OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"DSK" wrote
.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....


John Gaquin wrote:
WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

Yep.

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

DSK

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

DSK wrote:
"DSK" wrote
.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....


John Gaquin wrote:
WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

Yep.

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

DSK



Why, the Democrat, of course. Killing people is perfectly okay if you
are a Republican conservative.


--
Email sent to is never read.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:27:55 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

Good point. Perhaps Saddam was responsible for 9/11...and just used al
Qaeda mercernaries for cover.



And perhaps he was not. The previous deadly terrorist attack in the USA
was perpetrated by U.S. citizens. You do remember Oklahoma City, right?

Islamic terrorist groups seem quick to "take responsibility" for various
actions, and sometimes more than one group chimes in. The various
branches of the IRA used to do the same.

At some point we're going to need perpetrators and evidence that
satisfies civilian courts. "Military court" justice is an oxymoron.
Of course, the Bush-shippers just want to pretend they've caught the
real perps. That's one of the reasons we invaded Iraq in the absence of
real evidence.
What the hell do you know about military courts? Ever participated in a court
martial? Ever administered an Article 15? Ever conducted an Article 32
investigation? I didn't think so.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Am I supposed to assume "military justice" is any less an oxymoron than
"military intelligence?"



--
Email sent to is never read.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:50:47 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:45:08 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:28:17 +1100, K Smith
wrote:


So far it's an unconfirm "Iranian" report,
but...................keeping our fingers crossed!!

Take care & well done.

One of the advantages of living in an earlier time zone I guess.:)

But yes, it's confirmed and of course in all the early Sunday news
reports here.

This is such a yawner. It took all of Bush's horses and all of Bush's

Apparently the rest of the world doesn't agree with your assesment that
"This is such a yawner." You must be working for Dean/Gore now, since
he's the one that's most hurt by this news so downplaying it is in his
best interest. Lieberman seemed pretty excited this morning.

Saddam has been out of power for seven months. It's nice that he's been
captured. But...now what, Steve? After his capture was announced, a car
bomb in Iraq took out 17 people.

The violence will probably go up for a while. But the capture of Saddam
is a requirement for an "out with the old and in with the new" attitude
that the average Iraqi needs to be able to express without fear. Now
they can, and can move on with forming a new government. We'll see what
happens in the next 7 months.

Steve

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"DSK" wrote in message

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

Why, Person 2, of course. No contest.

Person 1, I presume by your reference, is Bill Clinton. You forgot to
mention that he then lied directly and deliberately about the events no less
than seventeen times, at least twice under oath.

Person 2 would be Saddam Hussein. I think 5,000 is a serious
underestimation, although everyone will agree he's a world-class slug.

Now, does this quiz have a point?

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
"DSK" wrote
.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....


John Gaquin wrote:
WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

Yep.

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

DSK



Why, the Democrat, of course. Killing people is perfectly okay if you
are a Republican conservative.


--
Email sent to is never read.

Or if you are a Democrat trying to cover up lies in a legal case. Perjury.
Kill a few in Bosnia, blow up an aspirin plant. That kind of killing is OK
in the Spinmeisters view.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Am I supposed to assume "military justice" is any less an oxymoron than
"military intelligence?"

You take great pleasure and self-satisfaction in denigrating and insulting
both the military and its dedicated members. The very self-same people who
protect and guarantee your right to be the obstreperous, petty little person
that you are. A sad case....

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

Yuh think? I'm thinking he'll be tried by Iraqis in Iraq. The Governing
Council is already calling for the trial. Justice may be quicker if left
to the Iraqis.

That would be an encouraging development. Let's wait and see.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:50:47 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:45:08 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:28:17 +1100, K Smith
wrote:


So far it's an unconfirm "Iranian" report,
but...................keeping our fingers crossed!!

Take care & well done.

One of the advantages of living in an earlier time zone I guess.:)

But yes, it's confirmed and of course in all the early Sunday news
reports here.

