In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Nuremberg also taught us that "just following orders" is not an excuse
for what the winning side declares to be war crimes. So while the
Germans couldn't get off the hook, neither can the Iraqis, who have been
told from the beginning of the invasion that if they DID follow their
leaders' orders, they would be tried for war crimes. And yet, the
sensitive American soldier who is told to drop bombs on undefended Iraqi
villages -- well, he must do what he is told to do and there's no wiggle
room. He is ruled by people with divine rights; the power that comes
from holding one hand on a bible and keeping the other outstretched to
the oil oligarchy.

What is the wing opening in the sky? What is darkening the clouds? When
does it descend in all its ominous power?
"The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate
intensity." (Yeats)

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:26:51 -0500, Jim wrote:

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Nuremberg also taught us that "just following orders" is not an excuse
for what the winning side declares to be war crimes. So while the
Germans couldn't get off the hook, neither can the Iraqis, who have been
told from the beginning of the invasion that if they DID follow their
leaders' orders, they would be tried for war crimes. And yet, the
sensitive American soldier who is told to drop bombs on undefended Iraqi
villages -- well, he must do what he is told to do and there's no wiggle
room. He is ruled by people with divine rights; the power that comes
from holding one hand on a bible and keeping the other outstretched to
the oil oligarchy.

What is the wing opening in the sky? What is darkening the clouds? When
does it descend in all its ominous power?
"The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate
intensity." (Yeats)

Can you provide an instance where an American soldier was told that he
was to drop bombs on an undefended village and then proceeded to do
so?

I thought not. Now, what is the rest of your post worth?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:26:51 -0500, Jim wrote:

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Nuremberg also taught us that "just following orders" is not an excuse
for what the winning side declares to be war crimes. So while the
Germans couldn't get off the hook, neither can the Iraqis, who have been
told from the beginning of the invasion that if they DID follow their
leaders' orders, they would be tried for war crimes. And yet, the
sensitive American soldier who is told to drop bombs on undefended Iraqi
villages -- well, he must do what he is told to do and there's no wiggle
room. He is ruled by people with divine rights; the power that comes
from holding one hand on a bible and keeping the other outstretched to
the oil oligarchy.

What is the wing opening in the sky? What is darkening the clouds? When
does it descend in all its ominous power?
"The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate
intensity." (Yeats)

Can you provide an instance where an American soldier was told that he
was to drop bombs on an undefended village and then proceeded to do
so?

I thought not. Now, what is the rest of your post worth?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


We've dropped plenty of bombs on plenty of villages in Iraq, and, by the
standards of modern warfare, these villages were either undefended
entirely, or were "defended" by a small rabble of irregulars whose
actions were small-scale and had nothing to do with the village, but,
rather, with saving their own skins. There are counts kept of the
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we have killed. The numbers are in the
thousands.

You think playing your "literalist" games gives you an argument? It only
makes you the bigger fool.

Is this what they taught you in the military? Amorality?

Harry, do you know how many thousands of lives have been saved? Would you
rather have allowed Saddam to continue his killing? Come on there Harry, you
enjoy freedom of speech here in the west,,,, yes?? I mean your always
barking at the government for what you think is not efficient or not right.
Do you know what would happen to you in Iraq? Well, first, they would rape
your daughters and rape your wife right in front of you, all this would
happen right before they killed you in a most efficient method.
Besides there scarry harry, they are not targeting civilians, these babies
and innocent who are being killed are mostly a result of the suicide bombers
who do not care about collateral damage. The U.S. does every thing possible
to limit or eliminate collateral damage.
So why are you so against saving the lives of so many more humans? Do you
realize that the majority if Iraqi people are appreciative of the U.S.'s
presence there? Are you aware that over 75% of recent polled Iraqi people
now see a better future, better schools, better hospitals, and the medicine
that was once supplied to the Iraqi people by the U.S. is now going to those
who need it and not Saddam's black market. The schools are modernized and
even the women are allowed to go to school.
So scarry harry, what was your point again? It seems selfishly aimed towards
your own personal interests, your not Iraqi and you do not live there, but
you disagree with what is happening. LOL,,, once again there Harry, you are
the limit,,,speed limit..
It is humanitarian efforts, and your right, the U.S. shouldn't have to do
this alone, the coalition forces need to have more membership and the U.S.
taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for this, there is no excuse why more nations
are not financially involved.






"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:26:51 -0500, Jim wrote:

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Nuremberg also taught us that "just following orders" is not an excuse
for what the winning side declares to be war crimes. So while the
Germans couldn't get off the hook, neither can the Iraqis, who have been
told from the beginning of the invasion that if they DID follow their
leaders' orders, they would be tried for war crimes. And yet, the
sensitive American soldier who is told to drop bombs on undefended Iraqi
villages -- well, he must do what he is told to do and there's no wiggle
room. He is ruled by people with divine rights; the power that comes
from holding one hand on a bible and keeping the other outstretched to
the oil oligarchy.

