George W. Bush

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

V.Simkins wrote:
> first of all, ken, would you mind supplying a link proving what you
> just wrote, to humour me?
>
>> dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will
>> soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
>
> it has never been proven with hard evidence that saddam had such
> things, at least not to my knowledge. besides, even if he did torture
> and rape men and woman, american soldiers have been, and are probably
> at this moment, doing the same.

I think "Simkins" should be spelled with a 'p' in the middle.

 

[Ian St. John]

BB wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:52:46 -0500, Ian St. John wrote:
>
>>> I once argued that the legality of the war was the only thing that
>>> matters, until reading the findings of international law experts and
>>> seeing the reaction (or lack thereof) from the U.N.
>>
>> If the law is powerless, does this mean that no crimes are
>> committed? Keep to your principles. The constituions is based on
>> noble principles and it is the whittling away of these principles
>> for expediency that has brought the U.S. into rogue status.
>
> It wasn't me who didn't keep to my principles, it was the U.N. And
> that has been my point all along.

The U.N. has kept it's moral principles. What they lack is a mechanism for
enforcing those principles. So they must fall back on diplomacy and
patience.

>
> You seem to be so busy arguing that no point can sink in, so I see no
> reason to try to open your eyes. You are so completely convinced that
> the U.N. is fully against this war that you ignore everything after
> September 2003, e.g. resolution 1546, "security council endorses
> formation of sovereign interim government in iraq".

What would you have them do? Endorse a climate of chaos? The primary goal of
the U.N. is to create international stability and humanitarian efforts. The
principle used here is that pretty much any orderly system is better than
anarchy.

>
> I know, I know, its a U.S. conspiracy...everything is to you, isn't
> it?

Huh?? My point has been that the U.S. is turning into a Fascist Dictatorship
with a weak and crippled voice of Congress and a rogue leadership that does
what it wants as a totalitarian govenrment. This has nothing to do with the
U.S as a hole or a conspiracy. The actions are out in the open, just not
legal or justifiable on the basis of the international situation at the
time. The U.N. should have been able to finiish the inspections. The U.S.
could have objected or blocked lifitng of sanctions if it could find some
flaw in the inspectors final report. There was NO rational basis for the
rush to war and this was evidenced by the overwhelming rejection of U.S.
actions by every country including most Americans.

>
>>> I consider their
>>> opinions & actions more meaningful than a Usenet troll who thinks
>>> everyone is "delusional" and that everyone who doesn't completely
>>> agree with him is a "****wit".
>>
>> Who would that be? rick etter? Ken(NY)?
>
> Are you really stupid enough to think that's who I was talking about?
> I thought you were smarter than that. My mistake.

One of many. My own position is that anyone that thinks the U.N. can just
'stick to principles' against the military superpower, that forms the bulk
of it's forces, and which has internal control through a veto, is just a
little delusional. They are sticking as close to principles as diplomacy and
reality allows while trying to do some good. And they have not supported the
Iraq invasion or the subsequent actions of the U.S. and have stated
categorically that the invasion was illegal. That is about a much as they
CAN do at this time.

It will not be until the world draws a line in the sand that WW3 starts.

 

[Ian St. John]

Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:38:25 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>> Ken [NY] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Nov 04 17:02:31 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd
>>> Parker)
>> <snipo>
>>>>> Truly amazing.
>>>> What's truly amazing is you right-wing fanatics who think we don't
>>>> listen to the news, who regurgitate the propaganda you're given.
>>>
>>> Are you really saying that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission -
>>> all those Republicans and Democrats - who after looking at the
>>> evidence, agreed that there were extensive connection between Iraq
>>> and al-Qaeda before 9/11, were engaging in a huge
>>> Democrat/Republican conspiracy to lie to you? No matter you guys
>>> keep losing everything you engage in.
>>
>> http://www.9-11commission.gov/
>> http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
>> http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.pdf
>>
>> No. They assumed that there were links. They created a hypothesis
>> that islamic extremists were allied to Iraq. They did NOT find any
>> evidence for this supposition, and this has been admitted by
>> Rumsfeld and others in the administration. Nor are any facts
>> documented in the report on 9/11 that establish any links or ties.
>
> "I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The Vice
> President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al
> Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.

