Runway demolition at Meigs continues

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:54:18 GMT, Bob Noel wrote:

That many brave boys died over Europe so that you and I might be free to
write this today?

Yes ... and today we can discuss the use of Napalm-like bombs in Iraq.

sure. go ahead and discuss that with the families of coalition forces.

You mean such nutheads like this teenage-girl .. *hmm* forgot her name (the
one "rescued" out of a hospital) ... who is the new hero (*haha*) and
forgot everything that happened? Sure. I can speak with an umbrella and
expect more response.

Formally declare war first. And you still have to prove (!) the arguments
for invading another (sic) country. None of the "arguments" survived. Well,
guess we have a liar somewhere ... and we have many people believing a
liar.

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? - https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

Formally declare war first. And you still have to prove (!) the arguments
for invading another (sic) country. None of the "arguments" survived.
Well,
guess we have a liar somewhere ... and we have many people believing a
liar.

Martin, let's, for the moment, assume that *everything* President Bush and
Tony Blair have said was a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
No abuse of the Iraqi people. No threats to his neighbors. None of it.

(Of course, you have to ignore 30 years of historic fact to get to this
position, but that hasn't seemed to deter you.)

So, what have we got left? We've STILL got a despot (Saddam) who had
achieved control of a "country" (that was created by the British. It can be
argued that "Iraq" was -- and still is -- a convenient machination of the
western powers.) through illegal means, that has since been removed from
power by the very countries (Britain and the U.S.) that created him -- AND
Iraq -- in the first place.

This is what's known as "justice", and you might want to get a grip on that
fact before you pop a blood vessel.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:43:50 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

Formally declare war first. And you still have to prove (!) the arguments
for invading another (sic) country. None of the "arguments" survived.
Well,
guess we have a liar somewhere ... and we have many people believing a
liar.

Martin, let's, for the moment, assume that *everything* President Bush and
Tony Blair have said was a lie.

well, IMHO, most of it.
But you are free to name 2 or 3 things and prove it with links to available
sources where he said the truth (regarding Iraq).

There were no weapons of mass destruction.

back then .. yes. with the consent of whom? Eh? Who OK'ed the use of WMD
back then? But back then he was your friend, then it was OK. :-)

No abuse of the Iraqi people. No threats to his neighbors. None of it.

hm, this gave you what rights? You are not world police.
And: Have I ever said that the regime was any good?

(Of course, you have to ignore 30 years of historic fact to get to this
position, but that hasn't seemed to deter you.)

Hm, I might be wrong, but probably everything what will come now (in Iraq)
will be worse in every term. But this might depend on what you like to
believe.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=Iraq
might be a good startingpoint

So, what have we got left? We've STILL got a despot (Saddam) who had

Yes, like many others.

Do you know that there are many people in the world who dislike the way how
others live? One group are the muslim extremists who don't like the way how
we live in the western world. Hm, and there are many in our neck of the
woods who don't like how some in the 'eastern' part of the world are living
(ever read about terms like "camelf*ckers", "people who live in caves and
live on [our] petro-dollars", ...?). You can't split this single globe in
two parts and keep the better part. You have to live in peace with everyone
on the same globe. This is true for everything: polution, economy,
world-climate, ...

achieved control of a "country" (that was created by the British. It can be
argued that "Iraq" was -- and still is -- a convenient machination of the
western powers.) through illegal means, that has since been removed from
power by the very countries (Britain and the U.S.) that created him -- AND
Iraq -- in the first place.

This is one of the worst arguments I ever heard to justify this invasion.

This is what's known as "justice", and you might want to get a grip on that
fact before you pop a blood vessel.

Well, seems that your interpretion of justice is slightly different than
mine. :-)

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? - https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:q_rZa.113148$Ho3.14510@sccrnsc03...
Formally declare war first. And you still have to prove (!) the
arguments
for invading another (sic) country. None of the "arguments" survived.
Well,
guess we have a liar somewhere ... and we have many people believing a
liar.

Martin, let's, for the moment, assume that *everything* President Bush and
Tony Blair have said was a lie. There were no weapons of mass
destruction.
No abuse of the Iraqi people. No threats to his neighbors. None of it.

Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear
and Biological Weapons Agenda
Khidhir Hamza, Jeff Stein

Khidhir Hamza was the physicist in charge of nuclear development
in Iraq, who defected in 2001.

"The Iraqi scientist who designed Baghdad's nuclear bomb
tells how he did it in secret with the cynical help of U.S., French, German,
and British suppliers and experts, and kept it hidden from U.N. inspectors
after the Gulf War. Today, he says, Saddam Hussein is only months away from
making a workable bomb and has every intention of using it. "