This is such a yawner. It took all of Bush's horses and all of Bush's

Apparently the rest of the world doesn't agree with your assesment that
"This is such a yawner." You must be working for Dean/Gore now, since
he's the one that's most hurt by this news so downplaying it is in his
best interest. Lieberman seemed pretty excited this morning.

Saddam has been out of power for seven months. It's nice that he's been
captured. But...now what, Steve? After his capture was announced, a car
bomb in Iraq took out 17 people.

The violence will probably go up for a while. But the capture of Saddam
is a requirement for an "out with the old and in with the new" attitude
that the average Iraqi needs to be able to express without fear. Now
they can, and can move on with forming a new government. We'll see what
happens in the next 7 months.

Steve

I think it will be even better because he was found in a little hole, and
gave up without a fight. After telling his troops and followers to fight to
the death. Shows him as a coward, and lost all face to the Iraq people.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Am I supposed to assume "military justice" is any less an oxymoron than
"military intelligence?"

You take great pleasure and self-satisfaction in denigrating and insulting
both the military and its dedicated members. The very self-same people who
protect and guarantee your right to be the obstreperous, petty little person
that you are. A sad case....


It's important to exercise what remaining Constitutional rights there
are before they are taken away by the Bush Administration, eh? And make
no mistake about it, they *are* being taken away by the Bush
Administration. Thanks to Bush and his pack of neoCons, we are being
becoming the kind of society we *used* to try to change, and devolving
into a police state.

It has *never* been my purpose or goal to change any of the mindless,
self-centered, selfish, lockstepped, right-wing opinion that sloshes
around this newsgroup.

Welcome to Amerika.



--
Email sent to is never read.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:28:17 +1100, K Smith wrote:


So far it's an unconfirm "Iranian" report,
but...................keeping our fingers crossed!!

Take care & well done.


K

Thanks, K!

Now I'm waiting to see how many congratulatory messages are posted by Harry,
jps, basskisser, et al. Should be interesting reading.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Yeah, blah, blah, blah, the same conservative rhetoric, either you are
for us, or against us, if you don't bow to BushCo, you are a traitor,
if you think there are things in this country that need fixing, you
are a communist, right Rush, I mean, John?

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:52:10 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:06:08 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:28:17 +1100, K Smith wrote:


So far it's an unconfirm "Iranian" report,
but...................keeping our fingers crossed!!

Take care & well done.


K

Thanks, K!

Now I'm waiting to see how many congratulatory messages are posted by Harry,
jps, basskisser, et al. Should be interesting reading.

They are so immersed in hatred for everything Bush and anything
patriotic, there will be no positive comments.

Dean in '04 LOL


There is no connection whatsoever between true patriotism and the Bush
Adminstration. Bush and his crew are nothing but right-wing whores.

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is responsible.
Yippee. Can't wait to hear Dean. Gotta be fun to watch.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Huh, the way I understand it, it was the 4th infantry, and that was
with information supplied by Iraqis.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Yuh think? I'm thinking he'll be tried by Iraqis in Iraq. The Governing
Council is already calling for the trial. Justice may be quicker if left
to the Iraqis.

That would be an encouraging development. Let's wait and see.

Today's news says our gov't isn't sure the Iraqis are properly equipped to
handle a trial. Hopefully, this decision isn't in Bush's hands.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian
population.

Which weapons are you referring to???

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...


The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian
population.

Which weapons are you referring to???

French-made Roland surface-to-air missiles, bombs and grenades hidden in
mosques and under Iraqi homes, etc.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01122107.htm
"According to the Times account, Saeed said that Iraq had begun using rooms
in or under villas in residential areas and in commercial areas during the
Persian Gulf War to protect weapons sites from American bombing, but that
they had now become a permanent feature of Iraq's weapons programs."

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...


The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian
population.

Which weapons are you referring to???

