Re: OT: I was right, you ****ing stupid people



Tom Kunich wrote:

> Henry: "I think Bush and the Neocon set were ignorant. They believed
> the intel they wanted to believe and ignored the rest."
>
> Here's a clue - when it comes to weapons of mass destruction do you go
> with the best available scenario or the worst?
>



Wrong question.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> Henry: "I think Bush and the Neocon set were ignorant. They believed
> the intel they wanted to believe and ignored the rest."
>
> Here's a clue - when it comes to weapons of mass destruction do you go
> with the best available scenario or the worst?


Here's another clue--if they did an honest risk assessment of WMD and
if invasion is the best option. (and I'm not granting that) Why did
they choose Irag over North Korea?
 
On 1 Mar 2006 10:08:21 -0800, "gds" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Here's another clue--if they did an honest risk assessment of WMD and
>if invasion is the best option. (and I'm not granting that) Why did
>they choose Irag over North Korea?


Why do you hate America so much? Questions like that provide aid and
comfort to our enemy.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Peace, huh. Well, I guess you're not familiar with the concept of
>> > "hope
>> > is
>> > not a plan."

>>
>> I suppose you don't have much of a plan in that case.

>
> Tom, why should I have to offer a plan? YOU and your cohorts wanted to
> go in,
> you should have the plan. It isn't up to the people who didn't want us to
> go
> into Iraq to offer a plan to bail you out.


Let's put this in terms even someone as retarded as you can understand. No
one is charged with explaining the plan to you. What's more, no one cares
to. You aren't in charge so you don't have any more say than anyone else.
Use your vote and shut your stupid mouth.

>> No civil war brewing like you really hope for and religious differences
>> not
>> being enough to start them as long as the US is watching.

>
> I didn't want *any* war, civil or otherwise.


Hell you and your Liberal pals are salivating with the idea that there might
be a civil war you can blame on Bush. You'd dance in the streets to see
people killed.

And all because you believe this is still the 1960's and that Liberalism is
still alive. Well, here's a clue - Liberalism IS still alive. The same sort
of Liberalism that was represented by John Kennedy and YES - Richard Nixon -
a Liberalism that underscores real freedoms and real goals and not the doped
up frenzy that today's Liberals see - world socialism with those who work
paying for those who don't want to.
 
"gds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Henry: "I think Bush and the Neocon set were ignorant. They believed
>> the intel they wanted to believe and ignored the rest."
>>
>> Here's a clue - when it comes to weapons of mass destruction do you go
>> with the best available scenario or the worst?

>
> Here's another clue--if they did an honest risk assessment of WMD and
> if invasion is the best option. (and I'm not granting that) Why did
> they choose Irag over North Korea?


Don't tell me you don't understand that? If we went after North Korea we'd
have had to contend with China. In a move that will go down in future
history texts as probably the most effective piece of statesmanship of his
career, Bush pushed China into contending with North Korea and they failed.

You DO know exactly what that was worth don't you? It may have saved
civilization as we know it.
 
Henry, foreign policy and strategic planning are made by GROUPS and not by
some single individual. Anyone will later be able to say, "Well, if they did
it MY way - "

It's time you grow up but I sure don't see that happening.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "gds" <[email protected]> wrote


> > Here's another clue--if they did an honest risk assessment of WMD and
> > if invasion is the best option. (and I'm not granting that) Why did
> > they choose Irag over North Korea?

>
> Don't tell me you don't understand that?


TOM!!! Vocabulary word for the day: I-R-O-N-Y (somebody had to tell
him).

> If we went after North Korea we'd
> have had to contend with China.


Not to mention "North Korea". With a real army and nukes.

[China "fails" inre N. Korea]
> You DO know exactly what that was worth don't you?


I don't even know what you're referring to.

> It may have saved
> civilization as we know it.


How about saving our own civilization by returning a manufacturing base
to the contiguous 48? And quit blaming "the shareholders"? --D-y
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Peace, huh. Well, I guess you're not familiar with the concept of
> >> > "hope
> >> > is
> >> > not a plan."
> >>
> >> I suppose you don't have much of a plan in that case.

> >
> > Tom, why should I have to offer a plan? YOU and your cohorts wanted to
> > go in, you should have the plan. It isn't up to the people who didn't
> > want us to go into Iraq to offer a plan to bail you out.