No. That was the repeated claims that were finally admitted to be false by
Rumsfeld. If this is a quote from Cheney, then congratulations for proving
the positive that Cheney did make connections between Iraq and 9/11.

> We don't disagree with that.

Sure we do. You just don't understand the issue.

> What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just
> said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative
> relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with
> regard to the attacks on the United States.

However, the repeated assertions of the Bush administration was that they
were just 'missing' like the WMDs. Maybe they hid the connections in a
neighboring country... or buried them in the desert.. ;-)

> So it seems to me that
> sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn,
> are not that apparent to me."

Hey! Total blind and dumb ignorance is supposed to be Bushs trademark!
Cheney is infringing his copywrite. ...

> -9/11 Commission vice chairman, former Democratic congressman Lee
> Hamilton, defending Vice President **** Cheney against his attackers
> in the media:
>
> WAR ON TERROR
> Osama-Saddam links
> 9-11 commission missed
> Overwhelming evidence of connection
> between al-Qaida, Iraq before attack
> Posted: June 18, 2004
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern

If you say so. So are you arguing that Bush was as convinced of the link as
he was of the WMDs and thus can be excused for complete stupidity but not
malicious intent or are you saying that Joseph Farah of WorldDailyNews.net
is a more credible source of facts than the 9/11 commision? Inquiring minds
want to know...

 

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken [NY] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Nov 04 17:00:28 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd
>>>>> Parker) claims:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Cheney never said anything like that.
>>>>
>>>> Probably he is referring to Donald Rumsfelds statements.
>>>>
>>>> ""Why the intelligence proved wrong (on WMDs), I'm not in a
>>>> position to say," Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on
>>>> Foreign Relations in New York. "I simply don't know."
>>>> "When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al
>>>> Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any
>>>> strong, hard evidence that links the two."
>>>
>>> No wonder you guys get so confused about who said what.
>>
>> Generally, the confusion is mainly due to the 'excuse of the day'
>> crapfest from the Bush administration, amplified by dimfucks like
>> you that keep posting failed claims.
>>
>>> Ken's comment
>>> was CLEARLY about the relationship between Iraq and the 9/11
>>> attacks.
>>
>> The 9/11 attacks are pretty much assumed or believed to be
>> Al-Quaeda, so a link between Iraq and 9/11 is about a link between
>> Iraq and Al-Quaeda.
>
> So YOU can use the two (Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks) interchangably
> without any problem - and then you assume that Cheney did the same
> thing, so you can blame him for laying 9/11 at the feet of Saddam.

"I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The Vice
President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al
Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that.
What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just
said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative
relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with
regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that
sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn,
are not that apparent to me."
-9/11 Commission vice chairman, former Democratic congressman Lee
Hamilton, defending Vice President **** Cheney against his attackers
in the media:

>
> That's just too funny, but it is a step forward in your quest to
> become a world class troll. It's a little more subtle and
> entertaining than most of your tirades, but still needs serious work.

Your stupidity is no match for Bush and Cheneys. You will just have to try
harder. The main fact is that the WMDs in Iraq could not have jusitifed
invasion unless there was a clear connection established between the 9/11
attack and Iraq. It was the supposed links that generated the 'rush to war'
to prevent Saddam moving the (by then) non-existent WMDs into the hands of
the terroists (that he did not have ties to) who could then (hyopthetically)
produce a real threat to the U.S.. The total irony of the war putting
hundreds of tons of military grade explosives into the hands of terrorists
as the U.S. dumbly stands by is just too too pathetic. It is so pathetic
that you cannot help but laugh. The U.S. is creating the conditions it
supposedly sought to prevent...if you believe Bush and company.

 

[Ian St. John]

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
> Ian St. John wrote:
>> The 9/11 attacks are pretty much assumed or believed to be Al-Quaeda,
>> so a link between Iraq and 9/11 is about a link between Iraq and
>> Al-Quaeda.
>
> If that's an example of his critical thinking skills, then why are we
> wasting our ions on Ian?!?
>
> Freshman Logic...

Yes. It *is* basic logic.

P.S.
"I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The Vice
President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al
Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that.
What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just
said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative
relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with
regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that
sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn,
are not that apparent to me."
-9/11 Commission vice chairman, former Democratic congressman Lee
Hamilton, defending Vice President **** Cheney against his attackers
in the media:

One more person that cannot find the 'fine line' in the logic.

