| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT--Syria, Hizbollah, and Lebanon...no big surprise again
Hizbollah Draws Vast Pro-Syrian Crowds in Beirut 43 minutes ago By Nadim Ladki BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese flooded central Beirut Tuesday for a pro-Syrian rally called by Hizbollah. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big surprise. Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to deal with them is now. |
NOYB wrote:
So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big surprise. Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to deal with them is now. The time to deal with Iran was before we ran up a huge debt and overburdened the Army trying to "deal with" Iraq. And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. Sort of like the way we keep cozying up to Pakistan, which keeps it's own stable of terrorists at the ready. So now you're agreeing that Bush's attempts to fight a "war on terror" has largely been ineffective? DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . NOYB wrote: So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big surprise. Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to deal with them is now. The time to deal with Iran was before we ran up a huge debt and overburdened the Army trying to "deal with" Iraq. We would we have staged from for an attack on Iran? And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. Last week? Horsepoop. You obviously don't read much. Here's a billed introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Boxer (yep...that's the current minority leader) and Congressman Rick Santorum, and passed by Congress on May 1, 2003: http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s982.html Here's an excerpt: " To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes. " Wow! You mean to tell me that all this happened almost two years ago? But I thought you just said that Syria was being friendly and cooperative towards the Bush administration? Then why the need to introduce an "Accountability Bill" in regards to Syria? Don't you feel stupid now, Dougie? Sort of like the way we keep cozying up to Pakistan, which keeps it's own stable of terrorists at the ready. We're cozying up to Pakistan because: a) Musharraf is also at war with the radical fundamentalists in his country, and b) the country has nukes, which could end up in the hands of those fundamentalists. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Hizbollah Draws Vast Pro-Syrian Crowds in Beirut 43 minutes ago By Nadim Ladki BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese flooded central Beirut Tuesday for a pro-Syrian rally called by Hizbollah. Hundreds of thousands? Hehehe. That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:34:11 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
NOYB wrote: Hizbollah Draws Vast Pro-Syrian Crowds in Beirut 43 minutes ago By Nadim Ladki BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese flooded central Beirut Tuesday for a pro-Syrian rally called by Hizbollah. Hundreds of thousands? Hehehe. The Guardian has it as 500,000. Rather impressive considering Lebanon has a population of under 4 million. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...849731,00.html |
NOYB wrote: That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. Boy, that's broad minded........ |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. Boy, that's broad minded........ Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the face of the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists? |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:34:11 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: Hizbollah Draws Vast Pro-Syrian Crowds in Beirut 43 minutes ago By Nadim Ladki BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese flooded central Beirut Tuesday for a pro-Syrian rally called by Hizbollah. Hundreds of thousands? Hehehe. The Guardian has it as 500,000. Rather impressive considering Lebanon has a population of under 4 million. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...849731,00.html The event was organized by Hizbollah. What's really sad is that almost 15% of that country openly supports an organization that uses suicide bombers to target non-Muslims. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:34:11 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: Hizbollah Draws Vast Pro-Syrian Crowds in Beirut 43 minutes ago By Nadim Ladki BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese flooded central Beirut Tuesday for a pro-Syrian rally called by Hizbollah. Hundreds of thousands? Hehehe. The Guardian has it as 500,000. Rather impressive considering Lebanon has a population of under 4 million. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...849731,00.html The event was organized by Hizbollah. What's really sad is that almost 15% of that country openly supports an organization that uses suicide bombers to target non-Muslims. The percentage may be higher than that. There may well be hundreds of thousands or more of Lebanese who simply didn't get to Beirut for the demonstration. There are millions of Iraqis who want us out of their country. If they weren't afraid of being shot by US troops, they'd probably demonstrate, too. Well then I could argue that the same applies to the millions of Lebanese who didn't protest the Syrian military's occupation for fear that they'd be killed. The silent majority. |
And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative
towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. NOYB wrote: Last week? Horsepoop. Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their own purposes. And unfortunately, that's the truth. ... You obviously don't read much. Nope, actually I read a fair amount... of course, I don't put much stock in carefully selected & edited & spun versions of anybody's political tub-thumping, whereas you swallow every bit of that you can. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. NOYB wrote: Last week? Horsepoop. Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their own purposes. So what. Yes, we used them like a cheap whore...because we needed their cooperation in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. And unfortunately, that's the truth. ... You obviously don't read much. Nope, actually I read a fair amount... of course, I don't put much stock in carefully selected & edited & spun versions of anybody's political tub-thumping Hehehe. So my citing the 2003 "Syria Accountability Act" is editing and spinning, eh? You're becoming a lost cause. If you read the bill, it's quite clear that the idea of holding Syria's feet to the fire is nothing new. BTW--Why did you snip the following? " To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes. " This bill was authored in May 2003, and signed by Bush in December of that same year. It's the same type of bill that led us down the path towards war with Iraq. Ironically, both bills (the Iraq and Syrian bills) were co-authored by Republicans *and* Democrats...and the Iraqi accountability bill was signed by a Democratic president. |
Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist
supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their own purposes. NOYB wrote: So what. Yes, we used them like a cheap whore...because we needed their cooperation in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So, we agree that Bush & Cheney are opportunistic and amoral? This bill was authored in May 2003, and signed by Bush in December of that same year. It's the same type of bill that led us down the path towards war with Iraq. Ironically, both bills (the Iraq and Syrian bills) were co-authored by Republicans *and* Democrats...and the Iraqi accountability bill was signed by a Democratic president. And yet, Bush didn't do a darn thing about it for a couple of years... let's see now, Iraq had *nothing* to do with Sept 11th, and *no* connection with Al Queda or anti-American terrorism, and yet with a bill ready & waiting to justify disrupting Syria's ties to those terrorist organizations, Bush & Cheney chose to waste American lives and bazillions of dollars invading Iraq. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their own purposes. NOYB wrote: So what. Yes, we used them like a cheap whore...because we needed their cooperation in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So, we agree that Bush & Cheney are opportunistic Yes. and amoral? No. This bill was authored in May 2003, and signed by Bush in December of that same year. It's the same type of bill that led us down the path towards war with Iraq. Ironically, both bills (the Iraq and Syrian bills) were co-authored by Republicans *and* Democrats...and the Iraqi accountability bill was signed by a Democratic president. You forgot this part again: " To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes. " (Syria Accountability Act, May 2003) |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the face of the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists? Outlaw the Republican Party??? |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the face of the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists? Outlaw the Republican Party??? And to think... I just saw a very nice patient from Canada yesterday, and was beginning to warm up to your country again. Now you've gone and blown it, Don. You're a terrible ambassador. Martin ought to take away your internet rights. |
So, we agree that Bush & Cheney are opportunistic
NOYB wrote: Yes. and amoral? No. What moral code encourages backstabbing & & cheating, not to mention buddying up to people who are trying to kill your fellow citizens? Maybe it's OK as long as you later backstab them? You forgot this part again: " To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes. " (Syria Accountability Act, May 2003) I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has needed attention for such a long time? By your own assertions, you've proved that Bush has not been fighting terror effectively... and that he's buddying up to terrorist sponsoring nations. But hey, if you like socialism as long *you* benefit, & you like big deficits, and you like backstabbing allies, then maybe it makes sense from your point of view. DSK |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... And to think... I just saw a very nice patient from Canada yesterday, and was beginning to warm up to your country again. Now you've gone and blown it, Don. You're a terrible ambassador. Martin ought to take away your internet rights. As I've said before....don't judge all Canadians by me! Martin is so wishy washy now..with his minority gov't, I doubt he'd say **** if his mouth was full. Took him months to tell George W. where he could put his missles. |
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. Boy, that's broad minded........ Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the face of the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists? Where IS binLaden? |
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. Boy, that's broad minded........ Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the face of the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists? Are you saying that every person in the area was a terrorist? How do you know this? |
"DSK" wrote in message ... So, we agree that Bush & Cheney are opportunistic NOYB wrote: Yes. and amoral? No. What moral code encourages backstabbing & & cheating, not to mention buddying up to people who are trying to kill your fellow citizens? Maybe it's OK as long as you later backstab them? The ends *do* justify the means sometimes. You forgot this part again: " To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes. " (Syria Accountability Act, May 2003) I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has needed attention for such a long time? I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same thing about Iran: we needed a staging area. By your own assertions, you've proved that Bush has not been fighting terror effectively... and that he's buddying up to terrorist sponsoring nations. He's not "buddying up". He's using them for whatever little help we can get from them until the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on terror. It's no different from what any other president has ever done (ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results from the concessions. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. Boy, that's broad minded........ Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the face of the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists? Where IS binLaden? Dead. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. Boy, that's broad minded........ Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the face of the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists? Are you saying that every person in the area was a terrorist? How do you know this? Just the ones shouting "Death to America". |
" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes. " (Syria Accountability Act, May 2003) I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has needed attention for such a long time? NOYB wrote: I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same thing about Iran: we needed a staging area. For what? Why didn't we need a "staging area" to invade Iraq? Why didn't President Bush go to Congress and say, "Listen, we all know that Saddam reeks and we got this UN resolution against him, plus we need a staging area for further military adventures in the area." Is that what he said? In other words, your answer is 1- untrue 2- illogical 3- contrary to what the Bush Administration has stated. I guess you must really hate those rotten lying incompetent *******s! By your own assertions, you've proved that Bush has not been fighting terror effectively... and that he's buddying up to terrorist sponsoring nations. He's not "buddying up". Oh really? Not with Pakistan & Saudi Arabia? ... He's using them for whatever little help we can get from them until the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on terror. Which will be when? They discover oil in Pakistan? ... It's no different from what any other president has ever done (ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results from the concessions. You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's watch. So his policy by definition was effective. Meanwhile how many billions has Bush spent on ineffective policy? DSK |