>
> Let's put this in terms even someone as retarded as you can understand. No
> one is charged with explaining the plan to you. What's more, no one cares
> to. You aren't in charge so you don't have any more say than anyone else.
> Use your vote and shut your stupid mouth.


Whatever "plan" the admin. had seems to have been based on absurdly
delusional assessments of what *might* happen. Things like "they'll greet us
with open arms" and "they'll shower us with flowers." Or "We'll pay for the war
with the income from the oil." Yeah, right - guess again.

> >> No civil war brewing like you really hope for and religious differences
> >> not being enough to start them as long as the US is watching.

> >
> > I didn't want *any* war, civil or otherwise.

>
> Hell you and your Liberal pals are salivating with the idea that there might
> be a civil war you can blame on Bush. You'd dance in the streets to see
> people killed.
>
> And all because you believe this is still the 1960's and that Liberalism is
> still alive. Well, here's a clue - Liberalism IS still alive. The same sort
> of Liberalism that was represented by John Kennedy and YES - Richard Nixon -
> a Liberalism that underscores real freedoms and real goals and not the doped
> up frenzy that today's Liberals see - world socialism with those who work
> paying for those who don't want to.


You simply are out of touch with reality, Tom. You build up these fantabulous
strawmen so you can knock them down and "win." "Yeah, I beat up the Liberal
demons that exist only in my head." Cooool.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

--
tanx,
Howard

Grandma Smith said a curious thing
Boys must whistle, girls must sing

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Don't tell me you don't understand that? If we went after North Korea we'd
> have had to contend with China. In a move that will go down in future
> history texts as probably the most effective piece of statesmanship of his
> career,


Most effective piece in a career glaringly devoid of statesmanship.
Statesmanship - n : wisdom in the management of public affairs
I don't know anyone, including ardent Bushpushers, who consider him
wise by any definition of the word.

> Bush pushed China into contending with North Korea and they failed.


Right. Bush *****-slapped China into doing what he wanted. Please.

> You DO know exactly what that was worth don't you? It may have saved
> civilization as we know it.


1). Like that's something to brag about;
2). Jury's still out.

R
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> Don't tell me you don't understand that? If we went after North Korea we'd
> have had to contend with China. In a move that will go down in future
> history texts as probably the most effective piece of statesmanship of his
> career, Bush pushed China into contending with North Korea and they failed.
>
> You DO know exactly what that was worth don't you? It may have saved
> civilization as we know it.


Huh?

The most a de-escalation and possible de-nuclearization with
North Korea will save is Seoul and all the people who live there.
That's very very important. But it isn't the end of civilization as
we know it - NK breaking out the nucular whoop-ass wouldn't
catalyze World War III between us and the Chinese, the
Chinese have too much to lose.

Terrorism, frankly, isn't yet a threat to destroy civilization as
we know it either. It can hurt people several thousand at
a time, but only the overreaction can change the lives of
millions.

No, the real threat to civilization as we know it is global
climate change, which as I learned on rbr is caused by
sunspots. So what we need now is a War on Sunspots.
I hear Rumsfeld and the Weekly Standard gang already
have a contingency plan. But in the meantime, I'm asking
all right-thinking Americans to stay inside with the shades
drawn until further notice.

Ben
If we do nothing, the sunspots win.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> No, the real threat to civilization as we know it is global
> climate change, which as I learned on rbr is caused by
> sunspots. So what we need now is a War on Sunspots.
> I hear Rumsfeld and the Weekly Standard gang already
> have a contingency plan. But in the meantime, I'm asking
> all right-thinking Americans to stay inside with the shades
> drawn until further notice.
>
> Ben
> If we do nothing, the sunspots win.


Pink Floyd got it right; lets nuke the sun.
 
On 7 Mar 2006 07:33:39 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Aarron Canino" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]

>
> Are you guilty of manslaughter or is it self-defense?


Can't you guys give Canino a rest? Anyway, she didn't die, did she?
 
Mr Asher, did the revelation about the Oil for Food scandal not give
you cause to think on these things?

Mr. Duelfer was jobbed with finding the "truth" as rapidly as possible
and so he couldn't investigate every possibility of finding where the
WMD went. There is NO question that Hussein had them. EVERY
intelligence service in the world had knowedge of them. The components
for manufacturing them WERE shipped to Iraq and WERE NEVER found. Bill
Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, ALL of the Democratic Leadership in
the late 90's AND NOW, said that Hussein HAD them.

