunnZ2d@locallink.net...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:CCGwh.27087$Oa.12066@edtnps82...

"? .�:*��*:�.�:*��*:�. ? World War III 2007, The Last 2000 Days...HOOROO
! .�:*��*:�. ??��T" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> a �crit dans le
message de news: 1170383662.260300.33330@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

[Snip the rest of the *****]

Nah,. just to prevent the Iranian Hitler from making nukes to wipe off
Isra�l.

And to prevent further American aggression in the region. Nukes are one
way of making imperialist scum think twice. That's why the Soviets and
the Chinese developed them after we did.

I doubt that Iran is going to be standing idly by and let another American
backed coup or another illegal invasion threaten their freedom again.

But yes it is true that the hundreds of billions Iran spent in trying to
do just that in war efforts to take over Iraq is a bonus.

It's an onerous bonus our extremely unpopular chimp president will have us
paying for for generations.

Gee all we see here is terrorists propaganda. Sad.

Not as sad as all the robotic neocon propaganda and proven
mischaracterization.

User: "John Lemke"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	02 Feb 2007 06:53:26 PM

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:AEJwh.27812$Oa.21035@edtnps82...

Hmmmmmmmmm. Whose opinion should we base our sons' lives on? Hans Blix or
Jean Guernon. An expert on international law or a "scientist" who believes
that Nostradamus was inspired by God.

This is propaganda, and is wotrth only shitting on.

You people have been shitting on the truth for 5 years, 4 months and 22
days. Ever since MY country was attacked by Al Queda. You Bushites changed
your story about Saddam's threats, his weapons capabilities and his
acquisition of arms overnight and you've been lying ever since.
What y'all found over there was exactly what y'all had been saying was there
for the first 9 months of President Chimp's administration.

And no, imperialism is not from the West, it is from the Muslim terrorists
supporting states who want nothing more than spread their domination. The
US doesNt, dominate, it helps people be free of domionation, and that is
what pisses you off.

I'm not angry, Jean, but you're clearly upset.
You mean how the US didn't overthrow a democratically elected government in
Iran and didn't install a tyrant that was friendly to American and British
oil interests? Oh, that's definitely "propaganda".
I might build my own nuke to keep some country from doing that to me again.

Well, good! Go kiss their ***** and enjoy their state oppression if you
don't like the freedom of the West, loser.

Now we're dealing on a level you can function on, Jean. Oversimplification,
profanity and name calling.
Good to have you back.
.

User: "Jean Guernon"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	03 Feb 2007 10:32:47 AM

"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
wqSdnVgn9--RQF7YnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@locallink.net...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:AEJwh.27812$Oa.21035@edtnps82...

Hmmmmmmmmm. Whose opinion should we base our sons' lives on? Hans Blix or
Jean Guernon. An expert on international law or a "scientist" who
believes that Nostradamus was inspired by God.

Hans Blix decrreted that the WMD part of the resolution was breached. That
he reneged afterwards doesn,t change that cfact.
ANd Hans Blix weas only one part of the whole thing, there were many other
conditions besides WMD. But this part was also breached. hence why it was
time to act, and why there was a resolution proposed to change the lifting
of the cease fire into regime change, which was rejected.

This is propaganda, and is wtrth only shitting on.

You people have been shitting on the truth for 5 years, 4 months and 22
days. Ever since MY country was attacked by Al Queda. You Bushites
changed your story about Saddam's threats, his weapons capabilities and
his acquisition of arms overnight and you've been lying ever since.

What y'all found over there was exactly what y'all had been saying was
there for the first 9 months of President Chimp's administration.

besides the few WMDs left behind? We found out that Saddam had sent
everything to Syria.

And no, imperialism is not from the West, it is from the Muslim
terrorists supporting states who want nothing more than spread their
domination. The US doesNt, dominate, it helps people be free of
domionation, and that is what pisses you off.

I'm not angry, Jean, but you're clearly upset.

You mean how the US didn't overthrow a democratically elected government
in Iran and didn't install a tyrant that was friendly to American and
British oil interests? Oh, that's definitely "propaganda".