French-made Roland surface-to-air missiles, bombs and grenades hidden in
mosques and under Iraqi homes, etc.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01122107.htm
"According to the Times account, Saeed said that Iraq had begun using
rooms
in or under villas in residential areas and in commercial areas during the
Persian Gulf War to protect weapons sites from American bombing, but that
they had now become a permanent feature of Iraq's weapons programs."

Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ" spray
painted on all four sides?

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

Today's news says our gov't isn't sure the Iraqis are properly equipped to
handle a trial.

Duh. Why not? I mean, with no organized government and all........

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...


The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian
population.

Which weapons are you referring to???

French-made Roland surface-to-air missiles, bombs and grenades hidden in
mosques and under Iraqi homes, etc.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01122107.htm
"According to the Times account, Saeed said that Iraq had begun using
rooms
in or under villas in residential areas and in commercial areas during
the
Persian Gulf War to protect weapons sites from American bombing, but
that
they had now become a permanent feature of Iraq's weapons programs."

Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ" spray
painted on all four sides?

I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to hide them in civilian
buildings.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
"DSK" wrote
.... Clinton actually had the moral integrity ....


John Gaquin wrote:
WHOA!! Now there's an irony for the ages!

Yep.

Answer this question.

Person 1 has illicit sex. Person 2 kills over 5,000 innocent people
who were in his way. Which one is more immoral?

DSK



Why, the Democrat, of course. Killing people is perfectly okay if you
are a Republican conservative.

Hey Harry, is it OK to kill babies just because you don't want them?

Bob

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Today's news says our gov't isn't sure the Iraqis are properly equipped
to
handle a trial.

Duh. Why not? I mean, with no organized government and all........


So? Based on my admittedly strict definition, neither do we! My definition
includes having a lucid leader of some sort.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ" spray
painted on all four sides?

I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to hide them in civilian
buildings.



So, in the scenario I described, you'd do what? Hide them in the nearest
armory and hope the invading army didn't think to look there? :-)

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ" spray
painted on all four sides?

I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to hide them in civilian
buildings.



So, in the scenario I described, you'd do what?

I'd surrender.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU
hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ"
spray
painted on all four sides?

I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to hide them in civilian
buildings.



So, in the scenario I described, you'd do what?

I'd surrender.

I guess even a POW camp needs dentists.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU
hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ"
spray
painted on all four sides?

I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to hide them in
civilian
buildings.



So, in the scenario I described, you'd do what?

I'd surrender.

I guess even a POW camp needs dentists.

I'd probably get special privileges.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU
hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ"
spray
painted on all four sides?

I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to hide them in
civilian
buildings.



So, in the scenario I described, you'd do what?

I'd surrender.

I guess even a POW camp needs dentists.

I'd probably get special privileges.



On kneepads.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:12:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:25:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:56:24 -0500, JohnH wrote:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.

Are they? I thought he was captured by the 4th Infantry Division.

Who ordered them to Iraq...or did they go on their own?



Oh...so, then, George W. Bush is personally responsible for the 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we killed recently?

No. I put the blame for their deaths on the guy that used them as human
shields.



I'd say you were rationalizing, but, then, you're a conservative and
such deaths do not concern you.

The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian population.
There was a recent report from an independent group that concluded that
"several hundred" (*not* thousands) Iraqi civilian deaths could have been
prevented by avoiding the use of certain types of munitions. However, they
also concluded the US went to great measures to avoid civilian casualties.



There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

As far as Saddam hiding himself among civilians, you've obviously not
been to Washington, D.C., where the federal government is mixed in with
hundreds of thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with the
federal government. Yeah, I know...Saddam and other dictators
deliberately build themselves bunkers next to apartment houses. But,
then, there are federal buildings - possible targets - adjacent to
apartment buildings, townhouses, subway stations, et cetera.

The fact remains that Bush invaded Iraq for strictly personal political
reasons. If he hadn't been tanking in the polls, and desperate to draw
attention away from his adminstration's failure to capture the perps of
9-11, we never would have invaded.

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

We aren't about to invade Saudia Arabia.