Mr. Duelfer put searches in abeyance in order to produce a report to
stiffle political rhetoric on the subject. It was as complete as could
be in the time alloted but nevertheless had some things to say that are
more than significant:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

"Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions
lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to
balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections-to gain support for
lifting sanctions-with his intention to preserve Iraq's
intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness
and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the
Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise,
risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and
jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international
monitoring.

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a
key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from
a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see
that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further
undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use
infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of
sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within
striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in
terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999."

Let's put this in terms of this discussion: Saddam Hussein HAD the
ability to manufacture Chemical weapons in massive quantities within
two years of the end of sanctions. And as you see, sanctions were about
to end with the corruptive influences of huge bribes to UN officials.

Chemical weapons are bad. As someone whose lungs were seared with
poison gas let me tell you that you can NEVER underestimate the effects
of a poison gas attack. It took me more than two years to recover from
a minor chemical accident. One can only imagine what a weapons grade
attack would do in a large city.

But the real danger was Biological Warfare Agents. You cannot believe
the power of these weapons. They are considered my militaries all over
the world as FAR more powerful than nuclear weapons and every
knowledgeable political or military leader fears these more than
anything else.

(Page One Key Findings Biological) "At a meeting of the Iraqi
leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn
personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi
Arabia and US forces."
"Under the aegis of the intelligence service, a secretive team
developed assassination instruments using poisons or toxins for the
Iraqi state."

It was judged that Iraq had the ability to begin producing weapon grade
and quantity of biological warfare agents within weeks or month of the
end of sanctions.

What is open to interpretation is what would have happened after
sanctions ended. Hussein WAS trying to achieve stature in the Arab
world by threatening Israel and supporting terrorists and terrorist
causes. He provided medical facilities and recuperation for some of the
world's most notorious terrorists. Abu Nidal had killed or wounded 1500
people some 70 of them Americans. Ansar-al-Islam, Arab Liberation
Front, Hamas, Kurdistan Workers Party, Mujahedin-e-Khalq and of course
the Palestine Liberation Front were all supported by direct funding
from Saddam Hussein.

Arguing that Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein didn't like each other
is a cruel joke. Hussein was trying to get Bin Ladin on his side to the
effect that he provided medical care and was working cooperatively with
Al Qaida. While the relationship wasn't close is was a work in
progress.

Why did Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry all sign a letter
on Oct. 9, 1998, to the President stating ""We urge you, after
consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and
laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and
missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the
threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." if they didn't have genuine concerns?

Senator Hillary Clinton on October 10, 2002, stated, "In the four years
since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam
Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Husseins desire for political power in the middle east would have led
him inexorably to be eventually cornered into providing real WMD to
terrorists and with this sorts of weapons at their disposal terrorists
would target the Great Satan and none other.

As President of the United States George Bush took an action that will
forever be criticized by his political enemies. But the fact remains
that not ONE substantive terrorist act against the USA has occurred
since 9/11. Moreover, Libya has opened their borders, turned over ALL
of their WMD which were even further along than Iraq's and become a
part of the larger world again. Terrorists have taken a nearly fatal
blow. It will take time to reduce the large terrorist organizations to
a few psychotic individuals but it will be accomplished. Turn off the
money machine and the terrorist organizations will wither and die.
 
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2006 07:33:39 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Aarron Canino" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [...]

>> Are you guilty of manslaughter or is it self-defense?

>
> Can't you guys give Canino a rest? Anyway, she didn't die, did she?


I have to admit, this is one of the better trolls in recent
memory. I wonder if Aaron lives near Philly these days.

Bob Schwartz
 
Aarron Canino wrote:
> We know that Iraq's leadership used gas on the Kurds --
> gas is a WMD. I believe action was a good thing based
> on the gassing of the Kurds alone,


Saddam gassed Halabja in 1988.

Back then Saddam was our Best Pal in the region. In fact,
the US government took a while to acknowledge that
it was Saddam who gassed Halabja - initially we blamed
the Big Bad Iranians.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm>
<http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/poisonous-weapons.html>

Now of course 15 years is well within the statute of limitations
for War Crimes when the Perp has a Bad Moustache and is
in posession of a Barrelful of Oil besides.

> Now where there is significant cause for discussion here is more in regards
> to why we have not yet bombed Iraq until the desert turned to glass! We are
> the most pwerful nation on earth, yet we are fighting a 18th century war on
> the ground because people like the gentleman Mr. Kunich was responding to
> cannot put aside their political correctness long enough to stop fighting
> like pussies and win the thing.


