Read up anti-American....
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 5, 7:58 pm, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
What matters is everybody agreed
PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat FROM THEM.

And now that you know there was no threat, that Bin Laden hated
Saddam, that we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted, that Bush used 8
year old intelligence to make his case....and now that so many
Americans and Iraq innocents have been murdered, you still stand
behind Bush and his war?
Dude, just how many bridges have you bought? Do you really think a
true American calls anyone a "terrorist faciliator" simply because
they believe the current government to be evil and corrupt?
9/11 happened on Bush watch. Period. The WMD fiasco happened under his
watch. The useless Iraq war also on his watch. Gas over 3 bucks a
gallon on his watch. And many more issues both scientific, moral and
environmental...all taken back in time under his watch. And when he
got the news that the USA was under attack he simply sat there,
useless as a leader and a man. The guy is as inept as he is evil, as
is any so-called leader who kills because he thinks his god is
superior. Bush himself is a terrorist. And now the majority of the
country, including many republicans, know it.

But in the end "No WMD's" is really all that needs to be said. It's
the absolute pinnicale of Orwellian prophecy made real.

RB
35s5
NY

Dummy..Saddam murdered 100s of thousands of his own people with
chemical weapons. He shot at our planes in the no fly zones. He had
the chance to leave the country. He chopped of arms, hands, ears,
ect..ect..ect.. No to mention his boys evil acts. Only a total
douchbag would turn his back on that...you & Jon come to mind btw.

Saddam was a nut case and since he failed to live up to his surrender
agreement he got what he deserved. I know that saddens you and Jonboy
buts thats the facts.

See UN resolution 1441.

Joe




Buzz of Joe. You think that attacking Saddam, a leader who was contained and
not a threat made *us* safer?? Every study there is suggests just the
opposite.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Read up anti-American....
 

Saddam was actually helping us, by doing his best at supressing Bin
Laden, his
bitter enemy. When we took out Saddam, it was one of the happiest days
of Bin
Laden's life.



Folks like Joe could really care less about Iraq. In fact he probably
knows that Bush lied about Iraq. He imagines that Bush embodies anti-
liberal beliefs which he embraces. For that he'll make excuses for
just about anything, including a phoney war. The sad part is that
ploticians like Bush use folks like Joe so easily. If someone is pro-
life, you can sell them on that while sliding a lot of other seemingly
intolerable acts into the mix. Of course anyone with open eyes can see
that Bush is not a conservative and does not contain the fine elements
that comprise a true republican. His party afiliation is one of device
rather than conviction.

RB
35s5
NY

Read up anti-American....
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 5, 7:58 pm, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
What matters is everybody agreed
PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat FROM THEM.

And now that you know there was no threat, that Bin Laden hated
Saddam, that we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted, that Bush used 8
year old intelligence to make his case....and now that so many
Americans and Iraq innocents have been murdered, you still stand
behind Bush and his war?
Dude, just how many bridges have you bought? Do you really think a
true American calls anyone a "terrorist faciliator" simply because
they believe the current government to be evil and corrupt?
9/11 happened on Bush watch. Period. The WMD fiasco happened under his
watch. The useless Iraq war also on his watch. Gas over 3 bucks a
gallon on his watch. And many more issues both scientific, moral and
environmental...all taken back in time under his watch. And when he
got the news that the USA was under attack he simply sat there,
useless as a leader and a man. The guy is as inept as he is evil, as
is any so-called leader who kills because he thinks his god is
superior. Bush himself is a terrorist. And now the majority of the
country, including many republicans, know it.

But in the end "No WMD's" is really all that needs to be said. It's
the absolute pinnicale of Orwellian prophecy made real.

RB
35s5
NY

Dummy..Saddam murdered 100s of thousands of his own people with
chemical weapons. He shot at our planes in the no fly zones. He had
the chance to leave the country. He chopped of arms, hands, ears,
ect..ect..ect.. No to mention his boys evil acts. Only a total
douchbag would turn his back on that...you & Jon come to mind btw.

Saddam was a nut case and since he failed to live up to his surrender
agreement he got what he deserved. I know that saddens you and Jonboy
buts thats the facts.

See UN resolution 1441.

Joe




Buzz of Joe. You think that attacking Saddam, a leader who was contained
and not a threat made *us* safer?? Every study there is suggests just the
opposite.

Every study? Is this similar to "every scientist," when referring to global
warming? Thank God you aren't inclined to hyperbole, Jon. g

I read a piece by a couple of retired military officers last night. Both
had served in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as having been stationed in
Kuwait following Desert Storm. Both felt that had we not taken Saddam out,
his nuclear program would be at least on par with Iran's, and more likely
significantly ahead. Not to mention that Saddam had delivery systems
(SCUDS), while Ahmadinejad, AFAWK, does not.

