A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Living In Fear Abroad - Welcome to Bush & Blair's More Dangerous World



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 18th 04, 04:17 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Living In Fear Abroad - Welcome to Bush & Blair's More Dangerous World


I'll go along with Kevin on this. With no use whatsoever for Saddam apologists,
and until the UN gets some backbone and cleans up its own house, I won't
trust the UN to do anything useful in Iraq anytime soon. And thanks to captured
documents, it's being found that the whole oil-for-food program was being
used as a cash cow for Saddam and his cronies; that kickbacks were being
paid to supporters of Saddam in France, Germany, Russia, a certain British
Member of Parliment who was a frequent apologist for Saddam, and so forth.
I'd like to see what Saddam's apologists say about the mass graves that keep
turning up, and who was filling them. So what if the U.S. and its partners
haven't found any "traditional WMD"
in Iraq? Saddam, his ******* sons, his cronies like Chemical Ali, were WMDs.
Goodbye and good riddance to them and their ilk.





"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Vince Brannigan" wrote
in message
. ..


Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Vince Brannigan"

wrote in message
...


Stephen Harding wrote:

Timothy-Allen Albertson wrote:


Living In Fear Abroad

Elizabeth Scanlon Thomas


[...]


So this is the safer world that Bush and

Blair promised us?
© 2004 Chicago Tribune"


Wonder what Elizabeth would have thought

of FDR
and Churchill in 1942?


Its not analogous. This was a preemptive

war. We were not attacked by
Iraq. We claimed at most that they coudl

become a threat in the future.


Not attacked? Let's see...one assasination

attempt on a former US
President
(which I guess you don't count bein' as

he was just a danged
Republican),

You mean during a prior war?


No, afterwards--the attack was planned to occur
during Bush's post-office
visit to Kuwait.



and repeated (and failed) attacks against

aircraft monitoring the No-Fly
Zone.


Theya re not attacks on the united states


Attacking USAF and USN aircraft is not an attack
on the US? Then I guess you
consider Pearl Harbor the same way--after all,
the Japanese were attacking
only ships and aircraft, and a few facilities
located in what was then
merely a US territory, huh? Or maybe the attack
by AQ on the USS Cole was
also "not an attack on the US"? For a lawyer,
your reasoning often leaves a
lot to be desired.


Not to mention one attack into Kuwait that

started the whole affair
up,


not us


A US interest. Good enough, unless you are now
claiming that the first Gulf
War was also a terrible mistake?


and another feint in that direction that

led to beefing up the US ground
force in Kuwait for a couple of years before

this last excursion. A
brutal
dictator who conducted genocidal operations

against elements of his own
population. A group of nations that think

appeasement is the best course
of
action. Gee, it appears that analogy is

not that far off after all.

What, no outlandish answers to these?


Vkince, why do you like Saddam so much?


OFCS

Do you get a thrill out of that type of personal

abuse?
Does it make you feel "macho" ?
I just think its silly


No, it is just that you continually defend him
and his interests. I note
above that you seem to think that his overrunning
Kuwait now was not
sufficient causus belli?


Hitler was a slime but he did not attack the

USA either. We had to lie
about the Greer incident to make it appear

that he did.

Actually, in the end he declared war on the
US first. Kind of made things a
bit easier for us in the end. Your history knowledge
is apparently about as
flawed as your "expertise" in tilt-wing aircraft
design and operations.


Iraq was not a threat to the united states

unless it had WMDs

Really? So Saddam's continued bellicosity towards
his neighbors, and the
fact that a goodly portion of the world's oil
supplies come from that area,
did not pose a threat, nor did his support of
folks like Abu Nidal, Abbu
Abbas, etc.? Again, odd how you go so far to
defend Saddam; what is your
take on his mass graves? Maybe he just was trying
to economize on burial
expenses for his beloved followers?

That was
the whoel claim for the war.


No, it was not. His continued refusal to comply
with the terms that had been
laid down for him at the cessation of hostilities
the first go-around was
the root cause, largely manifested in his game-playing
in the WMD arena, and
also in the TBM field, where he did indeed violate
the range cap.


everythign else you mention is a matter for

the UN not the US.

That would be the same UN that is now coming
under increasing fire for
alleged corruption and mishandling of the pre-war
"oil for food/medicine"
program? Or the same UN that, despite repeated
resolutions and inspections,
could not get a real handle on the WMD status,
and only caught onto the TBM
situation at the very end? The same UN that
botched the Somalia operation? I
don't think so.

Brooks


Vince










Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
  #2  
Old March 18th 04, 07:41 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:17:26 GMT, "Matt Wiser" wrote:


I'll go along with Kevin on this. With no use whatsoever for Saddam apologists,
and until the UN gets some backbone and cleans up its own house, I won't
trust the UN to do anything useful in Iraq anytime soon. And thanks to captured
documents, it's being found that the whole oil-for-food program was being
used as a cash cow for Saddam and his cronies; that kickbacks were being
paid to supporters of Saddam in France, Germany, Russia, a certain British
Member of Parliment who was a frequent apologist for Saddam, and so forth.
I'd like to see what Saddam's apologists say about the mass graves that keep
turning up, and who was filling them. So what if the U.S. and its partners
haven't found any "traditional WMD"
in Iraq? Saddam, his ******* sons, his cronies like Chemical Ali, were WMDs.
Goodbye and good riddance to them and their ilk.


Vince will say "there is no proof that Saddam personally ordered the killings, and,
since not all of the bodies were autopsied, they may have been death due to natural
causes. The almighty UN should form a committee to set up a commission to study the
need for a study group to look into this".

Needless to say, I will not agree with him.

Al Minyard
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN ChuckSlusarczyk Home Built 105 October 8th 04 12:38 AM
Bush's guard record JDKAHN Home Built 13 October 3rd 04 09:38 PM
Living In Fear Abroad - Welcome to Al qaeda's More Dangerous World OXMORON1 Military Aviation 17 March 19th 04 06:04 PM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.