So do you think we should use WMDs to settle the Iraqi Hash,
or should we bomb them back to the Stone Age with
conventional weapons?

I'm curious because while you were out, we in RBR had a
learned discussion of the Five Types of Irony, and I'm
curious to know which one you are using here.

In the meantime, surely you have an opinion on something
to do with the antiquated custom of Bicycle Racing.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Back then Saddam was our Best Pal in the region. In fact,
> the US government took a while to acknowledge that
> it was Saddam who gassed Halabja - initially we blamed
> the Big Bad Iranians.
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm>
> <http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/poisonous-weapons.html>


Two for one sale. First blame someone who did not do it,
but that you do not like. The mud sticks. Then blame
someone else that you do not like, who did do it.

--
Michael Press
 
On 07 Mar 2006 21:14:21 +0100, Davey Crockett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[He was wrong in this assumption and probably knew it too! ****** who
>had himself been gassed in the first World War had ordered that Gas
>was never to be used under any circumstances whatsoever, even though
>the Germans had Tabun and Sarin which would have made quick work of
>liquidating the French and British on the Normandy beaches in 1940.
>A lot of other presumtions herein are equally false to but not germane
>to the curent topic.
> -- Davey]


If true, at best I assume you mean in respect to warfare. His use of
gas for the purposes of genocide is well documented, other than in the
minds of a few complete nutcases.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> writes:

> On 07 Mar 2006 21:14:21 +0100, Davey Crockett
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >[He was wrong in this assumption and probably knew it too! ****** who
> >had himself been gassed in the first World War had ordered that Gas
> >was never to be used under any circumstances whatsoever, even though
> >the Germans had Tabun and Sarin which would have made quick work of
> >liquidating the French and British on the Normandy beaches in 1940.
> >A lot of other presumtions herein are equally false to but not germane
> >to the curent topic.
> > -- Davey]

>
> If true, at best I assume you mean in respect to warfare. His use of
> gas for the purposes of genocide is well documented,


Can you provide any such documentation?


--
Le Vent à Dos, Davey Crockett - Actively Opposing Thought Crime
Libérez Ingrid Betancourt, Clara Rojas et les autres
http://www.ingridbetancourt-idf.com/base/
Free Ernst Zundel http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html
Free David Irving http://www.petitiononline.com/DavidI/petition.html
 
Davey Crockett wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On 07 Mar 2006 21:14:21 +0100, Davey Crockett
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >[He was wrong in this assumption and probably knew it too! ****** who
> > >had himself been gassed in the first World War had ordered that Gas
> > >was never to be used under any circumstances whatsoever, even though
> > >the Germans had Tabun and Sarin which would have made quick work of
> > >liquidating the French and British on the Normandy beaches in 1940.
> > >A lot of other presumtions herein are equally false to but not germane
> > >to the curent topic.
> > > -- Davey]

> >
> > If true, at best I assume you mean in respect to warfare. His use of
> > gas for the purposes of genocide is well documented,

>
> Can you provide any such documentation?
>
>
> --
> Le Vent à Dos, Davey Crockett - Actively Opposing Thought Crime
> Libérez Ingrid Betancourt, Clara Rojas et les autres
> http://www.ingridbetancourt-idf.com/base/
> Free Ernst Zundel http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html
> Free David Irving http://www.petitiononline.com/DavidI/petition.html


I guess that pretty much confirms the suspicions I've had on where you
stand politically.

Bill C
 
On 07 Mar 2006 21:33:01 +0100, Davey Crockett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 07 Mar 2006 21:14:21 +0100, Davey Crockett
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >[He was wrong in this assumption and probably knew it too! ****** who
>> >had himself been gassed in the first World War had ordered that Gas
>> >was never to be used under any circumstances whatsoever, even though
>> >the Germans had Tabun and Sarin which would have made quick work of
>> >liquidating the French and British on the Normandy beaches in 1940.
>> >A lot of other presumtions herein are equally false to but not germane
>> >to the curent topic.
>> > -- Davey]

>>
>> If true, at best I assume you mean in respect to warfare. His use of
>> gas for the purposes of genocide is well documented,

>
>Can you provide any such documentation?


Yes, actually I can. And a few years before he died, my father
described what it was like to be the second group of U.S. troops to
actually enter one of the camps. OTOH, I don't waste time on Holocaust
Denial nut cases and ****** fans. Time to invoke the ****** rule and
sign off this thread.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...