Where, Harry? Where are these reports of 10,000 non-combatant deaths you are
attributing to the US? Such bull**** coming from a Bay fisherman!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Seek and ye shall find, but not on any of your right-wing "news" sources.

Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It is
not becoming.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

On 15 Dec 2003 04:14:51 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:52:10 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:06:08 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:28:17 +1100, K Smith wrote:


So far it's an unconfirm "Iranian" report,
but...................keeping our fingers crossed!!

Take care & well done.


K

Thanks, K!

Now I'm waiting to see how many congratulatory messages are posted by Harry,
jps, basskisser, et al. Should be interesting reading.

They are so immersed in hatred for everything Bush and anything
patriotic, there will be no positive comments.

Dean in '04 LOL


There is no connection whatsoever between true patriotism and the Bush
Adminstration. Bush and his crew are nothing but right-wing whores.

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is responsible.
Yippee. Can't wait to hear Dean. Gotta be fun to watch.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Huh, the way I understand it, it was the 4th infantry, and that was
with information supplied by Iraqis.

Wait a minute. When some soldier threatened to discipline another soldier who
failed to return to duty because of her kids, you folks blamed Bush. Now, when
something good happens, Bush had nothing to do with it. Huh?

Whether Bush does or does not deserve the credit is beside the point. The total
lack of logic in your arguments is the point.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:18:30 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It
is not becoming.

Medact estimates between 7,757 and 9,965 civilian deaths between March and
October.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...329608373.html

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:22:53 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:18:30 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It
is not becoming.

Medact estimates between 7,757 and 9,965 civilian deaths between March and
October.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...329608373.html

You should go read your sources.

Harry stated, "There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of
10,000 non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

I accused him of telling a lie.

You made your statement above.

Reading the source of the data shows this for the city of Baghdad during the
period from April 14 to August 31:

"The morgue is said to record some 90% of "violent, suspicious" deaths in the
city. Currently about 60% and above of these deaths are the result of gunshot
wounds; this compares to approximately 10% pre-war. People killed by coalition
forces amount to an estimated 15-20% of gunshot victims brought to the morgue
according to a Newsweek report, but most of the violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi."

Note that the great majority of deaths were "Iraqi-on-Iraqi" with only 15-20%
killed by coalition forces. Note also that these are not categorized as
"innocent woman and children."

These comments by Harry, supported by you, are intended to reflect badly on the
military and the administration, and are bull****.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:12:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:25:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:56:24 -0500, JohnH wrote:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.

Are they? I thought he was captured by the 4th Infantry Division.

Who ordered them to Iraq...or did they go on their own?



Oh...so, then, George W. Bush is personally responsible for the 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we killed recently?

No. I put the blame for their deaths on the guy that used them as human
shields.



I'd say you were rationalizing, but, then, you're a conservative and
such deaths do not concern you.

The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian population.
There was a recent report from an independent group that concluded that
"several hundred" (*not* thousands) Iraqi civilian deaths could have been
prevented by avoiding the use of certain types of munitions. However, they
also concluded the US went to great measures to avoid civilian casualties.



There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

As far as Saddam hiding himself among civilians, you've obviously not
been to Washington, D.C., where the federal government is mixed in with
hundreds of thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with the
federal government. Yeah, I know...Saddam and other dictators
deliberately build themselves bunkers next to apartment houses. But,
then, there are federal buildings - possible targets - adjacent to
apartment buildings, townhouses, subway stations, et cetera.

The fact remains that Bush invaded Iraq for strictly personal political
reasons. If he hadn't been tanking in the polls, and desperate to draw
attention away from his adminstration's failure to capture the perps of
9-11, we never would have invaded.

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

We aren't about to invade Saudia Arabia.

Where, Harry? Where are these reports of 10,000 non-combatant deaths you are
attributing to the US? Such bull**** coming from a Bay fisherman!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Seek and ye shall find, but not on any of your right-wing "news" sources.

Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It is
not becoming.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Your search skills are lacking.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:22:53 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:18:30 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It
is not becoming.

