On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:38:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

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

Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces,
or
coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation
forces".

As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi...
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who
keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of
those
"accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em.



The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are.
Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II
the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying
Forces."

Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially
become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off
too early in declaring the end to major operations?

Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing
support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow.

War? What war?

There's no war between the United States and Iraq. There's just Bush's
war on Iraq. The uniformed Iraqi armed forces surrendered months ago.
There's been no head of state in Iraq for what, seven or eight months?

We're occupying Iraq. Occupation is the action of taking possession of a
place or of land; seizure, as by military conquest.

You should have taken some history classes.

We are no more occupiers of Iraq than we were occupiers of Paris after kicking
the Germans out.

Wake up, Harry.

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

JohnH wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:38:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

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

Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces,
or
coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation
forces".

As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi...
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who
keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of
those
"accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em.



The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are.
Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II
the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying
Forces."

Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially
become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off
too early in declaring the end to major operations?

Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing
support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow.

War? What war?

There's no war between the United States and Iraq. There's just Bush's
war on Iraq. The uniformed Iraqi armed forces surrendered months ago.
There's been no head of state in Iraq for what, seven or eight months?

We're occupying Iraq. Occupation is the action of taking possession of a
place or of land; seizure, as by military conquest.

You should have taken some history classes.

We are no more occupiers of Iraq than we were occupiers of Paris after kicking
the Germans out.

Wake up, Harry.

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


Wow. You're much dumber than I thought. The Germans occupied Paris. We
occupied Germany. We liberated Paris from the Germans, NOT from the
French. And we occupied Japan. In fact, we used to refer to Japan as
Occupied Japan for many years.

We have occupied Iraq. We have not liberated Iraq from outsiders. Iraq
was controlled by Iraqis. Now, aside from insurgent actions, it is
controlled by Americans. We are calling the shots there. We have
occupied Iraq.

Buy yourself a good dictionary.

The United States is the occupying power in Iraq. We will be occupying
Iraq for some time.






--
Email sent to is never read.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:46:10 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On 14 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

John H wrote:

all the congratulatory messages from Harry, jps, basskisser, gould, et al.

our capture of Saddam.

You're not very patient. It's just after 8 AM on the W coast, on a Sunday
morning.

Go and fornicate yourself, John.

Don't you ever dare to post an implication that I don't wish the best for this
country and our 300 million fellow citizens. Your screwed up perspective is
that you, only you, and those who think exactly like you have the only valid
opinions about how our society should run and what direction national policies
should take.

You shouldn't believe everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh. The high percentage
of Americans who disagree with your views are not traitors or national enemies.


Yes, I'm damn glad he's caught.
With the billions of dollars spent on an ill-advised war and the toll the
entire adventure has taken on US credibility throughout the world, it's
gratifiying to see that we have *something* tangible to show for it.

But let me ask you this- does capturing a tyrant suddenly mean that all the
statements Bush made to get us into Iraq
in the firtst place are suddenly any more true than they were this time
yesterday?

Let's hope the insurgency tapers off in Iraq.
If it does not, people will begin questioning the war more than ever - once the
capture of SH is old news.

Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer? How much do I
listen to Rush? I disagree with about 75% of Rush's statements. Catching Saddam
has nothing to do with the truth of the statements Bush made. I believe Bush
made his statements in good faith. You, et al, don't. Or at least you say you
don't to maintain the party line.

John, you can't reasonably know anyone's motivation behind making any statement.

While I agree with your comment with respect to the capture of Saddam, I believe
it is still possible for reasonable people to conclude that our incursion into
Iraq was sold to the Congress and to the country with faulty information.

Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain--but
for anyone who might have some level of distrust about Mr. Bush's motivations
(as a significant segment of our population does have), it is not unreasonable
to infer his motives.

The fact that the inferences of some in that regard might be different from
those of others does not mean that those people who oppose our involvement in
the Middle East (or the way in which our involvement unfolds) are unpatriotic,
unreasonable or unintelligent. It means they have evaluated the available data
and arrived at their own conclusions.

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?

Could it be because they're not particularly interested in the topic? Last time
I looked, no one was obligated to weigh in on *very* topic here.

And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with
the bilious Mr. Kraus?

Joe Parsons

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon
billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us,
except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the
way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons
of mass destruction before the war.

If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct
word is *taxpayers'*.

John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you.

Joe Parsons


What did Saddam use on the Kurds?

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:34 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:38:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

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

Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces,
or
coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation
forces".

As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi...
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who
keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of
those
"accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em.



The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are.
Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II
the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying
Forces."

Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially
become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off
too early in declaring the end to major operations?

Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing
support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow.

War? What war?

There's no war between the United States and Iraq. There's just Bush's
war on Iraq. The uniformed Iraqi armed forces surrendered months ago.
There's been no head of state in Iraq for what, seven or eight months?