Ah, well well. you change the subject, I see who is upset here. But OK,
let's look into this propaganda lie that all american haters and stupid
losers quote.
The fact is that the Shah of Iran is not an invention of the US, the Shah
has been a legitimate ruler for centuries, if not millenia.
The thing is that Iran was before the fanatics that are there, a country
that was progressive, going somewhere, welcoming all cultures. of course
there was a secret police to prevent communist in the time of USSR then. And
extremists, who had triued to destroy its ancestral monarchy.
That the US helped it stay afloat economically (not otherwise) after there
was a coup against its ruler makes them ONLY supporter of their allies who
support democracy.
Let's see the facts, with reliable source. Encarta is not propaganda.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The shah was the traditional ruler over Iran, had been for centuries.
This is part of history everyone can read anywhere. Let's go tho where the
US helped Iran and what led to it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The premier dissolved the lower house on the basis of a plebiscite
(August 3-10) in which he suspended the secret ballot. The shah, who
opposed many of Mossadegh's policies, including his uncompromising stand
on the oil question, dismissed the prime minister on August 13. But
Mossadegh refused to yield his office, his followers rioted against the
royalists, and on August 16 the shah fled to Rome. After three days of
sanguinary disorders the royalists, supported by the army and police,
won control of Tehran, and Mossadegh and several aides were placed under
arrest. On August 22 the shah returned in triumph; the next day General
Fazullah Zahedi (1897-1963), who had been previously designated prime
minister by the shah, formed a government. The US didn'T do anythjing i
n that, they just help the country not to fall apart because of that.
(The U.S. government granted Iran a $45 million emergency loan.)
Two months later Iran resumed diplomatic relations with Great Britain.
Mossadegh was sentenced (December 2) to three years' solitary
confinement for leading a revolt against the shah. The Iranian
electorate went to the polls in March 1954 to elect a new lower house of
parliament.
After he was restored to his throne with the aid of the U.S. in 1953,
Shah Muhammad Riza Pahlavi became increasingly confident and secure in
his ruling position and began to devote more attention to his dynastic
aspirations. He had divorced his first wife in 1948 because she had
borne him no male heir, and in 1959 he dissolved his second marriage for
the same reason. He remarried in 1959, and the new queen gave birth to a
son, Prince Riza Pahlavi, in 1960.
At the same time he began to exercise more and more control over the
government, keeping it closely aligned with the U.S. In March 1959, Iran
signed a defense agreement with the U.S. On July 23, 1960, Iran
recognized Israel; the step led to difficulties with Egypt, and the Arab
League announced extension of its boycott of Israel to include Iran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Haaa I see now. Iran had recognize Israel. So that is why you find it was
not democratic. And the US helped to keep it "undemocratic" how? Because the
Shah stopped a coup and it had nmoney lended to its country so it go
bankrupt? So as to make sure the country didn't fall apart
despite the coup attempt?

I might build my own nuke to keep some country from doing that to me
again.

Yes, you would like that, fanatics muslims that prevent music being played
in the streets of Teheran, and have no other religion tolerated except if
they hide, and especially no Jews (which is wht you desire most, like
Hitler), even though it was, before that, a big part of what made Iran (the
Jewish community).
Yes we know your intentions: Fanatism and terrorism against freedom.

Well, good! Go kiss their ***** and enjoy their state oppression if you
don't like the freedom of the West, loser.

Now we're dealing on a level you can function on, Jean.
Oversimplification, profanity and name calling.

Good to have you back.

Well, I am sorry if I use names that fit your personality... I won't add to
them here, because the truth is eloquent and says the same thing without
having to say it.
J.
.

User: "Docrodile"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	03 Feb 2007 12:48:07 PM

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:PO2xh.28600$Oa.17173@edtnps82...

"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
wqSdnVgn9--RQF7YnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@locallink.net...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:AEJwh.27812$Oa.21035@edtnps82...

The invasion was not illegal, it was made from a legally binding
resolution of the UN. That weasels refused to honor their signature

Well, I am sorry if I use names that fit your personality... I won't add
to them here, because the truth is eloquent and says the same thing
without having to say it.

J.

Follow your heart, Jean...follow your heart. ROFL!