What is the wing opening in the sky? What is darkening the clouds? When
does it descend in all its ominous power?
"The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate
intensity." (Yeats)

Can you provide an instance where an American soldier was told that he
was to drop bombs on an undefended village and then proceeded to do
so?

I thought not. Now, what is the rest of your post worth?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


We've dropped plenty of bombs on plenty of villages in Iraq, and, by the
standards of modern warfare, these villages were either undefended
entirely, or were "defended" by a small rabble of irregulars whose
actions were small-scale and had nothing to do with the village, but,
rather, with saving their own skins. There are counts kept of the
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we have killed. The numbers are in the
thousands.

You think playing your "literalist" games gives you an argument? It only
makes you the bigger fool.

Is this what they taught you in the military? Amorality?

Tuuk wrote:
Harry, do you know how many thousands of lives have been saved? Would you
rather have allowed Saddam to continue his killing?

You mean, as opposed to us doing our killing, or the insurgents in Iraq
now doing their killing. Funny thing about killing...if you're the
victim, you're just as dead, no matter who does it.

No harry, you missed the point.
It must have gone right over your head.

Because of the U.S. and the coalition forces, lives have been saved. The
objective and long term outcome of this campaign is that lives will be saved
and the quality of life will be much greater.

So there harry, don't make a stupid statement like the U.S. is intentionally
targeting civilians or innocent lives, that is what the suicide bombers are
doing. The U.S. is putting a stop to this terrorism. Saddam would reward the
suicide bombers with money for their lives and so these brainwashed
simpletons just walk into a disco like Bali, or motels or airports or
embassies or Red Cross stations or simply crowded markets. Crowded with as
many people as possible. These people's objective is to kill as many
Americans or Christians as possible. Now, Harry, your government is trying
to put a stop to this and what was your objection to that?
This is war there Harry, in war there are deaths, but the longer term
objective there Harry is lives saved. Do you get that point? The U.S. isn't
targeting innocent, or civilians there Harry, where did you even get that
idea? Why would you even suggest such a thing. Sorry harry but you asked for
this one,,,,,,,,
Ya gotta give the head a shake for this one.......






"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Tuuk wrote:
Harry, do you know how many thousands of lives have been saved? Would
you
rather have allowed Saddam to continue his killing?

You mean, as opposed to us doing our killing, or the insurgents in Iraq
now doing their killing. Funny thing about killing...if you're the
victim, you're just as dead, no matter who does it.

"Are you aware that over 75% of recent polled Iraqi people"

What would you expect them to say to a bunch of "survey takers" carrying
rifles? I'm surprised 25% had the courage to say no.

Tuuk wrote:
Harry, do you know how many thousands of lives have been saved? Would you
rather have allowed Saddam to continue his killing? Come on there Harry, you
enjoy freedom of speech here in the west,,,, yes?? I mean your always
barking at the government for what you think is not efficient or not right.
Do you know what would happen to you in Iraq? Well, first, they would rape
your daughters and rape your wife right in front of you, all this would
happen right before they killed you in a most efficient method.
Besides there scarry harry, they are not targeting civilians, these babies
and innocent who are being killed are mostly a result of the suicide bombers
who do not care about collateral damage. The U.S. does every thing possible
to limit or eliminate collateral damage.
So why are you so against saving the lives of so many more humans? Do you
realize that the majority if Iraqi people are appreciative of the U.S.'s
presence there? Are you aware that over 75% of recent polled Iraqi people
now see a better future, better schools, better hospitals, and the medicine
that was once supplied to the Iraqi people by the U.S. is now going to those
who need it and not Saddam's black market. The schools are modernized and
even the women are allowed to go to school.
So scarry harry, what was your point again? It seems selfishly aimed towards
your own personal interests, your not Iraqi and you do not live there, but
you disagree with what is happening. LOL,,, once again there Harry, you are
the limit,,,speed limit..
It is humanitarian efforts, and your right, the U.S. shouldn't have to do
this alone, the coalition forces need to have more membership and the U.S.
taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for this, there is no excuse why more nations
are not financially involved.






"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John H wrote:


On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:26:51 -0500, Jim wrote:


In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Nuremberg also taught us that "just following orders" is not an excuse
for what the winning side declares to be war crimes. So while the
Germans couldn't get off the hook, neither can the Iraqis, who have been
told from the beginning of the invasion that if they DID follow their
leaders' orders, they would be tried for war crimes. And yet, the
sensitive American soldier who is told to drop bombs on undefended Iraqi
villages -- well, he must do what he is told to do and there's no wiggle
room. He is ruled by people with divine rights; the power that comes

from holding one hand on a bible and keeping the other outstretched to

the oil oligarchy.