 

[Ian St. John]

Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:46:28 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> He said there were
>>> numerous connections and meetings between Iraq agents and al-Qaeda.
>>
>> No. The commision found that no links could be verified between Iraq
>> and Al-Quaeda.
>
> Oops:
>
> "I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The Vice
> President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al
> Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that.

Actually, the 9/11 commission could find no connections (as in cooperation
or common planning ) between the two.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/


> What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just
> said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative
> relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with
> regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that
> sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn,
> are not that apparent to me."
> -9/11 Commission vice chairman, former Democratic congressman Lee
> Hamilton, defending Vice President **** Cheney against his attackers
> in the media:

 

[Ian St. John]

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
> Ian St. John wrote:
>> Simple logic. If you connect 9/11 to Al-Quaeda and Al-Quaeda to Iraq
>> then you are implying a link between Iraq and 9/11.
>
> FAULTY logic.

No. If it always rains in october ( 9/11 linked to al-quaeda) and you are in
Maine in october ( Iraq linked to al-quaeda) then where does it always rain
in october? Take it to school and ask your teacher.

>
> I'll write slow so you can move your lips, Ian (and on and on and...):
>
> Clouds are necessary to produce rain. Therefore, if it's cloudy then
> it MUST be raining.

Now that is faulty logic.

>
> You probably AGREE with that...
>
> Sad, almost.

You certainly are.

And even more to the point, you manage to miss the primary purspose of the
claims of Iraqs connection to Al_Quaeda which was to justify the invasion
based on 9/11 and the subsequent 'war on terror' which never DID establish
any links to Al-Quaeda , to the 9/11 incident, or support of terrorism. And
only terrorism could make the connection between the WMDs and a threat to
the U.S. which was the ONLY legal jusitifcation for a 'preemptive strike'
against Iraq. Since the pretext was obviously fabicated and did not have any
solid evidence, it is clear that the invasion pretexts were a smokescreen to
cover an illegal operation desired by Bush and some of his cronies while not
legally justifiable.

 

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> no assertions are
>>>>>>> being made that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in
>>>>>>> September 11th.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except by Cheney.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet you can't back that up.
>>>>
>>>> So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is true or
>>>> false.
>>>
>>> LOL. You're claiming that just because there's no record of Cheney
>>> actually saying something, that doesn't mean that he didn't actually
>>> say it in a manner that convinced many millions of Americans to
>>> believe what it is he didn't say? Heh heh heh...
>>
>> I'm sure you believe that made sense. Pitiful really.
>>
>> The fact is that you can proved the Cheney did make such assertions
>> with little effort if you are correct. But you are not about being
>> correct or presenting arguments. You are all about spreading ****
>> and making rhetorical claims of no particular merit.
>
> You're wrong, wrong, wrong - and you can't do a thing to back up your
> assertion. Heh heh heh... wiggle all you want, but you're wrong.
> Heh.


I hate to say it, but your delusions seem to be more extensive than Bushs.
You can't even keep track of all the spin that has been spewed.

 

[Ian St. John]

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
> V.Simkins wrote:
>> first of all, ken, would you mind supplying a link proving what you
>> just wrote, to humour me?
>>
>>> dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will
>>> soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
>>
>> it has never been proven with hard evidence that saddam had such
>> things, at least not to my knowledge. besides, even if he did torture
>> and rape men and woman, american soldiers have been, and are probably
>> at this moment, doing the same.
>
> I think "Simkins" should be spelled with a 'p' in the middle.

Another delusion of which you have an endless supply?