User: "Jean Guernon"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	03 Feb 2007 04:52:43 PM

"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
eq2lda$sum$1@aioe.org...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:PO2xh.28600$Oa.17173@edtnps82...

"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
wqSdnVgn9--RQF7YnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@locallink.net...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:AEJwh.27812$Oa.21035@edtnps82...

The invasion was not illegal, it was made from a legally binding
resolution of the UN. That weasels refused to honor their signature

Well, I am sorry if I use names that fit your personality... I won't add
to them here, because the truth is eloquent and says the same thing
without having to say it.

J.

Follow your heart, Jean...follow your heart. ROFL!

Of course. :-)
J.
.

User: "John Lemke"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	07 Feb 2007 09:02:58 PM

Giving short shrift here, Jean, because you aren't worth wasting too much
time with anymore.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:PO2xh.28600$Oa.17173@edtnps82...

Hans Blix decrreted that the WMD part of the resolution was breached. That
he reneged afterwards doesn,t change that cfact.

Blix, an expert on international law, says the invasion was illegal. The
Security council never backed it. Sorry, your opinion isn't worth much.

besides the few WMDs left behind? We found out that Saddam had sent
everything to Syria.

You've never posted any documentation on this. You're obviously getting
your information from Kim Miller's past lives.
You've been living on lies here for years now, why not get completely lost
in fantasy. Or better yet, "allegations".

And no, imperialism is not from the West, it is from the Muslim
terrorists supporting states who want nothing more than spread their
domination. The US doesNt, dominate, it helps people be free of
domionation, and that is what pisses you off.

I'm not angry, Jean, but you're clearly upset.

You mean how the US didn't overthrow a democratically elected government
in Iran and didn't install a tyrant that was friendly to American and
British oil interests? Oh, that's definitely "propaganda".

Ah, well well. you change the subject,

More fantasy. You said "the US doesNt, dominate, it helps people be free of
domionation". I demonstrated otherwise with historical fact and you accuse
me of "changing the subject". You're having trouble simply following a
simple discussion.

The fact is that the Shah of Iran is not an invention of the US, the Shah
has been a legitimate ruler for centuries, if not millenia.
The shah was the traditional ruler over Iran, had been for centuries.

<snipping a huge amount of incoherent trash>
I don't need to snip from Encarta, Jean. I've actually read a few books on
the subject.
For someone so fond of democracy your position is awfully hypocritcal, Jean.
Mossadegh won a free and fair election and tried to hold the British
accountable for the natural resouces they were removing from Iran and get a
fair share for his people. The British even refused to a 50-50 split on
revenue. My my, gaze upon the benevolent heart of British imperialism.
Seeing how the Shah had an historical and traditional claim that trumped the
validity of a democratically elected government why don't you return the
Windsors and the Romanovs to complete and total power? But that would make
the "principles" we're fighting for in Iraq a sham, wouldn't it?

Yes we know your intentions: Fanatism and terrorism against freedom.

You're a nutcase.

Well, good! Go kiss their ***** and enjoy their state oppression if you
don't like the freedom of the West, loser.

Well, I am sorry if I use names that fit your personality... I won't add
to them here, because the truth is eloquent and says the same thing
without having to say it.

My "personality" got it right not too long after the invasion. That makes
me a winner.
Just for contrast, let me give you the names of a few losers.
Donald Rumsfeld, FORMER Secretary of Defense.
Rick Santorum, FORMER senator from Pennsylvania.
George Allen, FORMER senator from Virginia.
George Bush, liar and President with low approval ratings that rival Richard
Nixon's.
To shorten all this we could just list the Republican Party as a huge pack
of losers.
You're trying to play Steven Douglas' spin game and you're just totally and
laughably inept at it. I won't killfile you tho, Jean. You actually have a
personality and you make me laugh.
.

User: "Jean Guernon"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	10 Feb 2007 09:17:12 PM

"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
ENydneHyR5yMDlfYnZ2dnUVZ_uyknZ2d@locallink.net...

Giving short shrift here, Jean, because you aren't worth wasting too much
time with anymore.

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:PO2xh.28600$Oa.17173@edtnps82...

Hans Blix decrreted that the WMD part of the resolution was breached.
That he reneged afterwards doesn,t change that cfact.