Medact estimates between 7,757 and 9,965 civilian deaths between March and
October.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...329608373.html

You should go read your sources.

Harry stated, "There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of
10,000 non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

I accused him of telling a lie.

You made your statement above.

Reading the source of the data shows this for the city of Baghdad during the
period from April 14 to August 31:

"The morgue is said to record some 90% of "violent, suspicious" deaths in the
city. Currently about 60% and above of these deaths are the result of gunshot
wounds; this compares to approximately 10% pre-war. People killed by coalition
forces amount to an estimated 15-20% of gunshot victims brought to the morgue
according to a Newsweek report, but most of the violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi."

Note that the great majority of deaths were "Iraqi-on-Iraqi" with only 15-20%
killed by coalition forces. Note also that these are not categorized as
"innocent woman and children."

These comments by Harry, supported by you, are intended to reflect badly on the
military and the administration, and are bull****.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

I see. The death count includes only those bodies brought to the morgue
in Baghdad.



--
Email sent to is never read.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

WaIIy wrote:


The sick part about their line of reasoning is they know it's a lie
before they hit the "send" button.

They don't care about integrity, honesty or sense of values.


Hmmm. Sounds like you are describing George W. Bush and his criminal
cadre...



--
Email sent to is never read.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:59:16 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:22:53 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:18:30 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It
is not becoming.

Medact estimates between 7,757 and 9,965 civilian deaths between March and
October.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...329608373.html

You should go read your sources.

Harry stated, "There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of
10,000 non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

I accused him of telling a lie.

You made your statement above.

Reading the source of the data shows this for the city of Baghdad during the
period from April 14 to August 31:

"The morgue is said to record some 90% of "violent, suspicious" deaths in the
city. Currently about 60% and above of these deaths are the result of gunshot
wounds; this compares to approximately 10% pre-war. People killed by coalition
forces amount to an estimated 15-20% of gunshot victims brought to the morgue
according to a Newsweek report, but most of the violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi."

Note that the great majority of deaths were "Iraqi-on-Iraqi" with only 15-20%
killed by coalition forces. Note also that these are not categorized as
"innocent woman and children."

These comments by Harry, supported by you, are intended to reflect badly on the
military and the administration, and are bull****.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

I see. The death count includes only those bodies brought to the morgue
in Baghdad.

Go read the sources.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:23:41 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

WaIIy wrote:


The sick part about their line of reasoning is they know it's a lie
before they hit the "send" button.

They don't care about integrity, honesty or sense of values.


Hmmm. Sounds like you are describing George W. Bush and his criminal
cadre...

No, he's talking about you, et al.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:38:36 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:12:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:25:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:56:24 -0500, JohnH wrote:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.

Are they? I thought he was captured by the 4th Infantry Division.

Who ordered them to Iraq...or did they go on their own?



Oh...so, then, George W. Bush is personally responsible for the 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we killed recently?

No. I put the blame for their deaths on the guy that used them as human
shields.



I'd say you were rationalizing, but, then, you're a conservative and
such deaths do not concern you.

The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian population.
There was a recent report from an independent group that concluded that
"several hundred" (*not* thousands) Iraqi civilian deaths could have been
prevented by avoiding the use of certain types of munitions. However, they
also concluded the US went to great measures to avoid civilian casualties.



There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

As far as Saddam hiding himself among civilians, you've obviously not
been to Washington, D.C., where the federal government is mixed in with
hundreds of thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with the
federal government. Yeah, I know...Saddam and other dictators
deliberately build themselves bunkers next to apartment houses. But,
then, there are federal buildings - possible targets - adjacent to
apartment buildings, townhouses, subway stations, et cetera.

The fact remains that Bush invaded Iraq for strictly personal political
reasons. If he hadn't been tanking in the polls, and desperate to draw
attention away from his adminstration's failure to capture the perps of
9-11, we never would have invaded.

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

We aren't about to invade Saudia Arabia.