 

[Ian St. John]

Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:43:31 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> Would Kerry have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq?
>>
>> Almost certainly not Iraq, as I think he is more honest and harder to
>> manipulate by the hawks than Bush.
>
> Oh, my. LOL!:

You misunderstand. I didn't say he *couldn't* be manipulated, as were all of
the other Senators. Only that it took a rather concerted effort by Bush and
supporters manipulating the evidence while Bush seems to have jumped on
Saddam, even ordering his minions to look for ANY evidence that might be
useful in linking them.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really belive that the people he had already used them on
>>>>>> died from the "lie" that he had them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bush didn't claim Saddam had had WMD in the past; he claimed Saddam
>>>>> had them in 2003.
>>>>
>>>> So did the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors.
>>>
>>> No. They did not. http://www.unmovic.org/ was in the job of
>>> CONFIRMING the destruction of WMDs and they had a list of POSSIBLE
>>> discrepancies, NOT a list of WMDs. If any such stockpiles were known
>>> to exist, then U.S. troops could have just marched into the secured
>>> sites and there would have been no question about where are they?
>>
>> Have you ever actually READ any of that report,
>
>Yes, but unlike you I don't distort what I read to fit some sort of agenda.
>
>> or is your reading
>> comprehension just that bad? It's gotta be one or the other. Or, you
>> could be living in a dream world (that's my bet).
>
>What? That there were ten thousand liters of Anthax that U.S. troops
>misplaced? Please get at least ONE clue.

Heh... you are really trying to get this whole troll thing down, but
it's not working for you.

<snip - getting too boring here...>

>>>>> We were told he had them in 2003.
>>>>
>>>> By the UN weapons inspection organization (UNMOVIC)
>>>
>>> Lie. http://www.unmovic.org/
>>
>> LOL. You post a link to UNMOVIC's home page, yet don't bother reading
>> the actual report you're saying is a lie. LOL.
>
>I read the report. It does not list any WMDs with known phsyical existence
>that the U.S. troops did not find. Game over.

What is it about...

"It, therefore, seems highly probable that the destruction of bulk
agent, including anthrax, stated by Iraq to be at Al Hakam in
July/August 1991, did not occur. Based on all the available
evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of
anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist"

.... that you don't understand? And that's just one of MANY other
findings that painted Iraq as a major threat in terms of WMD
production.

>>>> and by every
>>>> credible intelligence source available (and by previous
>>>> administrations, etc.).
>>>
>>> Lie.
>>
>> Does the word "history" mean anything to you?
>
>You mean in terms that the victors write the history? Yes. I can see that
>you want to rewrite history to justify an illegal war. Too bad that the
>modern age makes it so hard to track down every copy of the truth.
>
>> Or do you assume that
>> since much of the world's media is in electronic format history can be
>> changed retroactively to suit your particular fantasy?
>
>ha ha. The problem is not history but your delusions about it. If UNMOVIC
>had lists of actual WMDs then it would have been no problem to secure them
>in the invasion.

Let me see if I can explain this to you in terms you can grasp.

We didn't know where the WMD that Iraq admitted having were located,
or we wouldn't have had TO LOOK FOR THEM. Iraq's responsibility to
meet the UN resolutions was to tell us where the WMD they had went -
but that's something they never did.

> The facts recorded by history is that they didn't even try
>to secure such sites because they knew that no such sites existed and
>primariliy concentrated on the oil resources they coveted. Later ,they were
>sure they would find *something* overlooked but truth to tell, Saddam had
>complied with the U.N. so thoroughly that they could not even find one
>obsolete or overlooked munitions. Rather an embarassment to Bush as it
>illustrated that he was a blatant liar about the reasons for war.

Heh... that's wrong on SO many counts it's hard to know where to
start. You really should read the UNMOVIC reporrt. You'll be
embarrassed when you do (since you'll realize how totally fallacious
your positions have been). But wait, I keep forgetting you're just a
troll.

>>>> But none of that seems to have remained on
>>>> the collective memory of those that didn't vote for Bush.
>>>
>>> What seems to be missing is some sort of reality check, even after
>>> the fact that no WMDs were found and the sources for the propaganda
>>> were exposed as not credible or with motives to lie.
>>
>> Much of the intelligence WAS faulty... but that came to light AFTER
>> Saddam was deposed.
>
>No. If intelligence, as a whole, was that faulty, nobody would have
>intelligence organisations. THe fact is that most of the intelligence was
>quite accurate and painted a picture that Bush did not want to listen to, so
>he picked up a few odd reports that supported his claims.

Hmmmm... interesting that the bipartisan commissions investigating
this came to an entirely different conclusion, isn't it? Odd how you
seem to think you've somehow stumbled upon the truth of the matter
without actually reading any of the documentation, while those highly
placed in the Senate intelligence committee and independent
commissions couldn't "figure it out". LOL.

