|
|
#21
June 25th 04, 10:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Clarification
"Pete" wrote in message .. . "Kevan Smith" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:37:23 GMT, "Pete" from Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote: "Kevan Smith" wrote It's not like it matters. Both men are comitted to continuing the illegal occupation of Iraq, heaping more misery on a country which should by rights be getting reparations payments instead. Bush shouldn't be President; he should be in the dock for war crimes. This Iraq War is a great national shame. You mean the UN sanctioned "illegal occupation" put in place after GW I? Do not mislead people. The war was never "UN Sanctioned," and there wasn't an occupation until after the war. Pete, I'm ashamed for you. I know you know better than to lie like that to cover for Bush. The comment was on the 'continuing the illegal occupation' part. Which 'occupation' are we talking about continuing? Pete When I read the original posts, it seemed that the 'continuing the illegal occupation' comment related to starting the current action to continue some previous illegal occupation. Maybe I skimmed through it too fast, maybe I misread it. If, in fact, it only refers to continuing the *current* armed action, then I fully retract my "UN sanctioned" statement, and let's move on. Pete one of the hazards of text only communication from afar. 
|
| Ads |
|
#22
June 25th 04, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
"Kevan Smith" wrote Easy solutions? No, you are right. There are none. Hard, but moral and fair solutions? Well, the following steps would be a good start: 1) The immediate withdrawal of all occupation troops from Iraq and from a buffer zone around its borders. There seems to be two major factions in Iraq. One that only wants peace, and to be left alone to rebuild and maybe start a democracy of some sort. The other apparently wants to incite a civil war, hoping they come out on top. If all non-Iraqi troops pull out, can the Iraqi Prime Minister protect his own ass, much less the rest of the country? 2) The immediate resignation of Bush and his top administration officials, particularly Cheney Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and Wolfowitz. They should turn themselves in to the Hague for eventual trial as war criminals. (Blair and other top Brits shoudl join them.) The constitutional crisis this would cause is no greater than the current one of a sitting President waging an illegal war based on cooked evidence. In some ways, it is less, because we have procedures for replacing office holders. No comment. 3) The suspension of all activities of non-Iraqi corporations in Iraq, with special attention paid to energy companies. The goal here is to return to the Iraqi people what rightfully belongs to them -- their treasure. They can't have their rightful treasure if the insurgents are left alone to blow it up. 4) The immediate start of unconditional reparations payments. Iraq starts fixing things themselves, they give us a bill, we pay it. No questions. You remember, though, that this current action is the final actions in a conflict that started in 1990. Bush/Blair/Clinton/Major/Chirac shouldn't be held responsible for what Saddam caused. After Mar 19, 2003, all bets are off. That IS the responsibility of Bush & Blair. Prior to that, talk to Saddam. Pete
|
|
#24
June 25th 04, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
wrote:
Bill Sorni writes: http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227 "So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation." John Kerry on Senate floor, 11/9/97. Yes??? And this was in respect to what? This was not a call to invade Iraq as you can see from the text. It was a call for the UN intervention and inspections. Exactly. Kerry states that there should be "no debate" about the existence of a "stockpile of weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. However, he would wait for the UN to take action (which as we now know would NEVER happen since they were on Saddam's payroll), or you have a president who will do what needs to be done, regardless of the political posturing of France and Germany. I know which I prefer. Come November, we'll find out if I'm in the minority or majority. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
|
|
#25
June 25th 04, 11:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
wrote:
Scott Johnson writes: http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227 Wow, maybe I should start posting press releases from the RNC. What is it that irritates you so about factual reporting. Maybe you could point out where there are errors in this report. Facts contrary to ones beliefs are often so disconcerting that they are suppressed. Heh. Jobst probably believes Michael Moore's film is a "documentary" too... LOL. Why not, so does the Democrat Party. LOL again. If a the son of a Saudi prince (there are a LOT of Saudi princes, BTW) flew out of Tampa or not on 9/13 is hardly a question that's going to cause me to lose any sleep, no matter what that bastion of journalistic integrity (the New York Times) says. I read the articles, and there's no link to the White House other than some blatant speculation on the part of those who don't really know. I don't think the Tampa Police Department has one of those cool red phones connected directly to GWB's desk. Just a guess. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
|
|
#26
June 26th 04, 12:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
wrote in message ... http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227 Jobst Brandt You're are still misled
|
|
#27
June 26th 04, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
"Top Sirloin" wrote in message
... wrote: http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1310344&l=42227 Wow, maybe I should start posting press releases from the RNC. Please, no. I get both the Democratic and Republican party press released sent to an e-mail address set up for that purpose. It's pretty funny to read them, one party right after each other. One virtue is that I realize the party I more often agree with is probably spinning just as hard as the party I generally disagree with. I just can't see it as well, because it looks like truth to me and I don't mentally counter-argue against it.
|
|
#28
June 26th 04, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
Mark Hickey writes:
Thing is, you get the whole story - both sides. For some reason, that approach seems to be total anathema to many liberals. I suppose it's easier to go through life not hearing anything that contradicts your preconceived notions - but personally I would hate to appear that naive when discussing the issues in public. Wait a minute! You are describing GWB who does not listen to any advisor who conflicts with his perception of what is going on. That's how he got us into the war and can't and won't get out even though the rest of civilized nations urge that course. This is the main thread of the current administration, to not accept information that goes against their vision... Iraqis will welcome us with open arms, etc. Jobst Brandt
|
|
#29
June 26th 04, 02:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
it is just as misleading to suggest that one should get ALL of his "facts"
and news from Drudge as it is from any other source. We should all be reading everything we can so that tunnel vision doesn't ensue. For example, you might want to add this site to your reading: www.factcheck.org pat in TX
|
|
#30
June 26th 04, 06:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
"Kevan Smith" wrote The Iraqi Prime Minister was chosen by occupation authorities and has no legitimate democratic basis for holding power. I would hope he would step down rather than inflame civil war and/or becoming another Iraqi tyrant by stubornly holding on to illegitimate power. Not quite...he is merely an interim guy. There only to help stabilize things, and hopefully see through the process of holding valid elections. But whomever it might be, whether supported by Bush/Blair or not, would be a target. Now that the overall controlling figure, Saddam, is gone, that country is ripe for an all out civil war. The only thing holding it back (partially) is the presence of foreign troops. Even that may not be enough. How do you conduct a 'fair' election when police stations are being blown up? Or the government offices in Bagdad? How safe do you think a polling place would be? Would you go vote? They won't blow it up if it belongs to the Iraqi people instead of profiteering foreigners. Bull. A lot of those people doing the blowing up are there *only* to blow stuff up. They are not Iraqi, nor do they care about 'the Iraqi people'. They are looking to shame us into leaving (see Spain), and carving out a piece of what is left. To the detriment of 'the Iraqi people'. 4) The immediate start of unconditional reparations payments. Iraq starts fixing things themselves, they give us a bill, we pay it. No questions. You remember, though, that this current action is the final actions in a conflict that started in 1990. Bush/Blair/Clinton/Major/Chirac shouldn't be held responsible for what Saddam caused. After Mar 19, 2003, all bets are off. That IS the responsibility of Bush & Blair. OK, you have a point. And an opening for the lawyers. [unsnip] And Saddam being responsible for any- and everything pre-March 2003 Pete anyway...I'm out a for a couple of weeks. Being Mr. Mom, Grandad, and Mr. Construction Guy, with self-limited net access. Riding every day, and hauling the grandkids around in a trailer.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
