Peace Themed Jerseys?

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:16:03 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

The Far Right has no monopoly on slander. The Far Left engages in the same.
The one thing Ideologues have in common, left, right, or center, is they mold
reality to fit their ideology.

This is absolutely true. The crucial fact in context is that much of
the opposition to war comes from moderates. I am unable to understand
why ACLB followed GWB, other than the possibility of some lucrative
contracts.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:32:06 -0600, "di" wrote:


I resolved yesterday not to visit the US of my own free will until its
Government ceases the intention to fingerprint and photograph me on
arrival and permits me to visit the toilet at any time on an
international flight.


Great, stay home, you are not wanted in the first place.


Like anyone would want to fly to the US! The airports are so insecure
that a bunch of domestic flights were hijacked a couple of years back
and flown into buildings by terrorists.

There have been no shortage of European aircraft hijacked and destroyed
by terrorists.

If you don't want to come to the US, fine. I won't be crying over your
fear.

At least the existence of terrorists like the US-funded IRA has meant
that European airports have tolerable security.

Cut the crap!

England and English policies built the IRA!


SMH

Staphen Harding typed:

At least the existence of terrorists like the US-funded IRA has meant
that European airports have tolerable security.

Cut the crap!

England and English policies built the IRA!



No crap, sunshine! England and English policies may have "built" the IRA, but
America and the American-Irish funded it for the most part.

Steve

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:40:06 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Like anyone would want to fly to the US! The airports are so insecure
that a bunch of domestic flights were hijacked a couple of years back
and flown into buildings by terrorists.

There have been no shortage of European aircraft hijacked and destroyed
by terrorists.

Check the .sig.

If you don't want to come to the US, fine. I won't be crying over your
fear.

Fear? No fear involved, I just have no reason to go there.

England and English policies built the IRA!

And American money kept them in arms. But that's different: they are
"freedom fighters" not "terrorists". The difference is well known.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

In article , Kevan@mouse-
potato.com says...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:39:59 -0500, David Kerber from
Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com wrote:

Nobody said they were. But they pretty much all agreed that Saddam had
WMD. The disagreement was what to do about it and when to do it.


Did you fall into some cult of personality? Did politicians telling you
something dissuade you from findong out the truth on your own? Why were you
willing to trust a politician in a matter of life and death anyway?

The *only* way I'm going to find out anything about WMD's in Saddam's
control is from somebody else. I can't go over there and check the
documents and dig for them myself.


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

In article , Kevan@mouse-
potato.com says...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:59:50 GMT, Howard Kveck from
Aardvark Engineering wrote:

In article ,
David Kerber wrote:

In article ,
says...

Lindsay, I don't think Saddam ever thought he'd make it through and
still be in charge for the simple reason that Bush always showed by his
actions that the invasion was inevitable. It seemed obvious to many that
the Bush admin. was hunting for justification for something they had known
was going to happen for some time.
Here's a couple of scenarios: If Saddam gave up any weapons he may have
had, then Bush would have found another pretext to invade. Without weapons,
he could do nothing to the invading US force. However, if he had weapons
and told the world he'd destroyed them, he may have had a chance when the
inevitable invasion occurred to take as many US soldiers as he could and
cause some huge political damage to Bush at home. In both scenarios, Saddam
knows his goose is deep-fried.
The fact that they -never- used any kind of non-conventional weapons
against the US forces says a lot to me. You can't really deny that the

I seriously disagree with this reasoning. If he uses the weapons, he
does NOT do any damage to Bush politically.

My thought, David, is that a bunch of dead or maimed US soldiers would
be political damage to Bush in the US. Based on the way it appeared the US
was going to go in (fast), they could have set things up in a way to catch
the US military off-guard and done some severe damage to the troops. Sort
of like they are doing now with conventional-style roadside bombs, booby
traps, etc.


There were no WMD to use. It was all lies.

B.S. Do you *really* believe he destroyed all those weapons he had left
after he used them on the Kurds and the Iranians?


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Kyle Legate wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Like anyone would want to fly to the US! The airports are so
insecure that a bunch of domestic flights were hijacked a couple of
years back and flown into buildings by terrorists.

After flying Munich-Toronto a number of times through Philedelphia I
finally got fed up with the bull**** of flying through the states and
made my Xmas visit home connecting through Milan. Not only was there
far less hassle at the connecting airport but I made the fortunate
discovery that Alitalia is a much better carrier than US Airways.
They resort to bribery to shut the children up (US Air lets them wail
the whole flight long), the meals are much more imaginative and
alcohol is free on transcontinental flights. The layover in Milan was
shorter than it would have been in Philly and the airport coffee
cannot even be compared.

Jeez, no wonder our economy is strapped. Big spenders like you ain't comin'
here.

Bill "how to carry on" S.

"David Kerber" wrote in message
...

There were no WMD to use. It was all lies.

B.S. Do you *really* believe he destroyed all those weapons he had left
after he used them on the Kurds and the Iranians?





Dumbass -


Ya, he used them on the Kurds and Iranians, therefore, being the bad guy that
he is, he would have used them on us when his regime was being eviscerated.


Unless, of course, he did actually comply with the UN resolutions in an
attempt to get economic sanctions lifted and his $$$ supply restored.

"David Kerber" wrote in message
...
In article , Kevan@mouse-
potato.com says...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:39:59 -0500, David Kerber
from
Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com wrote:

Nobody said they were. But they pretty much all agreed that Saddam had
WMD. The disagreement was what to do about it and when to do it.


Did you fall into some cult of personality? Did politicians telling you
something dissuade you from findong out the truth on your own? Why were
you
willing to trust a politician in a matter of life and death anyway?

The *only* way I'm going to find out anything about WMD's in Saddam's
control is from somebody else. I can't go over there and check the
documents and dig for them myself.



Dumbass -


He doesn't have them.


They actually complied with the UN resolutions. The problem is that their
record keeping was so shoddy, they couldn't make a convincing case that the
weapons were 100% destroyed.


BTW, WMD is not an apt moniker for mustard gas. It's technology from World
War One.

"Matt O'Toole" wrote in message
...
Danny Callen wrote:

I wish the Dems could come up with someone at least interesting.

You think Bush is interesting?

Matt O.



Based upon the extreme hatred that most Dems have of the man, Bush must be
doing something right - I mean interesting. And here I thought all
libs/dems were supposed to be so 'tolerant' - can't we all just get along?
Jeff