>He even ordered
>people to specifically skim any evidence that supported an invasion of Iraq
>from the mass of data. You cannot expect anything but that they will find
>SOME odd reports, from the British expose that was pilfered from a students
>exercise on the 1991 gulf war, to obvious forged documents about nuclear
>material, to ... claims from Saddams enemies that were not credible. They
>built up this web of deceit into a solid wall of ********. Too basd such
>things tend to fall apart after one use.

Yawn. You don't even do a good job passing off conspiracy theories,
though they do help establish the whacko credentials.

>Stop banging those rocks with your head. You are starting to sound a bit
>brain damaged.

Uh huh... I'll let others be the judge as to which of us is operating
from a basis in reality, and which is living firmly in lala land. But
thanks for the ad hominem admission you can't defend your position.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really belive that the people he had already used them on
>>>>>> died from the "lie" that he had them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bush didn't claim Saddam had had WMD in the past; he claimed Saddam
>>>>> had them in 2003.
>>>>
>>>> So did the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors.
>>>
>>> No. They did not. http://www.unmovic.org/ was in the job of
>>> CONFIRMING the destruction of WMDs and they had a list of POSSIBLE
>>> discrepancies, NOT a list of WMDs. If any such stockpiles were known
>>> to exist, then U.S. troops could have just marched into the secured
>>> sites and there would have been no question about where are they?
>>
>> Have you ever actually READ any of that report,
>
>Yes, but unlike you I don't distort what I read to fit some sort of agenda.
>
>> or is your reading
>> comprehension just that bad? It's gotta be one or the other. Or, you
>> could be living in a dream world (that's my bet).
>
>What? That there were ten thousand liters of Anthax that U.S. troops
>misplaced? Please get at least ONE clue.

Heh... you are really trying to get this whole troll thing down, but
it's not working for you.

<snip - getting too boring here...>

>>>>> We were told he had them in 2003.
>>>>
>>>> By the UN weapons inspection organization (UNMOVIC)
>>>
>>> Lie. http://www.unmovic.org/
>>
>> LOL. You post a link to UNMOVIC's home page, yet don't bother reading
>> the actual report you're saying is a lie. LOL.
>
>I read the report. It does not list any WMDs with known phsyical existence
>that the U.S. troops did not find. Game over.

What is it about...

"It, therefore, seems highly probable that the destruction of bulk
agent, including anthrax, stated by Iraq to be at Al Hakam in
July/August 1991, did not occur. Based on all the available
evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of
anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist"

.... that you don't understand? And that's just one of MANY other
findings that painted Iraq as a major threat in terms of WMD
production.

>>>> and by every
>>>> credible intelligence source available (and by previous
>>>> administrations, etc.).
>>>
>>> Lie.
>>
>> Does the word "history" mean anything to you?
>
>You mean in terms that the victors write the history? Yes. I can see that
>you want to rewrite history to justify an illegal war. Too bad that the
>modern age makes it so hard to track down every copy of the truth.
>
>> Or do you assume that
>> since much of the world's media is in electronic format history can be
>> changed retroactively to suit your particular fantasy?
>
>ha ha. The problem is not history but your delusions about it. If UNMOVIC
>had lists of actual WMDs then it would have been no problem to secure them
>in the invasion.

Let me see if I can explain this to you in terms you can grasp.

We didn't know where the WMD that Iraq admitted having were located,
or we wouldn't have had TO LOOK FOR THEM. Iraq's responsibility to
meet the UN resolutions was to tell us where the WMD they had went -
but that's something they never did.

> The facts recorded by history is that they didn't even try
>to secure such sites because they knew that no such sites existed and
>primariliy concentrated on the oil resources they coveted. Later ,they were
>sure they would find *something* overlooked but truth to tell, Saddam had
>complied with the U.N. so thoroughly that they could not even find one
>obsolete or overlooked munitions. Rather an embarassment to Bush as it
>illustrated that he was a blatant liar about the reasons for war.

Heh... that's wrong on SO many counts it's hard to know where to
start. You really should read the UNMOVIC reporrt. You'll be
embarrassed when you do (since you'll realize how totally fallacious
your positions have been). But wait, I keep forgetting you're just a
troll.