We're occupying Iraq. Occupation is the action of taking possession of a
place or of land; seizure, as by military conquest.

You should have taken some history classes.

We are no more occupiers of Iraq than we were occupiers of Paris after kicking
the Germans out.

Wake up, Harry.

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


Wow. You're much dumber than I thought. The Germans occupied Paris. We
occupied Germany. We liberated Paris from the Germans, NOT from the
French. And we occupied Japan. In fact, we used to refer to Japan as
Occupied Japan for many years.

We have occupied Iraq. We have not liberated Iraq from outsiders. Iraq
was controlled by Iraqis. Now, aside from insurgent actions, it is
controlled by Americans. We are calling the shots there. We have
occupied Iraq.

Buy yourself a good dictionary.

The United States is the occupying power in Iraq. We will be occupying
Iraq for some time.

And we liberated Iraq from a despot. Are we into name-calling now, Harry?

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

JohnH wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:34 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:38:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

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

Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces,
or
coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation
forces".

As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi...
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who
keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of
those
"accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em.



The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are.
Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II
the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying
Forces."

Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially
become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off
too early in declaring the end to major operations?

Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing
support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow.

War? What war?

There's no war between the United States and Iraq. There's just Bush's
war on Iraq. The uniformed Iraqi armed forces surrendered months ago.
There's been no head of state in Iraq for what, seven or eight months?

We're occupying Iraq. Occupation is the action of taking possession of a
place or of land; seizure, as by military conquest.

You should have taken some history classes.

We are no more occupiers of Iraq than we were occupiers of Paris after kicking
the Germans out.

Wake up, Harry.

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


Wow. You're much dumber than I thought. The Germans occupied Paris. We
occupied Germany. We liberated Paris from the Germans, NOT from the
French. And we occupied Japan. In fact, we used to refer to Japan as
Occupied Japan for many years.

We have occupied Iraq. We have not liberated Iraq from outsiders. Iraq
was controlled by Iraqis. Now, aside from insurgent actions, it is
controlled by Americans. We are calling the shots there. We have
occupied Iraq.

Buy yourself a good dictionary.

The United States is the occupying power in Iraq. We will be occupying
Iraq for some time.

And we liberated Iraq from a despot. Are we into name-calling now, Harry?

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


Well, we deposed Hussein. It remains to be seen what becomes of Iraq.
There's no shortage of despots in those Moslem countries.

We are occupying Iraq as an occupying force. You can dance that around
the head of a pin as many times as you like, but we still have occupied
Iraq and are the occupying force.

--
Email sent to is never read.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:27:35 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they
officially become "occupation forces".

Not technically correct. We have been avoiding the use of the term
occupation, as it opens a can of worms.

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh107a1.htm

And from: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew120.php

" In fact, it appears that no State has ever formally applied the IVth
Geneva Convention to territory under its control. The laws of occupation,
as they were then, were not applied to the allied occupation of Germany
after World War II on the grounds that the Reich no longer existed and
therefore there was no previous sovereign whose rights needed protection."

Joe Parsons wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon
billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us,
except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the
way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons
of mass destruction before the war.

If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct
word is *taxpayers'*.

John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you.

Joe Parsons


What did Saddam use on the Kurds?

Nah, he's been throwing those in lately, when he knows he's wrong.

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I
suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you say
"WMD's"? ;-)


After enough interrogation, Saddam Hussein will eventually be brought around to
say anything and everything the administration hopes to hear.

We'll all switch from a position that the lying ******* couldn't tell the truth
if his life depended on it to believing every syllable he utters that
exonerates our motives for invading Iraq.

They say truth is the first casualty of war.
First causualty of politics too, unfortunately.

Yes, Chuck, the current administration will, like always, pick and
choose what the public hears. They are already doing that, and Saddam
hasn't even said much yet. They certainly don't want the public to
hear when Saddam starts saying things like, well, when Rummy came over
and GAVE me those weapons to use, and stood by, with good graces and
watched me.......etc., etc. OR, when your government gave, with good
graces, governmental approval for U.S. countries to do business with
me, and gave me biological weapons, etc. etc......

Act 1: "We can't believe that Iraq no longer has WMD. All we have is Saddam's
word that he got rid of them, and he's a lying
snake in the grass all day, every day!"

(Protagonist catches Saddam, subjects him to CIA "interrogation" for a week or
so)

Act 2: "We now know for a fact that we were right all along, and Saddam Hussein
had WMD. We have his *personal word* of assurance on the matter, and that's
good enough for us!"

Standards of evidence often change, depending upon what one is hoping to prove.

Had to laugh at the early news reports about Saddam's interrogation. He was
described as "not cooperative" because he
continued to deny having weapons of mass destruction. The rotten *******
deserves everything he's going to have coming to him, but he may as well
realize that he only answer the administration is prepared to accept on the WMD
issue is "yes." Whether true or not, it will be politically useful.