Blix, an expert on international law, says the invasion was illegal. The
Security council never backed it. Sorry, your opinion isn't worth much.

Blix doesn't have a say in the legality of the resolution nor the the
members of UNSCOM who reneged their signature.
His role was limited to saying whether Saddam had breached the resolutions
in one single matter, WMDs, and he had.
After that, his role was not relevant. Nor his opinion. Facts were that the
last chance resolution was breached and that the serious consequences were
inevitable. there was no other resolution. Those that reneged on theri
signature didn't have any back up reolution to fall back to as they have had
dfor 13 years while they were selling stuff on the side to Saddam.

besides the few WMDs left behind? We found out that Saddam had sent
everything to Syria.

You've never posted any documentation on this. You're obviously getting
your information from Kim Miller's past lives.

You've been living on lies here for years now, why not get completely lost
in fantasy. Or better yet, "allegations".

Oh yes I have, and to you.
I have posted links to the findings of the cleaned out Iraq facilities and
whatever evidence of the cover up the found. I have posted several links
that showed the proofs that miles of convoys left Iraq for Syria and that
scientists working on these were also relocalised at the destination �of
these convoys. there is no question about these satellite photos.
There is no doubt this happened.

And no, imperialism is not from the West, it is from the Muslim
terrorists supporting states who want nothing more than spread their
domination. The US doesNt, dominate, it helps people be free of
domionation, and that is what pisses you off.

I'm not angry, Jean, but you're clearly upset.

You mean how the US didn't overthrow a democratically elected government
in Iran and didn't install a tyrant that was friendly to American and
British oil interests? Oh, that's definitely "propaganda".

Ah, well well. you change the subject,

More fantasy. You said "the US doesNt, dominate, it helps people be free
of domionation". I demonstrated otherwise with historical fact and you
accuse me of "changing the subject". You're having trouble simply
following a simple discussion.

The fact is that the Shah of Iran is not an invention of the US, the Shah
has been a legitimate ruler for centuries, if not millenia.

The shah was the traditional ruler over Iran, had been for centuries.

<snipping a huge amount of incoherent trash>
[snip total ***** added instead of accurate data]

J.
.

User: "John Lemke"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 06:21:48 PM

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:YUvzh.47196$Fd.47020@edtnps90...

"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
ENydneHyR5yMDlfYnZ2dnUVZ_uyknZ2d@locallink.net...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:PO2xh.28600$Oa.17173@edtnps82...

It's far more relevant than your opinion. The Security Council legally
owned the resolutions. The Security Council never backed the invasion.
That's Blix' opinion and that of many others. It's basically that simple.
On the other hand we don't take your interpretations of Nostradamus
seriously.

Facts were that the last chance resolution was breached and that the
serious consequences were inevitable. there was no other resolution. Those
that reneged on theri signature didn't have any back up reolution to fall
back to as they have had dfor 13 years while they were selling stuff on the
side to Saddam.

besides the few WMDs left behind? We found out that Saddam had sent
everything to Syria.

You've never posted any documentation on this. You're obviously getting
your information from Kim Miller's past lives.

You've been living on lies here for years now, why not get completely
lost in fantasy. Or better yet, "allegations".

Oh yes I have, and to you.

I have posted links to the findings of the cleaned out Iraq facilities and
whatever evidence of the cover up the found. I have posted several links
that showed the proofs that miles of convoys left Iraq for Syria and that
scientists working on these were also relocalised at the destination �of
these convoys. there is no question about these satellite photos.

There is no doubt this happened.

In your dreams there's no doubt. It's not that Saddam's WMD programs
weren't transported to Syria. Saddam's WMD programs didn't exist. His
entire military capability had been in decline since 1991. Now, Jean, I'm
sure that you know exactly how to transport nothing to Syria. It wouldn't
surprise me if you could find satellite pictures of nothing being
transported to Syria.
All I have to do to justify my conclusions is to quote what the Bush
Administration was saying about Iraq prior to 9/11. Saddam had no WMD, he
was not a threat to his neighbors, the sanctions were working.
You and your friends have placed way too much faith in people like Douglas
Feith. :-) Keep your eyes on the news.