What is the wing opening in the sky? What is darkening the clouds? When
does it descend in all its ominous power?
"The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate
intensity." (Yeats)

Can you provide an instance where an American soldier was told that he
was to drop bombs on an undefended village and then proceeded to do
so?

I thought not. Now, what is the rest of your post worth?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


We've dropped plenty of bombs on plenty of villages in Iraq, and, by the
standards of modern warfare, these villages were either undefended
entirely, or were "defended" by a small rabble of irregulars whose
actions were small-scale and had nothing to do with the village, but,
rather, with saving their own skins. There are counts kept of the
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we have killed. The numbers are in the
thousands.

You think playing your "literalist" games gives you an argument? It only
makes you the bigger fool.

Is this what they taught you in the military? Amorality?

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:21:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:26:51 -0500, Jim wrote:

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Nuremberg also taught us that "just following orders" is not an excuse
for what the winning side declares to be war crimes. So while the
Germans couldn't get off the hook, neither can the Iraqis, who have been
told from the beginning of the invasion that if they DID follow their
leaders' orders, they would be tried for war crimes. And yet, the
sensitive American soldier who is told to drop bombs on undefended Iraqi
villages -- well, he must do what he is told to do and there's no wiggle
room. He is ruled by people with divine rights; the power that comes
from holding one hand on a bible and keeping the other outstretched to
the oil oligarchy.

What is the wing opening in the sky? What is darkening the clouds? When
does it descend in all its ominous power?
"The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate
intensity." (Yeats)

Can you provide an instance where an American soldier was told that he
was to drop bombs on an undefended village and then proceeded to do
so?

I thought not. Now, what is the rest of your post worth?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


We've dropped plenty of bombs on plenty of villages in Iraq, and, by the
standards of modern warfare, these villages were either undefended
entirely, or were "defended" by a small rabble of irregulars whose
actions were small-scale and had nothing to do with the village, but,
rather, with saving their own skins. There are counts kept of the
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we have killed. The numbers are in the
thousands.

You think playing your "literalist" games gives you an argument? It only
makes you the bigger fool.

Is this what they taught you in the military? Amorality?

Read the question, Harry. "Can you provide an instance where an
American soldier was told that he was to drop bombs on an undefended
village and then proceeded to do so?"

If you can't answer the question, go play mosquito somewhere else.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

The pilots orders are in the form of coordinates. Fortunately for him
(her?) he has no idea what he is bombing. I suspect that most of the
decisions aren't even made on the battlefield. Targets most likely come
from the Pentagon.

HOWEVER

Can you cite any attempt to shield civilians from attack? i.e., DO NOT
bomb here -- it's a hospital, or such.

John H wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:21:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


John H wrote:


On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:26:51 -0500, Jim wrote:


In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Nuremberg also taught us that "just following orders" is not an excuse
for what the winning side declares to be war crimes. So while the
Germans couldn't get off the hook, neither can the Iraqis, who have been
told from the beginning of the invasion that if they DID follow their
leaders' orders, they would be tried for war crimes. And yet, the
sensitive American soldier who is told to drop bombs on undefended Iraqi
villages -- well, he must do what he is told to do and there's no wiggle
room. He is ruled by people with divine rights; the power that comes

from holding one hand on a bible and keeping the other outstretched to

the oil oligarchy.

What is the wing opening in the sky? What is darkening the clouds? When
does it descend in all its ominous power?
"The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate
intensity." (Yeats)

Can you provide an instance where an American soldier was told that he
was to drop bombs on an undefended village and then proceeded to do
so?

I thought not. Now, what is the rest of your post worth?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


We've dropped plenty of bombs on plenty of villages in Iraq, and, by the
standards of modern warfare, these villages were either undefended
entirely, or were "defended" by a small rabble of irregulars whose
actions were small-scale and had nothing to do with the village, but,
rather, with saving their own skins. There are counts kept of the
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we have killed. The numbers are in the
thousands.

You think playing your "literalist" games gives you an argument? It only
makes you the bigger fool.

Is this what they taught you in the military? Amorality?


Read the question, Harry. "Can you provide an instance where an
American soldier was told that he was to drop bombs on an undefended
village and then proceeded to do so?"

If you can't answer the question, go play mosquito somewhere else.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

" Tuuk" wrote in message ...
Harry, do you know how many thousands of lives have been saved?

Harry could care less, he is just here to deflect Jim from having to
answer Johns question which was, something like "could he note one
time when pilots were told to go and bomb innocent folks". Of course
he could not and that is what is problematic of the Democratic party
in general, they will run with any lie if they think it will help them
fool the uninformed...