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. Boy, that's broad minded........ Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the face of the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists? Are you saying that every person in the area was a terrorist? How do you know this? Just the ones shouting "Death to America". Ah, so you are now saying that only part of them were terrorists? And the only terrorists there were shouting "death to America"? And further, are you stating that every single person who shouts "death to America, is, indeed a terrorist? How so? Please explain how you've come to the conclusion that a terrorist must be anti-American, and that every person anti-American must be a terrorist. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. Boy, that's broad minded........ Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the face of the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists? Are you saying that every person in the area was a terrorist? How do you know this? Just the ones shouting "Death to America". Ah, so you are now saying that only part of them were terrorists? And the only terrorists there were shouting "death to America"? And further, are you stating that every single person who shouts "death to America, is, indeed a terrorist? How so? Please explain how you've come to the conclusion that a terrorist must be anti-American, and that every person anti-American must be a terrorist. We can sort that out when sifting through the rubble. |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . " To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes. " (Syria Accountability Act, May 2003) I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has needed attention for such a long time? NOYB wrote: I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same thing about Iran: we needed a staging area. For what? Why didn't we need a "staging area" to invade Iraq? We already had *TWO*: Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, we were supposed to have Turkey also...but they backed out at the last minute...which cost us the ability to cut off the Baghdad to Syria escape route used by fleeing Baath officials (and Russian Spetsnatz hauling WMD). Why didn't President Bush go to Congress and say, "Listen, we all know that Saddam reeks and we got this UN resolution against him, plus we need a staging area for further military adventures in the area." Is that what he said? You never play poker, do you? He's not "buddying up". Oh really? Not with Pakistan & Saudi Arabia? No. We've made pretty strong demands on the Saudis and Pakistanis. We on cordial terms with the rulers of both of those countries because we share a common enemy: Islamic extremists. ... He's using them for whatever little help we can get from them until the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on terror. Which will be when? They discover oil in Pakistan? ... It's no different from what any other president has ever done (ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results from the concessions. You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's watch. Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton gave them. They didn't develop them overnight. So his policy by definition was effective. Why was it effective? Because he paid them off to keep them from announcing their nuke program until he left office? Yeah...sure...that's effective policy. |
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. Boy, that's broad minded........ Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the face of the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists? Are you saying that every person in the area was a terrorist? How do you know this? Just the ones shouting "Death to America". Ah, so you are now saying that only part of them were terrorists? And the only terrorists there were shouting "death to America"? And further, are you stating that every single person who shouts "death to America, is, indeed a terrorist? How so? Please explain how you've come to the conclusion that a terrorist must be anti-American, and that every person anti-American must be a terrorist. We can sort that out when sifting through the rubble. Yeah, great. You've certainly shown your intelligence. It sounds as if you want to blow everyone up that isn't white, or American, or Republican, or does not live in Naples, FL. Sounds like you need one of those pickup trucks with a rebel flag in the rear window and a gun rack. |
wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. Boy, that's broad minded........ Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the face of the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists? Are you saying that every person in the area was a terrorist? How do you know this? Just the ones shouting "Death to America". Ah, so you are now saying that only part of them were terrorists? And the only terrorists there were shouting "death to America"? And further, are you stating that every single person who shouts "death to America, is, indeed a terrorist? How so? Please explain how you've come to the conclusion that a terrorist must be anti-American, and that every person anti-American must be a terrorist. We can sort that out when sifting through the rubble. Yeah, great. You've certainly shown your intelligence. It sounds as if you want to blow everyone up that isn't white, or American, or Republican, or does not live in Naples, FL. Sounds like you need one of those pickup trucks with a rebel flag in the rear window and a gun rack. Maybe I already have one. |
You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce
it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's watch. NOYB wrote: Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton gave them. They didn't develop them overnight. Not according to the inspectors. Actually, there were some indications of duplicity by the North Koreans during the '90s, but it was partially over missiles and partially over material which the IAEA removed. If North Korea developed nukes before, it was probably on Bush Sr's watch. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp So his policy by definition was effective. Why was it effective? Because he paid them off to keep them from announcing their nuke program until he left office? Yeah...sure...that's effective policy. ??? Do you really believe this? DSK |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:31:25 -0500, DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote: So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big surprise. Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to deal with them is now. The time to deal with Iran was before we ran up a huge debt and overburdened the Army trying to "deal with" Iraq. And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. Sort of like the way we keep cozying up to Pakistan, which keeps it's own stable of terrorists at the ready. So now you're agreeing that Bush's attempts to fight a "war on terror" has largely been ineffective? DSK Again, Doug, it ain't over 'til it's over. You are correct in your statement that we should have dealt with Iraq many years ago. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