The shah was the traditional ruler over Iran, had been for centuries.

<snipping a huge amount of incoherent trash>
[snip total ***** added instead of accurate data]

Would you actually reinstate the Romanovs and the Windsors because of their
history and tradition, Jean?
Well, you may as well snip if you can't refute historical fact on your own
or find an answer in Encarta. Bwahahaha.
It's not true that we the only choice we had was to overthrow Mossadegh
because of a communist threat. We were supporting democracies all over the
world as long as they were cooperating with our best business interests.
It's also true that the Truman Administration refused to go along with
British machinations to get rid of Mossadegh. So apparently there was a
choice. And Harry Truman was no pinko.
It didn't become necessary to overthrow the democratically elected
government in Iran until Eisenhower became President. He and the Dulles
brothers caved to British demands and the rest is history. Overthrowing
democratically elected governments did not bother Ike or the Dulles
brothers. They did the same thing in Guatemala. They managed the overthrow
of the Arbenz government at the behest of one of Allan Dulles' old law
clients, The United Fruit Company.
It was a serial thing. Not the overthrow. The serving of old clients. :-)
.

User: "Perseid"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 05:00:16 AM

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Jean Guernon"
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words

"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
ENydneHyR5yMDlfYnZ2dnUVZ_uyknZ2d@locallink.net...

Giving short shrift here, Jean, because you aren't worth wasting too
much time with anymore.

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:PO2xh.28600$Oa.17173@edtnps82...

Hans Blix decrreted that the WMD part of the resolution was breached.
That he reneged afterwards doesn,t change that cfact.

Blix, an expert on international law, says the invasion was illegal.
The Security council never backed it. Sorry, your opinion isn't worth
much.

Blix doesn't have a say in the legality of the resolution nor the the
members of UNSCOM who reneged their signature.

His role was limited to saying whether Saddam had breached the
resolutions in one single matter, WMDs, and he had.

After that, his role was not relevant. Nor his opinion. Facts were that
the last chance resolution was breached and that the serious
consequences were inevitable. there was no other resolution. Those that
reneged on theri signature didn't have any back up reolution to fall
back to as they have had dfor 13 years while they were selling stuff on
the side to Saddam.

Oh signatures.. smignatures. Don't you have some important
information about hidden WMD to tell us about ? You know, it's
the WMD we're going to find any day now.
ps. The import of what you're trying to say would be greatly
enhanced if you could form grammatically correct sentences.
If you have no interest in speaking English, then what are
you doing here ?
.

User: "Steven Douglas"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 10:49:07 AM

On Feb 11, 3:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Jean Guernon"
<jguer...@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words

"John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
ENydneHyR5yMDlfYnZ2dnUVZ_uykn...@locallink.net...

Giving short shrift here, Jean, because you aren't worth wasting too
much time with anymore.

"Jean Guernon" <jguer...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:PO2xh.28600$Oa.17173@edtnps82...

Hans Blix decrreted that the WMD part of the resolution was breached.
That he reneged afterwards doesn,t change that cfact.

Blix, an expert on international law, says the invasion was illegal.
The Security council never backed it. Sorry, your opinion isn't worth
much.

Blix doesn't have a say in the legality of the resolution nor the the
members of UNSCOM who reneged their signature.

His role was limited to saying whether Saddam had breached the
resolutions in one single matter, WMDs, and he had.

After that, his role was not relevant. Nor his opinion. Facts were that
the last chance resolution was breached and that the serious
consequences were inevitable. there was no other resolution. Those that
reneged on theri signature didn't have any back up reolution to fall
back to as they have had dfor 13 years while they were selling stuff on
the side to Saddam.

Oh signatures.. smignatures. Don't you have some important
information about hidden WMD to tell us about ? You know, it's
the WMD we're going to find any day now.

ps. The import of what you're trying to say would be greatly
enhanced if you could form grammatically correct sentences.
If you have no interest in speaking English, then what are
you doing here ?

User: "Docrodile"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 03:13:20 PM

"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171212547.352302.268440@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 3:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Jean Guernon"
<jguer...@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words

"John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
ENydneHyR5yMDlfYnZ2dnUVZ_uykn...@locallink.net...

