JFK

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:zcAtb.162711$275.501857@attbi_s53...

How so. Lying to the country and getting hundreds of American servicemen
and
women and thousands of innocent Iraqis killed is somehow less offensive to
you than not wanting to get caught fooling around?


Buhs did not lie to the country. Thousands of innocent Iraqis have been
saved.

So I guess you're going with the "faulty intelligence" spin, then. And you
believe that Bush had the best interests of Iraq and the US as real reasons
for pushing this war. After all, that's what he keeps saying now.

Yeah. "Buhs" is just a paragon of virtue.

OK.

mike regish

P.S. "Buhs" is actually a pretty apt name for him, considering his party
days.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:zcAtb.162711$275.501857@attbi_s53...

How so. Lying to the country and getting hundreds of American servicemen
and
women and thousands of innocent Iraqis killed is somehow less offensive
to
you than not wanting to get caught fooling around?


Buhs did not lie to the country. Thousands of innocent Iraqis have been
saved.

mike regish wrote:

So I guess you're going with the "faulty intelligence" spin, then. And you
believe that Bush had the best interests of Iraq and the US as real reasons
for pushing this war. After all, that's what he keeps saying now.

Yeah. "Buhs" is just a paragon of virtue.

OK.

And did Clinton have the best interests of Iraq and the US as real reasons when
he launched a massive offensive in Baghdad in 1998 "Operation Desert Fox"? He
certainly felt he did. And in Bosnia, when thousands were slaughtered in the
air in the guise of ending "genocide"? Or in Haiti? Or in Somalia?

Now, in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of graves HAVE been found. The torture
chambers (some of) HAVE been found. And even CNN now admits that it covered up
the torture and brutal murder it knew was going on in Iraq for a decade, so
that it could stay on Hussein's good side.

Don't take my word, Click here to hear Clinton say it in his own words:
http://tinyurl.com/67rz (small audio file)

Thank goodness we finally have a President who not only gets the message, but
takes action.

P.S. "Buhs" is actually a pretty apt name for him, considering his party
days.

P.S. Unlike say, Clinton's party days? Or does he count as a saint as you
bring someone's alleged personal life into the picture yourself?

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:26:50 -0500, Rachel Carlson wrote:

Thank goodness we finally have a President who not only gets the message, but
takes action.

He's the president of the USA, not from Iraq nor from the whole world. Your
boundaries are clearly printed on the globe. Mess around _*within*_ these
boundaries.

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php

Martin Hotze wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:26:50 -0500, Rachel Carlson wrote:

Thank goodness we finally have a President who not only gets the message, but
takes action.

He's the president of the USA, not from Iraq nor from the whole world. Your
boundaries are clearly printed on the globe. Mess around _*within*_ these
boundaries.

Isolationism set the stage for many larger wars in the end, including World War
II. Funny how the Japanese airplanes visited Pearl Harbor during USA's
isolationist stage.

Funny thing is, there was a letter to the editor in our local paper a few
weeks ago that quoted Buhs the senior on why he wouldn't go into Iraq. It
described/predicted exactly the situation now. You'd think junior would at
least listen to dad.

Takes action myass. He wanted this war for oil and business. He doesn't give
a flying fig about the Iraqi people. The inspectors were going in. This war
is unnecessary. The stern threat was probably necessary to get the
inspectors in, but once they were, Buhs had no reason to wage this war
beyond the almighty dollar. Even Rummy said that if we didn't find weapons
in "x" months, which have long passed, we would have a credibility problem.

And we do-except for those who refuse to face reality.

mike regish

"Rachel Carlson" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

So I guess you're going with the "faulty intelligence" spin, then. And
you
believe that Bush had the best interests of Iraq and the US as real
reasons
for pushing this war. After all, that's what he keeps saying now.

Yeah. "Buhs" is just a paragon of virtue.

OK.

And did Clinton have the best interests of Iraq and the US as real reasons
when
he launched a massive offensive in Baghdad in 1998 "Operation Desert Fox"?
He
certainly felt he did. And in Bosnia, when thousands were slaughtered in
the
air in the guise of ending "genocide"? Or in Haiti? Or in Somalia?

Now, in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of graves HAVE been found. The
torture
chambers (some of) HAVE been found. And even CNN now admits that it
covered up
the torture and brutal murder it knew was going on in Iraq for a decade,
so
that it could stay on Hussein's good side.

Don't take my word, Click here to hear Clinton say it in his own words:
http://tinyurl.com/67rz (small audio file)

Thank goodness we finally have a President who not only gets the message,
but
takes action.

P.S. "Buhs" is actually a pretty apt name for him, considering his party
days.