Where, Harry? Where are these reports of 10,000 non-combatant deaths you are
attributing to the US? Such bull**** coming from a Bay fisherman!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Seek and ye shall find, but not on any of your right-wing "news" sources.

Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It is
not becoming.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Your search skills are lacking.

You have shown yourself to be devoid of credibility and integrity, Harry.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:38:36 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:12:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:25:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:56:24 -0500, JohnH wrote:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.

Are they? I thought he was captured by the 4th Infantry Division.

Who ordered them to Iraq...or did they go on their own?



Oh...so, then, George W. Bush is personally responsible for the 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we killed recently?

No. I put the blame for their deaths on the guy that used them as human
shields.



I'd say you were rationalizing, but, then, you're a conservative and
such deaths do not concern you.

The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian population.
There was a recent report from an independent group that concluded that
"several hundred" (*not* thousands) Iraqi civilian deaths could have been
prevented by avoiding the use of certain types of munitions. However, they
also concluded the US went to great measures to avoid civilian casualties.



There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

As far as Saddam hiding himself among civilians, you've obviously not
been to Washington, D.C., where the federal government is mixed in with
hundreds of thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with the
federal government. Yeah, I know...Saddam and other dictators
deliberately build themselves bunkers next to apartment houses. But,
then, there are federal buildings - possible targets - adjacent to
apartment buildings, townhouses, subway stations, et cetera.

The fact remains that Bush invaded Iraq for strictly personal political
reasons. If he hadn't been tanking in the polls, and desperate to draw
attention away from his adminstration's failure to capture the perps of
9-11, we never would have invaded.

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

We aren't about to invade Saudia Arabia.

Where, Harry? Where are these reports of 10,000 non-combatant deaths you are
attributing to the US? Such bull**** coming from a Bay fisherman!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Seek and ye shall find, but not on any of your right-wing "news" sources.

Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It is
not becoming.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Your search skills are lacking.

You have shown yourself to be devoid of credibility and integrity, Harry.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Because you found a site that shows deaths in Baghdad? What a giggle.
Keep looking, John.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

Harry Krause wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

The sick part about their line of reasoning is they know it's a lie
before they hit the "send" button.

They don't care about integrity, honesty or sense of values.

Hmmm. Sounds like you are describing George W. Bush and his criminal
cadre...


Perhaps, but it also describes you perfectly.

We're supposed to believe in either case that adding your lies to
anything solves things?

Yea right.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
JohnH wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:52:10 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:06:08 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:28:17 +1100, K Smith
wrote:


So far it's an unconfirm "Iranian" report,
but...................keeping our fingers crossed!!

Take care & well done.


K

Thanks, K!

Now I'm waiting to see how many congratulatory messages are posted by
Harry,
jps, basskisser, et al. Should be interesting reading.

They are so immersed in hatred for everything Bush and anything
patriotic, there will be no positive comments.

Dean in '04 LOL


There is no connection whatsoever between true patriotism and the Bush
Adminstration. Bush and his crew are nothing but right-wing whores.

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.
Yippee. Can't wait to hear Dean. Gotta be fun to watch.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Huh, the way I understand it, it was the 4th infantry, and that was
with information supplied by Iraqis.

I understand the maon info was not supplied knowingly. The cell phones were
monitored and the info was developed that way. Final location by
interrogation of a captive.

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:18:38 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:


You have shown yourself to be devoid of credibility and integrity, Harry.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Because you found a site that shows deaths in Baghdad? What a giggle.
Keep looking, John.

What I found shows your statement to have been a lie.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

No quibbling, no nothing, just a lie. As I said, you have shown yourself to be
devoid of integrity.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT If True & confirmed about saddam, congrats to you all
 

JohnH wrote:

What I found shows your statement to have been a lie.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

No quibbling, no nothing, just a lie. As I said, you have shown yourself to be
devoid of integrity.


Krause has *never* *ever* been about telling the truth. He's a
pathological liar.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---