Giving short shrift here, Jean, because you aren't worth wasting too
much time with anymore.

"Jean Guernon" <jguer...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:PO2xh.28600$Oa.17173@edtnps82...

Hans Blix decrreted that the WMD part of the resolution was
breached.
That he reneged afterwards doesn,t change that cfact.

Blix, an expert on international law, says the invasion was illegal.
The Security council never backed it. Sorry, your opinion isn't
worth
much.

Blix doesn't have a say in the legality of the resolution nor the the
members of UNSCOM who reneged their signature.

His role was limited to saying whether Saddam had breached the
resolutions in one single matter, WMDs, and he had.

After that, his role was not relevant. Nor his opinion. Facts were
that
the last chance resolution was breached and that the serious
consequences were inevitable. there was no other resolution. Those
that
reneged on theri signature didn't have any back up reolution to fall
back to as they have had dfor 13 years while they were selling stuff
on
the side to Saddam.

Oh signatures.. smignatures. Don't you have some important
information about hidden WMD to tell us about ? You know, it's
the WMD we're going to find any day now.

ps. The import of what you're trying to say would be greatly
enhanced if you could form grammatically correct sentences.
If you have no interest in speaking English, then what are
you doing here ?

What second language do you write as well as Jean writes in English,
Randolph? But I shouldn't worry, because I know Docko will be along at
any moment to slam you for daring to criticize someone's spelling or
grammar. Because that's what Docko does (when it suits him).
It's a wonder how hypocritical you are, PeevedSteve. You've resorted to
correcting posters' spelling errors, like the lil' thing about Hagel, for
example. Gee, you were annoyed that a guy who supports Hagel wouldn't know
how to spell his name! Human minds aren't like programmed computers,
Steve-O.
Emotional factors not only influence our prose from hour to hour, but our
reactions to it. We ride a roller-coaster of emotions, and there are some
of us who experience a level of physical discomfort that affects our
memories, articulation, etc.
More disassociative sponge cake from you, with a frosting of hypocrisy to
top it off.
Docrodile
.

User: "Steven Douglas"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 03:30:57 PM

On Feb 11, 1:13 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:

"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message

news:1171212547.352302.268440@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 3:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Jean Guernon"
<jguer...@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words

"John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de new=

ENydneHyR5yMDlfYnZ2dnUVZ_uykn...@locallink.net...

Giving short shrift here, Jean, because you aren't worth wasting too
much time with anymore.

"Jean Guernon" <jguer...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:PO2xh.28600$Oa.17173@edtnps82...

Hans Blix decrreted that the WMD part of the resolution was
breached.
That he reneged afterwards doesn,t change that cfact.

Blix, an expert on international law, says the invasion was illegal.
The Security council never backed it. Sorry, your opinion isn't
worth
much.

Blix doesn't have a say in the legality of the resolution nor the the
members of UNSCOM who reneged their signature.

His role was limited to saying whether Saddam had breached the
resolutions in one single matter, WMDs, and he had.

After that, his role was not relevant. Nor his opinion. Facts were
that
the last chance resolution was breached and that the serious
consequences were inevitable. there was no other resolution. Those
that
reneged on theri signature didn't have any back up reolution to fall
back to as they have had dfor 13 years while they were selling stuff
on
the side to Saddam.

Oh signatures.. smignatures. Don't you have some important
information about hidden WMD to tell us about ? You know, it's
the WMD we're going to find any day now.

ps. The import of what you're trying to say would be greatly
enhanced if you could form grammatically correct sentences.
If you have no interest in speaking English, then what are
you doing here ?

Then you shouldn't have a problem coming up with another example that
jumped right out at you, should you?

Gee, you were annoyed that a guy who supports Hagel wouldn't know
how to spell his name!

User: "Docrodile"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 05:02:51 PM

"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171229457.837174.102860@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 1:13 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:

"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message

news:1171212547.352302.268440@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 3:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Jean Guernon"
<jguer...@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words

"John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> a �crit dans le message de
news:
ENydneHyR5yMDlfYnZ2dnUVZ_uykn...@locallink.net...

Giving short shrift here, Jean, because you aren't worth wasting
too
much time with anymore.