>>>> But none of that seems to have remained on
>>>> the collective memory of those that didn't vote for Bush.
>>>
>>> What seems to be missing is some sort of reality check, even after
>>> the fact that no WMDs were found and the sources for the propaganda
>>> were exposed as not credible or with motives to lie.
>>
>> Much of the intelligence WAS faulty... but that came to light AFTER
>> Saddam was deposed.
>
>No. If intelligence, as a whole, was that faulty, nobody would have
>intelligence organisations. THe fact is that most of the intelligence was
>quite accurate and painted a picture that Bush did not want to listen to, so
>he picked up a few odd reports that supported his claims.

Hmmmm... interesting that the bipartisan commissions investigating
this came to an entirely different conclusion, isn't it? Odd how you
seem to think you've somehow stumbled upon the truth of the matter
without actually reading any of the documentation, while those highly
placed in the Senate intelligence committee and independent
commissions couldn't "figure it out". LOL.

>He even ordered
>people to specifically skim any evidence that supported an invasion of Iraq
>from the mass of data. You cannot expect anything but that they will find
>SOME odd reports, from the British expose that was pilfered from a students
>exercise on the 1991 gulf war, to obvious forged documents about nuclear
>material, to ... claims from Saddams enemies that were not credible. They
>built up this web of deceit into a solid wall of ********. Too basd such
>things tend to fall apart after one use.

Yawn. You don't even do a good job passing off conspiracy theories,
though they do help establish the whacko credentials.

>Stop banging those rocks with your head. You are starting to sound a bit
>brain damaged.

Uh huh... I'll let others be the judge as to which of us is operating
from a basis in reality, and which is living firmly in lala land. But
thanks for the ad hominem admission you can't defend your position.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:43:31 -0500, "Ian St. John"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> Would Kerry have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq?
>>
>>Almost certainly not Iraq, as I think he is more honest and harder to
>>manipulate by the hawks than Bush.
>
> Oh, my. LOL!:
>
>"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
>because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
>in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>
>"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
>murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
>particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
>miscalculation ... And now he is is calculating America's response to
>his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
>destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
>destruction is real ..."
>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Now,now, Ken... you KNOW how Ian gets when you use facts.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:43:31 -0500, "Ian St. John"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> Would Kerry have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq?
>>
>>Almost certainly not Iraq, as I think he is more honest and harder to
>>manipulate by the hawks than Bush.
>
> Oh, my. LOL!:
>
>"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
>because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
>in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>
>"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
>murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
>particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
>miscalculation ... And now he is is calculating America's response to
>his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
>destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
>destruction is real ..."
>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Now,now, Ken... you KNOW how Ian gets when you use facts.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[BB]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:11:37 -0500, Ian St. John wrote:
> BB wrote:

> resolution 1546, "security council endorses formation of sovereign
> interim government in iraq".
>
> What would you have them do? Endorse a climate of chaos? The primary goal of
> the U.N. is to create international stability and humanitarian efforts. The
> principle used here is that pretty much any orderly system is better than
> anarchy.

But you argue below that the U.N. doesn't support "subsequent action" of
the invasion, when that interim government they're endorsing IS a
subsequent action of the invasion.

<snip Ian's Facism "prophecy">

Feel free to stick to that one - it goes a long way in showing people who
you really are.

> My own position is that anyone that thinks the U.N. can just
> 'stick to principles' against the military superpower, that forms the bulk
> of it's forces, and which has internal control through a veto, is just a
> little delusional.

Obviously. I certainly never argued that they would, could, or did "stick
to principles".

> They are sticking as close to principles as diplomacy and
> reality allows while trying to do some good. And they have not supported the
> Iraq invasion or the subsequent actions of the U.S. and have stated
> categorically that the invasion was illegal. That is about a much as they
> CAN do at this time.

And what do they get - a U.N. supported Iraqi democratic government,
without having to to explicitly support the war that caused it to exist.
Now they can slowly take over a security role and election oversight, as
Colin Powell outlined in U.N. Res 1546, and it will be as if they did it
themselves- without the commitment. It was particularly convenient for
them given that there is no certainty that a democracy will actually work
in Iraq.