I'm not pointing this out to support our incursion into Iraq--only to
demonstrate that when you say "every study" you only damage your own
credibility.

Max

Read up anti-American....
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:22:26 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
groups.com...
On Jun 5, 7:58 pm, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
What matters is everybody agreed
PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat FROM THEM.

And now that you know there was no threat, that Bin Laden hated
Saddam, that we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted, that Bush used 8
year old intelligence to make his case....and now that so many
Americans and Iraq innocents have been murdered, you still stand
behind Bush and his war?
Dude, just how many bridges have you bought? Do you really think a
true American calls anyone a "terrorist faciliator" simply because
they believe the current government to be evil and corrupt?
9/11 happened on Bush watch. Period. The WMD fiasco happened under his
watch. The useless Iraq war also on his watch. Gas over 3 bucks a
gallon on his watch. And many more issues both scientific, moral and
environmental...all taken back in time under his watch. And when he
got the news that the USA was under attack he simply sat there,
useless as a leader and a man. The guy is as inept as he is evil, as
is any so-called leader who kills because he thinks his god is
superior. Bush himself is a terrorist. And now the majority of the
country, including many republicans, know it.

But in the end "No WMD's" is really all that needs to be said. It's
the absolute pinnicale of Orwellian prophecy made real.

RB
35s5
NY

Dummy..Saddam murdered 100s of thousands of his own people with
chemical weapons. He shot at our planes in the no fly zones. He had
the chance to leave the country. He chopped of arms, hands, ears,
ect..ect..ect.. No to mention his boys evil acts. Only a total
douchbag would turn his back on that...you & Jon come to mind btw.

Saddam was a nut case and since he failed to live up to his surrender
agreement he got what he deserved. I know that saddens you and Jonboy
buts thats the facts.

See UN resolution 1441.

Joe




Buzz of Joe. You think that attacking Saddam, a leader who was contained
and
not a threat made *us* safer?? Every study there is suggests just the
opposite.

Saddam was actually helping us, by doing his best at supressing Bin Laden,
his
bitter enemy. When we took out Saddam, it was one of the happiest days of
Bin
Laden's life.

Hmmm. Sounds as if you know bin Laden personally. Otherwise how would you
know so much about how he feels? Perhaps the FBI should speak with you.
Might help to solve all our terrorism problems.

Max

Read up anti-American....
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 5, 7:58 pm, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
What matters is everybody agreed
PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat FROM THEM.

And now that you know there was no threat, that Bin Laden hated
Saddam, that we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted, that Bush used 8
year old intelligence to make his case....and now that so many
Americans and Iraq innocents have been murdered, you still stand
behind Bush and his war?
Dude, just how many bridges have you bought? Do you really think a
true American calls anyone a "terrorist faciliator" simply because
they believe the current government to be evil and corrupt?
9/11 happened on Bush watch. Period. The WMD fiasco happened under
his
watch. The useless Iraq war also on his watch. Gas over 3 bucks a
gallon on his watch. And many more issues both scientific, moral and
environmental...all taken back in time under his watch. And when he
got the news that the USA was under attack he simply sat there,
useless as a leader and a man. The guy is as inept as he is evil, as
is any so-called leader who kills because he thinks his god is
superior. Bush himself is a terrorist. And now the majority of the
country, including many republicans, know it.

But in the end "No WMD's" is really all that needs to be said. It's
the absolute pinnicale of Orwellian prophecy made real.

RB
35s5
NY

Dummy..Saddam murdered 100s of thousands of his own people with
chemical weapons. He shot at our planes in the no fly zones. He had
the chance to leave the country. He chopped of arms, hands, ears,
ect..ect..ect.. No to mention his boys evil acts. Only a total
douchbag would turn his back on that...you & Jon come to mind btw.

Saddam was a nut case and since he failed to live up to his surrender
agreement he got what he deserved. I know that saddens you and Jonboy
buts thats the facts.

See UN resolution 1441.

Joe

Let's apply the liberal philosophy to a situation that could happen to
Rob or Oz. Let's say their wives get raped and murdered. Let's say the
perp is caught and DNA evidence says the perp is 99.9999% a DNA match.
Let's say six independent DNA labs confirm the results. Let's say
justice is done and the perp is executed via lethal injection.

