NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:56:24 -0500, JohnH wrote:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.

Are they? I thought he was captured by the 4th Infantry Division.

Who ordered them to Iraq...or did they go on their own?



Oh...so, then, George W. Bush is personally responsible for the 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we killed recently?

No. I put the blame for their deaths on the guy that used them as human
shields.



I'd say you were rationalizing, but, then, you're a conservative and
such deaths do not concern you.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:56:24 -0500, JohnH wrote:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.

Are they? I thought he was captured by the 4th Infantry Division.

Who ordered them to Iraq...or did they go on their own?



Oh...so, then, George W. Bush is personally responsible for the 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we killed recently?

No. I put the blame for their deaths on the guy that used them as human
shields.



I'd say you were rationalizing, but, then, you're a conservative and
such deaths do not concern you.

The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian population.
There was a recent report from an independent group that concluded that
"several hundred" (*not* thousands) Iraqi civilian deaths could have been
prevented by avoiding the use of certain types of munitions. However, they
also concluded the US went to great measures to avoid civilian casualties.

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:56:24 -0500, JohnH wrote:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.

Are they? I thought he was captured by the 4th Infantry Division.

Who ordered them to Iraq...or did they go on their own?



Oh...so, then, George W. Bush is personally responsible for the 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we killed recently?

No. I put the blame for their deaths on the guy that used them as human
shields.



I'd say you were rationalizing, but, then, you're a conservative and
such deaths do not concern you.

The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian population.
There was a recent report from an independent group that concluded that
"several hundred" (*not* thousands) Iraqi civilian deaths could have been
prevented by avoiding the use of certain types of munitions. However, they
also concluded the US went to great measures to avoid civilian casualties.



There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

As far as Saddam hiding himself among civilians, you've obviously not
been to Washington, D.C., where the federal government is mixed in with
hundreds of thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with the
federal government. Yeah, I know...Saddam and other dictators
deliberately build themselves bunkers next to apartment houses. But,
then, there are federal buildings - possible targets - adjacent to
apartment buildings, townhouses, subway stations, et cetera.

The fact remains that Bush invaded Iraq for strictly personal political
reasons. If he hadn't been tanking in the polls, and desperate to draw
attention away from his adminstration's failure to capture the perps of
9-11, we never would have invaded.

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

We aren't about to invade Saudia Arabia.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Harry Krause wrote:

1. We invaded Iraq because it had WMD it was going to use against us.
Where are they?

They just found one you dork.

But then again, the thousands upon thousands of human lives that saddam
took are worthless to you because you are a self-absorbed asshole, who
cares little for anything or anyone who doesn't futher your self interests.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

Good point. Perhaps Saddam was responsible for 9/11...and just used al
Qaeda mercernaries for cover.

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

Good point. Perhaps Saddam was responsible for 9/11...and just used al
Qaeda mercernaries for cover.



And perhaps he was not. The previous deadly terrorist attack in the USA
was perpetrated by U.S. citizens. You do remember Oklahoma City, right?

Islamic terrorist groups seem quick to "take responsibility" for various
actions, and sometimes more than one group chimes in. The various
branches of the IRA used to do the same.

At some point we're going to need perpetrators and evidence that
satisfies civilian courts. "Military court" justice is an oxymoron.
Of course, the Bush-shippers just want to pretend they've caught the
real perps. That's one of the reasons we invaded Iraq in the absence of
real evidence.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible
for
9-11?

Good point. Perhaps Saddam was responsible for 9/11...and just used al
Qaeda mercernaries for cover.



And perhaps he was not. The previous deadly terrorist attack in the USA
was perpetrated by U.S. citizens. You do remember Oklahoma City, right?

Sure. You do remember McVeigh's letter about why he bombed the Murrah
Federal building, right?
Here's an excerpt:
Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a
message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a
government building and the government employees within that building who
represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally
and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in
Serbia, *Iraq*, or other nations.

There were also reports about Nichols and McVeigh meeting with a
"dark-skinned man" prior to the attack. This doesn't sound like the actions
of declared "white supremacists".

In addition, there were reports of Nichols travelling to the Phillipines and
meeting with Ramzi Yousef and his uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Why is it beyond your belief that various terrorist countries and
organizations were working together to undertake a coordinated terrorist
assault against the US...specifically, its government?

The Clinton Administration decided to address terrorism as a criminal act,
and punish the perpetrators...rather than consider it a state-sanctioned
act. The reason? Because then it would mean having to find the country
responsible and going to war with them...something Clinton didn't have the
stomach to do.

Islamic terrorist groups seem quick to "take responsibility" for various
actions, and sometimes more than one group chimes in. The various
branches of the IRA used to do the same.

At some point we're going to need perpetrators and evidence that
satisfies civilian courts. "Military court" justice is an oxymoron.
Of course, the Bush-shippers just want to pretend they've caught the
real perps. That's one of the reasons we invaded Iraq in the absence of
real evidence.

NOYB wrote:

The Clinton Administration decided to address terrorism as a criminal act,
and punish the perpetrators...rather than consider it a state-sanctioned
act. The reason? Because then it would mean having to find the country
responsible and going to war with them...something Clinton didn't have the
stomach to do.

Or it could be, that although he did enjoy an illicit blow job or two, Clinton
actually had the moral integrity to not become a terrorst himself. Bush could
not resist temptation, especially when it meant lots of profits for his &
Cheney's military industrialist cronies.

JohnH does not have an answer for the obliterating of an entire block of
downtown Baghdad, and everyone unlucky enough to be there at that moment, trying
to get Saddam. Do you?

Would you like to comment on the morality of Rumsfelds assassination program?

DSK

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
( snip)

I don't mind you making fun of me, but when you mock the way an American
icon speaks, you've gone to far.

You have besmirched the memory of Tonto.

Tonto, an American? I don't think so. He was a Canadian, born in Brantford
Ontario.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

WaIIy wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:01:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"WaIIy" wrote in message
. ..

They are so immersed in hatred for everything Bush and anything
patriotic, there will be no positive comments.

Dean in '04 LOL

"Duh...yeah...what he said. Me think same thing."
-Wally


I don't mind you making fun of me, but when you mock the way an American
icon speaks, you've gone to far.

You have besmirched the memory of Tonto.


Jay Silverheels (not his real name) was a Canadian icon, not an American
icon, unless you are referring to North American, which I doubt, because
you dumfoch righties think America ends at the northern border of the USA.



--
Email sent to is never read.