> It will not be until the world draws a line in the sand that WW3 starts.

Some evangelists are predicting the apocalypse as well.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you really belive that the people he had already used them on
>>>>>>> died from the "lie" that he had them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bush didn't claim Saddam had had WMD in the past; he claimed
>>>>>> Saddam had them in 2003.
>>>>>
>>>>> So did the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors.
>>>>
>>>> No. They did not. http://www.unmovic.org/ was in the job of
>>>> CONFIRMING the destruction of WMDs and they had a list of POSSIBLE
>>>> discrepancies, NOT a list of WMDs. If any such stockpiles were
>>>> known to exist, then U.S. troops could have just marched into the
>>>> secured sites and there would have been no question about where
>>>> are they?
>>>
>>> Have you ever actually READ any of that report,
>>
>> Yes, but unlike you I don't distort what I read to fit some sort of
>> agenda.
>>
>>> or is your reading
>>> comprehension just that bad? It's gotta be one or the other. Or,
>>> you could be living in a dream world (that's my bet).
>>
>> What? That there were ten thousand liters of Anthax that U.S. troops
>> misplaced? Please get at least ONE clue.
>
> Heh... you are really trying to get this whole troll thing down, but
> it's not working for you.

Hmm. I guess you have given up regarding your silly argument that the WMDs
were documented and in known locations but somehow got overlooked by the
U.S. forces??

>
> <snip - getting too boring here...>

Yes. I can see that small things amuse small minds and this may just be
beyond your intellectual level. Back to your comic books.

>
>>>>>> We were told he had them in 2003.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the UN weapons inspection organization (UNMOVIC)
>>>>
>>>> Lie. http://www.unmovic.org/
>>>
>>> LOL. You post a link to UNMOVIC's home page, yet don't bother
>>> reading the actual report you're saying is a lie. LOL.
>>
>> I read the report. It does not list any WMDs with known phsyical
>> existence that the U.S. troops did not find. Game over.
>
> What is it about...
>
> "It, therefore, seems highly probable that the destruction of bulk
> agent, including anthrax, stated by Iraq to be at Al Hakam in
> July/August 1991, did not occur. Based on all the available
> evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of
> anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist"

What it is about is "probable, presumption, may... " which merely
illustrates that the 'documentation' supposes the existence of stockpiles
that they are presuming might exists or may not have been destroyed as
documented. Ergo they have to investigate the possible existence by
detective work to ensure that the hypothetical material were, indeed.
destroyed. A process that was short cutted by the U.S. invasion which
managed to find nothing despite desperate searches. Reality is "no WMDs".
Nor does the report contain doucmented stockpiles of anthrax.

>
> ... that you don't understand? And that's just one of MANY other
> findings that painted Iraq as a major threat in terms of WMD
> production.

No. It illustrates that you do not understand the process of confirming the
destruction or lack of existance of materials. The inspectors job was to
first estimate what was known to exist and what might have been produced and
then step by step methodically prove that each and every one of those
scenarios is wrong or the materials existed at one time but were destroyed.

Stop denting those rocks with your skull. It is unseemly.

 

[Ian St. John]

BB wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:11:37 -0500, Ian St. John wrote:
>> BB wrote:
>
>> resolution 1546, "security council endorses formation of sovereign
>> interim government in iraq".
>>
>> What would you have them do? Endorse a climate of chaos? The primary
>> goal of the U.N. is to create international stability and
>> humanitarian efforts. The principle used here is that pretty much
>> any orderly system is better than anarchy.
>
> But you argue below that the U.N. doesn't support "subsequent action"
> of the invasion, when that interim government they're endorsing IS a
> subsequent action of the invasion.

They do not endorse either the invasion or the subsequent puppet regime (
which they refused to recognise in the U.N. ). They have been very clear
that they are merely endorsing calm and order as a first step to recovery of
Iraq as a sovereign nation. The method by which the U.S. is ejected is still
being worked upon, I am sure.

>
> <snip Ian's Facism "prophecy">

Simpley reading the facts and making logical predictions. Hardly prophecy.

>
> Feel free to stick to that one - it goes a long way in showing people
> who you really are.

Someone who isn't fooled by propaganda and hysteria?