"Jean Guernon" <jguer...@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:PO2xh.28600$Oa.17173@edtnps82...

Hans Blix decrreted that the WMD part of the resolution was
breached.
That he reneged afterwards doesn,t change that cfact.

Blix, an expert on international law, says the invasion was
illegal.
The Security council never backed it. Sorry, your opinion isn't
worth
much.

Blix doesn't have a say in the legality of the resolution nor the
the
members of UNSCOM who reneged their signature.

His role was limited to saying whether Saddam had breached the
resolutions in one single matter, WMDs, and he had.

After that, his role was not relevant. Nor his opinion. Facts were
that
the last chance resolution was breached and that the serious
consequences were inevitable. there was no other resolution. Those
that
reneged on theri signature didn't have any back up reolution to fall
back to as they have had dfor 13 years while they were selling stuff
on
the side to Saddam.

Oh signatures.. smignatures. Don't you have some important
information about hidden WMD to tell us about ? You know, it's
the WMD we're going to find any day now.

ps. The import of what you're trying to say would be greatly
enhanced if you could form grammatically correct sentences.
If you have no interest in speaking English, then what are
you doing here ?

Then you shouldn't have a problem coming up with another example that
jumped right out at you, should you?

Gee, you were annoyed that a guy who supports Hagel wouldn't know
how to spell his name!

It was his second consecutive misspelling of "Hagel" that prompted me
to correct him. I thought someone who is supporting a potential
candidate for president should know how to spell the man's name. And
now, while I'm waiting for another example of how I have resorted to
correcting posters' spelling errors, why don't you explain why you
have no comment for Perseid's criticism of Jean's grammar?
No need for another example. The hypocrisy has been proven by your
confirmation. Why be redundant?
You'd like for posters to spend enormous amounts of time on you, Stevie,
but you're not important enough to do archival research on your
shortcomings. It's enough to see them every day here, in one form or the
other. If I came up with another example, you'd try to rationalize why you
corrected that poster's spelling mistake, as you offered a rationalization
for correcting Lemke (I think it was him).
If you notice that large amounts of thread space are simply wasted away,
having people act like librarians in supporting statements with archives,
as you habitually request, or you backing up even minor points with
archival references. Has it occurred to your unemotional, robotic,
controlled mental processing plant, that the worth of discussions with you
don't need to depend on the standard you set? And, if they can't provide
what you expect, then the reality of it is in question, or the veracity of
the poster is. It's like a combo library research-court docket
presentation! LOL!
Okay, so you're a nitpicking, tyrannical, convoluted, narcissistic psycho,
Steve-oh...it's nothing to be really ashamed of. Probably, it makes life a
hell for ya, but I'm sure you can rationalize your behaviour, and survive
the pitfalls of your personality. So far, you've done quite well...
Docrodile :)~
.

User: "John Lemke"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 05:29:18 PM

"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> wrote in message
news:eqo7as$j0g$1@aioe.org...

Okay, so you're a nitpicking, tyrannical, convoluted, narcissistic psycho,
Steve-oh...it's nothing to be really ashamed of. Probably, it makes life a
hell for ya, but I'm sure you can rationalize your behaviour, and survive
the pitfalls of your personality. So far, you've done quite well...
Docrodile :)~

Let Steven have his little "victories". The way the Democrats are going to
be exposing things over the next 18 months the poor boy won't be having much
to cheer about. I guess he'll have to take find joy in the slightest
things.
.

User: "Docrodile"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 06:17:31 PM

"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:pqOdncpXIKZSO1LYnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@locallink.net...

"Docrodile" <swampthing@hellsbayou.net> wrote in message
news:eqo7as$j0g$1@aioe.org...

Okay, so you're a nitpicking, tyrannical, convoluted, narcissistic
psycho, Steve-oh...it's nothing to be really ashamed of. Probably, it
makes life a hell for ya, but I'm sure you can rationalize your
behaviour, and survive the pitfalls of your personality. So far, you've
done quite well...
Docrodile :)~

Let Steven have his little "victories". The way the Democrats are going
to be exposing things over the next 18 months the poor boy won't be
having much to cheer about. I guess he'll have to take find joy in the
slightest things.