Let's say five years later a giant paperwork snafu was uncovered that
showed there was a DNA mix-up and the perp is determined to NOT be the
individual responsible. Using the Bobsprit and Oz logic we would have to
conclude that the labs all "lied." and that there should be no further
attempt to find the real perp.

Liberal logic = no logic at all or selective illogic for political
reasons. We all know that liberals have as their religion furthering
their political aims which is socialism and slavery to big government
that controls every aspect of daily life.

Wilbur Hubbard

Read up anti-American....
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
Saddam was actually helping us, by doing his best at supressing Bin Laden,
his
bitter enemy. When we took out Saddam, it was one of the happiest days of
Bin
Laden's life.

CWM


The worst of it was that Saddam was a junk yard dog we helped create. I'll
never forget the picture of Rumsfeld glad-handing with him.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Read up anti-American....
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:22:26 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
egroups.com...
On Jun 5, 7:58 pm, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
What matters is everybody agreed
PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat FROM THEM.

And now that you know there was no threat, that Bin Laden hated
Saddam, that we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted, that Bush used 8
year old intelligence to make his case....and now that so many
Americans and Iraq innocents have been murdered, you still stand
behind Bush and his war?
Dude, just how many bridges have you bought? Do you really think a
true American calls anyone a "terrorist faciliator" simply because
they believe the current government to be evil and corrupt?
9/11 happened on Bush watch. Period. The WMD fiasco happened under his
watch. The useless Iraq war also on his watch. Gas over 3 bucks a
gallon on his watch. And many more issues both scientific, moral and
environmental...all taken back in time under his watch. And when he
got the news that the USA was under attack he simply sat there,
useless as a leader and a man. The guy is as inept as he is evil, as
is any so-called leader who kills because he thinks his god is
superior. Bush himself is a terrorist. And now the majority of the
country, including many republicans, know it.

But in the end "No WMD's" is really all that needs to be said. It's
the absolute pinnicale of Orwellian prophecy made real.

RB
35s5
NY

Dummy..Saddam murdered 100s of thousands of his own people with
chemical weapons. He shot at our planes in the no fly zones. He had
the chance to leave the country. He chopped of arms, hands, ears,
ect..ect..ect.. No to mention his boys evil acts. Only a total
douchbag would turn his back on that...you & Jon come to mind btw.

Saddam was a nut case and since he failed to live up to his surrender
agreement he got what he deserved. I know that saddens you and Jonboy
buts thats the facts.

See UN resolution 1441.

Joe




Buzz of Joe. You think that attacking Saddam, a leader who was contained
and
not a threat made *us* safer?? Every study there is suggests just the
opposite.

Saddam was actually helping us, by doing his best at supressing Bin
Laden, his
bitter enemy. When we took out Saddam, it was one of the happiest days of
Bin
Laden's life.

Hmmm. Sounds as if you know bin Laden personally. Otherwise how would
you know so much about how he feels? Perhaps the FBI should speak with
you. Might help to solve all our terrorism problems.

Max



That has been a fairly talked about scenario of bin laden. It sure makes
sense. Iraq now has 1000s of jihadists there now... mostly home-grown. I bet
bin laden is quite pleased. He's a strategic thinker.

Do you think his biggest weapons were the planes that hit the towers? Think
again... it's the TV broadcasts that followed and still follow. When the
pictures of prisoners in Abu Graib got published, it confirmed the
falsehoods bin laden has been telling. He's winning (or has already won) the
"story" war.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Read up anti-American....
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 5, 7:58 pm, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
What matters is everybody agreed
PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat FROM THEM.

And now that you know there was no threat, that Bin Laden hated
Saddam, that we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted, that Bush used 8
year old intelligence to make his case....and now that so many
Americans and Iraq innocents have been murdered, you still stand
behind Bush and his war?
Dude, just how many bridges have you bought? Do you really think a
true American calls anyone a "terrorist faciliator" simply because
they believe the current government to be evil and corrupt?
9/11 happened on Bush watch. Period. The WMD fiasco happened under his
watch. The useless Iraq war also on his watch. Gas over 3 bucks a
gallon on his watch. And many more issues both scientific, moral and
environmental...all taken back in time under his watch. And when he
got the news that the USA was under attack he simply sat there,
useless as a leader and a man. The guy is as inept as he is evil, as
is any so-called leader who kills because he thinks his god is
superior. Bush himself is a terrorist. And now the majority of the
country, including many republicans, know it.

But in the end "No WMD's" is really all that needs to be said. It's
the absolute pinnicale of Orwellian prophecy made real.

