Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
 

Sounds like you have already made up your mind what the truth is, and don't
want anything to change your mind.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I
suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you
say
"WMD's"? ;-)


After enough interrogation, Saddam Hussein will eventually be brought
around to
say anything and everything the administration hopes to hear.

We'll all switch from a position that the lying ******* couldn't tell the
truth
if his life depended on it to believing every syllable he utters that
exonerates our motives for invading Iraq.

They say truth is the first casualty of war.
First causualty of politics too, unfortunately.

Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
 

In article ,
says...

Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I
suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you say
"WMD's"? ;-)

I don't think you should ask me to "say WMD" since that's the role of
our Commander in Chimp.

Lip service. No proof. Even the head of weapons inspections says
Saddam likely destroyed them as he has said.

Perhaps this is why Saddam has chosen to stay alive. His testimony may
be the last laugh in his feud with the Bush clan.

jps

Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
 

In article , gould0738
@aol.com says...
Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I
suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you say
"WMD's"? ;-)


After enough interrogation, Saddam Hussein will eventually be brought around to
say anything and everything the administration hopes to hear.

We'll all switch from a position that the lying ******* couldn't tell the truth
if his life depended on it to believing every syllable he utters that
exonerates our motives for invading Iraq.

They say truth is the first casualty of war.
First causualty of politics too, unfortunately.

Don't agree Chuck. I think he's decided it's better to stick around and
vindicate himself (at least as far as WMDs are concerned).

He may prove to be Bush's unwinding if he's free to speak.

Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
 

If the *best* the Democrats have to attack Bush with is the WMD issue, then
the election is already over.

Remeber 1/3 of America was never so sure about the WMD, but bought in to
"get Saddam". Not to mention that there is no proof one way OR the other.
The cup is 1/2 ___________ .

I'm more intersted in how much *money* Saddam pumped into France, Germany,
and Russia to buy their votes.

And iF there are WMD's - I wanna know where they went. Remember Saddam was
sure ACTING guilty of something, the way he treated the UN inspectors.

-W

"jps" wrote in message
...


Don't agree Chuck. I think he's decided it's better to stick around and
vindicate himself (at least as far as WMDs are concerned).

He may prove to be Bush's unwinding if he's free to speak.

Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I
suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you
say
"WMD's"? ;-)

I don't think you should ask me to "say WMD" since that's the role of
our Commander in Chimp.

Lip service. No proof. Even the head of weapons inspections says
Saddam likely destroyed them as he has said.

Who? Blix? Puh-leeeze. David Kay says otherwise...and he's the current
"head of weapons inspections".


Perhaps this is why Saddam has chosen to stay alive. His testimony may
be the last laugh in his feud with the Bush clan.

Or perhaps he's a pussy and has decided to save his own life in exchange for
info about al Qaeda and the weapons.

Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
 

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:leLDb.130513$_M.671166@attbi_s54...
If the *best* the Democrats have to attack Bush with is the WMD issue,
then
the election is already over.

Remeber 1/3 of America was never so sure about the WMD, but bought in to
"get Saddam". Not to mention that there is no proof one way OR the
other.
The cup is 1/2 ___________ .

I'm more intersted in how much *money* Saddam pumped into France, Germany,
and Russia to buy their votes.

And iF there are WMD's - I wanna know where they went.

Dayr Az-Zawr in Syria's Al Jazirah province...but that only narrows it down
to 600 square miles...and we don't have troops in Syria to look for 'em...at
least not yet.

Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
 

NOYB wrote:

Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces, or
coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation
forces".

As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi...
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who
keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of those
"accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em.



The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are.
Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II
the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying
Forces." There even were medals issued to individual soldiers to mark
such service.




--
Email sent to is never read.

Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:12:51 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces, or
coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation
forces".

As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi...
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who
keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of those
"accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em.



The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are.
Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II
the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying
Forces." There even were medals issued to individual soldiers to mark
such service.

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

Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
 

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

Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces,
or
coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation
forces".

As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi...
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who
keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of
those
"accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em.



The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are.
Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II
the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying
Forces."

Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially
become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off
too early in declaring the end to major operations?

Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing
support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow.

Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
 

NOYB wrote:

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

Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces,
or
coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation
forces".

As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi...
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who
keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of
those
"accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em.



The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are.
Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II
the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying
Forces."

Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially
become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off
too early in declaring the end to major operations?

Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing
support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow.

War? What war?

There's no war between the United States and Iraq. There's just Bush's
war on Iraq. The uniformed Iraqi armed forces surrendered months ago.
There's been no head of state in Iraq for what, seven or eight months?

We're occupying Iraq. Occupation is the action of taking possession of a
place or of land; seizure, as by military conquest.

You should have taken some history classes.










--
Email sent to is never read.