>
>> My own position is that anyone that thinks the U.N. can just
>> 'stick to principles' against the military superpower, that forms
>> the bulk of it's forces, and which has internal control through a
>> veto, is just a little delusional.
>
> Obviously. I certainly never argued that they would, could, or did
> "stick to principles".

But the point is that they DID as much as possible. They could have been
confrontational, but would that have done any good? All it could have
accomplished in the face of U.S. military superiority is to ensure that the
U.N. would be excluded from any further role in Iraq.

If you want to argue that the U.N. should have an independent miltary and
thus become a defacto world government, then I have news for you.

>
>> They are sticking as close to principles as diplomacy and
>> reality allows while trying to do some good. And they have not
>> supported the Iraq invasion or the subsequent actions of the U.S.
>> and have stated categorically that the invasion was illegal. That is
>> about a much as they CAN do at this time.
>
> And what do they get - a U.N. supported Iraqi democratic government,

False. The U.N. does not support the provisional government. It merely
allows it as prefereable to chaos.

> without having to to explicitly support the war that caused it to
> exist.

Rather, they pointed out that the invasion was illegal and in violation of
the U.N. charter. As to the govenrment installed, it has no legitimacy. This
does not mean that they are going to try to overthrow Iraq themselves. They
have no options but to wait and see while trying to ensure that any election
process is sufficiently fair as to give a new government the legitimacy that
the puppet regime lacks.

> Now they can slowly take over a security role and election
> oversight, as Colin Powell outlined in U.N. Res 1546, and it will be
> as if they did it themselves- without the commitment. It was
> particularly convenient for them given that there is no certainty
> that a democracy will actually work in Iraq.

What are you suggesting is their aim, why and why do you have the illusion
that they are in charge? The situation in Iraq is purely determined by
American forces, not U.N. or NATO.

>
>> It will not be until the world draws a line in the sand that WW3
>> starts.
>
> Some evangelists are predicting the apocalypse as well.

Sad but true. They may be looking forward to WW3 as the 'fire next time'
that will restore all of the good Christians. The role of the fundamentalist
religions of the U.S. cannot be overlooked.

 

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Now,now, Ken... you KNOW how Ian gets when you use facts.

Can you tell me which rock you broke with your head when you got the
brilliant idea that politicans not only always tell the truth but are
infallible as well?

As your 'facts' are nothing more than political hyperbole, I have to wonder.

 

[BB]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:03:37 -0500, Ian St. John wrote:

> They do not endorse either the invasion or the subsequent puppet regime (
> which they refused to recognise in the U.N. ).

Exactly what government do you think Res 1546 is talking about when they
say the Security Council "Endorses the formation of a sovereign Interim
Government of Iraq, as presented on 1 June 2004, which will assume full
responsibility and authority by 30 June 2004"?

Or are you saying that they don't endorse that goverment, even though they
have unanimously resolved that they do?

My guess is that you're just still attached to that ancient Houston
Chronicle article, written over nine months prior to the existence of the
current interim government, about a person who was not representing the
current interim government. If that's the case, perhaps you can explain
why you believe that article is a better representation of the U.N.'s
position on the current interim government than a 3-month-old U.N.
resolution.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[Ian St. John]

BB wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:03:37 -0500, Ian St. John wrote:
>
>> They do not endorse either the invasion or the subsequent puppet
>> regime ( which they refused to recognise in the U.N. ).
>
> Exactly what government do you think Res 1546 is talking about when
> they say the Security Council "Endorses the formation of a sovereign
> Interim Government of Iraq, as presented on 1 June 2004, which will
> assume full responsibility and authority by 30 June 2004"?

You still do not get the point. Forming some sort of government is
endorsable in the name of humanitarian efforts since chaos ( not too much
difference from the U.S. occupation I will admit ) is even more dangerous.
However, they DO NOT RECOGNISE IT INTERNATIONALLY.

>
> Or are you saying that they don't endorse that goverment, even though
> they have unanimously resolved that they do?

To endorse that order come out of chaos does not mean endorsing a particular
candidate for mayor. They do not recognise the occupation forces as a
legitimate sovereign government as is plainly stated by their not giving
them a seat at the U.N. only a 'better than nothing' interim government that
is indeed only better than nothing in terms of humantarian efforts.

Whatever is your problem, get over it.