Again, Doug, it ain't over 'til it's over. Unless somebody blows up the whole world, it ain't over even then. You are correct in your statement that we should have dealt with Iraq many years ago. Bush Sr *did* but he didn't finish the job. IMHO he was hoping to do more business with Saddam. DSK |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:56:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Hizbollah Draws Vast Pro-Syrian Crowds in Beirut 43 minutes ago By Nadim Ladki BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese flooded central Beirut Tuesday for a pro-Syrian rally called by Hizbollah. Hundreds of thousands? Hehehe. That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. ABC, on the radio, said, "Tens of thousands..." Pretty soon they'll be using scientific notation to describe the number. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
|
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:27:21 -0500, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:34:11 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: Hizbollah Draws Vast Pro-Syrian Crowds in Beirut 43 minutes ago By Nadim Ladki BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese flooded central Beirut Tuesday for a pro-Syrian rally called by Hizbollah. Hundreds of thousands? Hehehe. The Guardian has it as 500,000. Rather impressive considering Lebanon has a population of under 4 million. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...849731,00.html Soon it'll be, "Five times ten to the thirty-second power." John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:50:04 -0500, DSK wrote:
And up until last week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush Administration and vice-versa. NOYB wrote: Last week? Horsepoop. Nope, that's the truth. Bush & Cheney can be very cozy with terrorist supporting states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, when it suits their own purposes. And unfortunately, that's the truth. ... You obviously don't read much. Nope, actually I read a fair amount... of course, I don't put much stock in carefully selected & edited & spun versions of anybody's political tub-thumping, whereas you swallow every bit of that you can. DSK In other words, Doug, you really think Rather ought to keep his job, correct? John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:50:17 -0500, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: Again, Doug, it ain't over 'til it's over. Unless somebody blows up the whole world, it ain't over even then. You are correct in your statement that we should have dealt with Iraq many years ago. Bush Sr *did* but he didn't finish the job. IMHO he was hoping to do more business with Saddam. DSK Humble opinions are something we all have. John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's watch. NOYB wrote: Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton gave them. They didn't develop them overnight. Not according to the inspectors. Actually, there were some indications of duplicity by the North Koreans during the '90s, but it was partially over missiles and partially over material which the IAEA removed. If North Korea developed nukes before, it was probably on Bush Sr's watch. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp So Clinton gave them the funding that they needed to further a nuke program that was started years earlier? |
|
"DSK" wrote in message .. . You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's watch. NOYB wrote: Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton gave them. They didn't develop them overnight. Not according to the inspectors. Actually, there were some indications of duplicity by the North Koreans during the '90s, but it was partially over missiles and partially over material which the IAEA removed. If North Korea developed nukes before, it was probably on Bush Sr's watch. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp So his policy by definition was effective. Why was it effective? Because he paid them off to keep them from announcing their nuke program until he left office? Yeah...sure...that's effective policy. ??? Do you really believe this? I don't believe in paying incentives to countries to keep them from pursuing WMD. You obviously see nothing wrong with it...and neither do most members of Congress. From the Syria Accountability Act: (c) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO SYRIA AND LEBANON- The President is authorized to provide assistance to Syria and Lebanon under chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) (relating to development assistance), if the President-- (1) makes the certification described in subsection (d); (2) determines that substantial progress has been made in negotiations aimed at achieving-- (A) a peace agreement between Israel and Syria; and (B) a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon; and (3) determines that the Government of Syria is strictly respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese army throughout Lebanon, as required under paragraph (4) of United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 (1982). (d) CERTIFICATION- The President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a certification of any determination made by the President that-- (1) the Government of Syria does not-- (A) provide support for international terrorist groups; and (B) allow terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hizballah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine--General Command to maintain facilities in Syria; (2) the Government of Syria has withdrawn all Syrian military, intelligence, and other security personnel from Lebanon; (3) the Government of Syria has ceased the development and deployment of ballistic missiles and has ceased the development and production of biological and chemical weapons; and (4) the Government of Syria is no longer in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 or a subsequent relevant United Nations resolution. (This method of diplomacy *DOES NOT WORK*.) |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 8 Mar 2005 09:27:51 -0800, wrote: NOYB wrote: That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once again, ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road. Boy, that's broad minded........ Are you, like Chirac, rooting for Hezbolah also? Actually Chirac is on our side with the Lebanon/Syria issue. I just can't figure out why yet. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:03 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com