P.S. Unlike say, Clinton's party days? Or does he count as a saint as you
bring someone's alleged personal life into the picture yourself?

mike regish wrote:

Funny thing is, there was a letter to the editor in our local paper a few
weeks ago that quoted Buhs the senior on why he wouldn't go into Iraq. It
described/predicted exactly the situation now. You'd think junior would at
least listen to dad.

At the end of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles was signed, which put
conditions on Germany rebuilding its military. When Germany later began
rebuilding its military and building concentration camps, England ignored it.
France ignored it. And even USA ignored it. The stage for a much greater war
was set.

At the end of the Gulf War in 1991, a cease fire was signed, with Saddam
Hussein's Iraq agreeing to conditions of not building certain weapons. Yet he
did, and even the UN admitted that he was not living up to his cease fire.
Thus the cease fire was void.

History repeats itself for those who never learn from it.



Takes action myass. He wanted this war for oil and business.

Huh? We don't need to go to Iraq to get oil. Are you saying that we went to
Afghanistan "for oil" too?

He doesn't give
a flying fig about the Iraqi people.

His actions show otherwise.

The inspectors were going in. This war
is unnecessary.

The inspectors hadn't been in for over half a decade. Why did they suddenly go
back? The threat of force was the ONLY reason Hussein was going to let them in
at all, even as he was hiding his programs.


The stern threat was probably necessary to get the
inspectors in,

It's obvious that they were not going anywhere without credible threat of force,
because they didn't go anywhere without a credible threat of force. .

but once they were, Buhs had no reason to wage this war
beyond the almighty dollar. Even Rummy said that if we didn't find weapons
in "x" months, which have long passed, we would have a credibility problem.

Do tell us what x really is. Speaking of credibility problem, you seem to have
no problem with Clinton's brutual bombing of Baghdad in 1998, the strikes in
1995, the Belgrade calamities caused by bombing in 1999, the bloody excursions
in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia. But whenever there was terrorism (World Trade
Center bombing 1993, Cole Bombing, US Embassy bombings, and so on), there was no
response except the message that America will not respond.

And we do-except for those who refuse to face reality.

Don't take my word, Click here to hear Clinton say it in his own words:
http://tinyurl.com/67rz (small audio file)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rachel Carlson"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: JFK






Takes action myass. He wanted this war for oil and business.

Huh? We don't need to go to Iraq to get oil. Are you saying that we went
to
Afghanistan "for oil" too?

No. We went to Afghanistan to get Osama. We went to Iraq because we didn't.

He doesn't give
a flying fig about the Iraqi people.

His actions show otherwise.

How. By bombing the crap out of them. How can he claim surgical strike
capability when he's dropping thousands of bombs a day.


The inspectors were going in. This war
is unnecessary.

The inspectors hadn't been in for over half a decade. Why did they
suddenly go
back?

Because Buhs had to divert attention from the fact that he couldn't get
Osama.

The threat of force was the ONLY reason Hussein was going to let them in
at all, even as he was hiding his programs.

See below.


The stern threat was probably necessary to get the
inspectors in,

It's obvious that they were not going anywhere without credible threat of
force,
because they didn't go anywhere without a credible threat of force.

Nor, evidently, were they going anywhere at all. Talk about unrestricted
access. Where are the WMD's and don't give me any crap about saving the F
ing Iraqis in your answer.



but once they were, Buhs had no reason to wage this war
beyond the almighty dollar. Even Rummy said that if we didn't find
weapons
in "x" months, which have long passed, we would have a credibility
problem.



Do tell us what x really is.

I believe x=6. I don't record every word these people say. I have better
things to do.


Speaking of credibility problem, you seem to have
no problem with Clinton's brutual bombing of Baghdad in 1998, the strikes
in
1995, the Belgrade calamities caused by bombing in 1999, the bloody
excursions
in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia. But whenever there was terrorism (World Trade
Center bombing 1993, Cole Bombing, US Embassy bombings, and so on), there
was no
response except the message that America will not respond.

And you do seem to have a problem with them. Why is it that anything Clinton
did was impeachable, but Buhs can do no wrong?

And we do-except for those who refuse to face reality.

Don't take my word, Click here to hear Clinton say it in his own words:
http://tinyurl.com/67rz (small audio file)

Seems Bill was wrong here. Even with nobody watching, he never rebuilt his
arsenal, did he?

Rachel Carlson wrote:


Thank goodness we finally have a President who not only gets the message,
but takes action.

It's just a shame that the only message he "gets" comes from the oil
industry.

--
Frank....H

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:19:21 -0600, Frank
wrote:

Rachel Carlson wrote:


Thank goodness we finally have a President who not only gets the message,
but takes action.

It's just a shame that the only message he "gets" comes from the oil
industry.

That's a point I just don't get. The Texas oil industry stands to lose
its shirt if the market is flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, since more
supply equals a lower price.

Not correct?

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card