On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:39:20 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

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?

I thought so. Glad you do, too.

Show me! Where do you come up with this stuff, Harry?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:25:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

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.

Where, Harry? Where are these reports of 10,000 non-combatant deaths you are
attributing to the US? Such bull**** coming from a Bay fisherman!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:27:55 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

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.
What the hell do you know about military courts? Ever participated in a court
martial? Ever administered an Article 15? Ever conducted an Article 32
investigation? I didn't think so.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"DSK" wrote in message

.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....

WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

The fact remains that Bush invaded Iraq for strictly personal political
reasons.

That's not a 'fact', it's your mantra. In standard Dem/union tactic of the
past several years, you repeat the lie ad nauseam in the hope that after a
certain number of hearings, people will accept it as fact. And it works, up
to a point, because a fair percentage of the population is poorly educated
and/or just plain stupid (the Dem base). A mob of fools believing a lie
doesn't make it any less a lie, but as the saying goes, when the fools in
town are on your side, anything is possible.

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:25:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

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.

Where, Harry? Where are these reports of 10,000 non-combatant deaths you are
attributing to the US? Such bull**** coming from a Bay fisherman!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Seek and ye shall find, but not on any of your right-wing "news" sources.

--
Email sent to is never read.

John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

The fact remains that Bush invaded Iraq for strictly personal political
reasons.

That's not a 'fact', it's your mantra. In standard Dem/union tactic of the
past several years, you repeat the lie ad nauseam in the hope that after a
certain number of hearings, people will accept it as fact. And it works, up
to a point, because a fair percentage of the population is poorly educated
and/or just plain stupid (the Dem base). A mob of fools believing a lie
doesn't make it any less a lie, but as the saying goes, when the fools in
town are on your side, anything is possible.



Oh? Which reason on the ever-growing list of the Bush Adminsitration
lies and mis-statements did you buy into? The WMD? The Nukes? The close
tie-in of Osama to Saddam? All of which have been debunked. Oh... I
know...Saddam was preparing to attack Topeka. No? Making Iraq safe for
western-style democracy? No?

Wait, wait, I have it! Saddam was a bad boy.

North Korea is a far greater threat to us than Iraq ever was. I don't
seen you dumb-boy POTUS wagging his finger at the North Koreans.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

The WMD? The Nukes? The close
tie-in of Osama to Saddam? All of which have been debunked.

No, they haven't been debunked -- merely not proven present day in the
cast-in-stone manner those on the left demand. The NBC weapons did exist.
That is documented. The nuclear program did exist. That is documented.
There was contact between AQ and Iraqi Intel. That is documented.


North Korea is a far greater threat to us than Iraq ever was.

Not so, because NK lends itself to several possible viable political
solutions. 1. That NK whacko has a documented history of making outrageous
demands and then backing off in order to get concessions. 2. Chinese
pressure may bear. China simply has too much to lose to allow this nut to
screw it up. I don't know what will work there, but there are still
diplomatic possibilities, which were exhausted in Iraq.

Correction:

"John Gaquin" wrote


....The NBC weapons did exist.
That is documented. The nuclear program did exist. That is documented.

Should read:

.....the Bio and Chem weapons did exist.
That is documented. The nuclear program did exist. That is documented.

Tonto IS an American and US icon even if the actor portraying the character
suffered the misfortune of being Canadian.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.