RB
35s5
NY

Dummy..Saddam murdered 100s of thousands of his own people with
chemical weapons. He shot at our planes in the no fly zones. He had
the chance to leave the country. He chopped of arms, hands, ears,
ect..ect..ect.. No to mention his boys evil acts. Only a total
douchbag would turn his back on that...you & Jon come to mind btw.

Saddam was a nut case and since he failed to live up to his surrender
agreement he got what he deserved. I know that saddens you and Jonboy
buts thats the facts.

See UN resolution 1441.

Joe




Buzz of Joe. You think that attacking Saddam, a leader who was contained
and not a threat made *us* safer?? Every study there is suggests just the
opposite.

Every study? Is this similar to "every scientist," when referring to
global warming? Thank God you aren't inclined to hyperbole, Jon. g

I read a piece by a couple of retired military officers last night. Both
had served in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as having been stationed in
Kuwait following Desert Storm. Both felt that had we not taken Saddam
out, his nuclear program would be at least on par with Iran's, and more
likely significantly ahead. Not to mention that Saddam had delivery
systems (SCUDS), while Ahmadinejad, AFAWK, does not.

I'm not pointing this out to support our incursion into Iraq--only to
demonstrate that when you say "every study" you only damage your own
credibility.


Max, Saddam was a broken leader on the verge of collapse. He was having
trouble controlling his own people, and had no WMDs. His "nuclear" program
consisted of a _desire_ to have one. Give me a break.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Read up anti-American....
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Do you think his biggest weapons were the planes that hit the towers?
Think again... it's the TV broadcasts that followed and still follow.

Indirectly, yes. It's the fear that he created within the western world
that is his biggest weapon. Like B.F. Skinner and his chickens, he only has
to reinforce periodically, but rarely, to keep the fear level high. A bomb
in London, a train wreck somewhere else--that's all it takes to keep
everyone in fear. And with such fear comes the monstrous expense of
attempting to insure public safety. bin Laden will probably win an economic
war, not one of bloodshed.

Max

Read up anti-American....
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 5, 7:58 pm, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
What matters is everybody agreed
PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat FROM THEM.

And now that you know there was no threat, that Bin Laden hated
Saddam, that we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted, that Bush used 8
year old intelligence to make his case....and now that so many
Americans and Iraq innocents have been murdered, you still stand
behind Bush and his war?
Dude, just how many bridges have you bought? Do you really think a
true American calls anyone a "terrorist faciliator" simply because
they believe the current government to be evil and corrupt?
9/11 happened on Bush watch. Period. The WMD fiasco happened under his
watch. The useless Iraq war also on his watch. Gas over 3 bucks a
gallon on his watch. And many more issues both scientific, moral and
environmental...all taken back in time under his watch. And when he
got the news that the USA was under attack he simply sat there,
useless as a leader and a man. The guy is as inept as he is evil, as
is any so-called leader who kills because he thinks his god is
superior. Bush himself is a terrorist. And now the majority of the
country, including many republicans, know it.

But in the end "No WMD's" is really all that needs to be said. It's
the absolute pinnicale of Orwellian prophecy made real.

RB
35s5
NY

Dummy..Saddam murdered 100s of thousands of his own people with
chemical weapons. He shot at our planes in the no fly zones. He had
the chance to leave the country. He chopped of arms, hands, ears,
ect..ect..ect.. No to mention his boys evil acts. Only a total
douchbag would turn his back on that...you & Jon come to mind btw.

Saddam was a nut case and since he failed to live up to his surrender
agreement he got what he deserved. I know that saddens you and Jonboy
buts thats the facts.

See UN resolution 1441.

Joe




Buzz of Joe. You think that attacking Saddam, a leader who was contained
and not a threat made *us* safer?? Every study there is suggests just
the opposite.

Every study? Is this similar to "every scientist," when referring to
global warming? Thank God you aren't inclined to hyperbole, Jon. g

I read a piece by a couple of retired military officers last night. Both
had served in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as having been stationed in
Kuwait following Desert Storm. Both felt that had we not taken Saddam
out, his nuclear program would be at least on par with Iran's, and more
likely significantly ahead. Not to mention that Saddam had delivery
systems (SCUDS), while Ahmadinejad, AFAWK, does not.

I'm not pointing this out to support our incursion into Iraq--only to
demonstrate that when you say "every study" you only damage your own
credibility.


Max, Saddam was a broken leader on the verge of collapse. He was having
trouble controlling his own people, and had no WMDs. His "nuclear" program
consisted of a _desire_ to have one. Give me a break.

I wasn't defending the opinion, Jon--only pointing out that not "every
study" concurs with your opinion. I guess you don't get it.

Max