Yeah, come to think of it, it is a pitiful time for neocons, republicans,
right-wing evangelicals...the tiniest of *triumphs* is probably soothing
to 'em.
Docrodile ;)~

User: "Steven Douglas"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 06:24:03 PM

On Feb 11, 4:17 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:

"John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote in message

news:pqOdncpXIKZSO1LYnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@locallink.net...

"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote in message
news:eqo7as$j0g$1@aioe.org...

Okay, so you're a nitpicking, tyrannical, convoluted, narcissistic
psycho, Steve-oh...it's nothing to be really ashamed of. Probably, it
makes life a hell for ya, but I'm sure you can rationalize your
behaviour, and survive the pitfalls of your personality. So far, you've
done quite well...
Docrodile :)~

Let Steven have his little "victories". The way the Democrats are going
to be exposing things over the next 18 months the poor boy won't be
having much to cheer about. I guess he'll have to take find joy in the
slightest things.

Yeah, come to think of it, it is a pitiful time for neocons, republicans,
right-wing evangelicals...the tiniest of *triumphs* is probably soothing
to 'em.

What particular tiny triumph are you two delusionists referring to?
I'd like you to back up your claim, but so far you haven't. How is
that a triumph?
.

User: "Docrodile"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 06:29:26 PM

"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171239843.496527.60580@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 11, 4:17 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:

"John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote in message

news:pqOdncpXIKZSO1LYnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@locallink.net...

"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote in message
news:eqo7as$j0g$1@aioe.org...

Okay, so you're a nitpicking, tyrannical, convoluted, narcissistic
psycho, Steve-oh...it's nothing to be really ashamed of. Probably,
it
makes life a hell for ya, but I'm sure you can rationalize your
behaviour, and survive the pitfalls of your personality. So far,
you've
done quite well...
Docrodile :)~

Let Steven have his little "victories". The way the Democrats are
going
to be exposing things over the next 18 months the poor boy won't be
having much to cheer about. I guess he'll have to take find joy in
the
slightest things.

Yeah, come to think of it, it is a pitiful time for neocons,
republicans,
right-wing evangelicals...the tiniest of *triumphs* is probably
soothing
to 'em.

What particular tiny triumph are you two delusionists referring to?
I'd like you to back up your claim, but so far you haven't. How is
that a triumph?

Lyrics for: Nights in White Satin
Nights in white satin never reaching the end
Letters I've written never meaning to send
Beauty I'd always missed with these eyes before
Just what the truth is I can't say any more
'Cause I love you yes I love you oh how I love you
Gazing at people some hand in hand
Just what I'm going through they can't understand
Some try to tell me thoughts they can not defend
Just what you want to be you will be in the end
And I love you yes I love you oh how I love you
Oh how I love you
Nights in white satin never reaching the end
Letters I've written never meaning to send
Beauty I've always missed with these eyes before
Just what the truth is I can't say any more
'Cause I love you yes I love you oh how I love you oh how ooh
'Cause I love you yes I love you oh how I love you oh how ooh
Breathe deep the gathering gloom
Watch lights fade from every room
Bed sitter people look back and lament
Another day's useless energy is spent
Impassioned lovers wrestle as one
Lonely man cries for love and has none
New mother picks up and suckles her son
Senior citizens wish they were young
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight
Red is grey and yellow white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion

User: "Steven Douglas"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 06:07:04 PM

On Feb 11, 3:29 pm, "John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:

"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote in message

news:eqo7as$j0g$1@aioe.org...

Don't worry, John, I'm posting to other groups that are far more
interesting than this one has become. Doc's latest round of non-stop
posting seems to have driven some of the old regulars into the
background.
.

User: "Steven Douglas"
Title: Re: THE DECIDER'S PLANS TO WAGE WAR WITH IRAN	11 Feb 2007 05:11:52 PM

On Feb 11, 3:02 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:

"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message

news:1171229457.837174.102860@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 1:13 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:

"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote in message

news:1171212547.352302.268440@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 3:00 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Jean Guernon"
<jguer...@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words

"John Lemke" <jfle...@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de
news:
ENydneHyR5yMDlfYnZ2dnUVZ_uykn...@locallink.net...