Peace Themed Jerseys?

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

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:14:32 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

Dumbass -

When a government's existence is in question is when they will use WMD.

That's when ours would use them right?

So when Saddam's government was being vaporized, over a period of weeks (plenty
of time to give the order), why didn't he use them?

Answer: he didn't have them.

Felching Moron,

Like I said before, you must not be able to think very clearly to only
understand or believe one scenario.

And you have the nerve to use the term 'Dumbass' on others? Not only
has it become one of the lamest things ever seen on usenet, but it
seems to describe you every time you use it.

Laughable.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:57:25 -0600, Kevan Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:35:11 -0500, Lindsay from
wrote:

Rump ranger, I haven't made my mind up one way or the other. You on
the other hand can only envision one scenario. There is far too much
evidence, noise and rhetoric floating around for anyone to make any
definitive statements one way or the other and be taken seriously.

No, there is solid evidence that Iraq was disarmed, and then there are flaky
weaselings by the Bush cabal that he hadn't.

You can say that over and over, but yet you can not provide one shred
of credible evidence to back up your claim. Just like Saddam.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:59:50 GMT, Howard Kveck
wrote:


While I don't agree with the thought that there was any real 'support'
from France or Russia, what you say is essentially correct. However that
would only matter in the scenario that Saddam comes through the war alive
and in control of Iraq. I cannot imagine he ever thought the latter was
even remotely possible.

I still disagree with you on this. According to some of Saddam's
cronies's they believed that France would be able to stop the US from
going in. They even believed that if we went into Iraq we would never
make it all the way to Baghdad. Why would they believe that? We
didn't go that far last time.

You are also assuming that Saddam thinks like a rational human being.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:40:15 GMT, "G.T."
wrote:

Pete wrote:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
-- John F. Kerry, Oct 9, 2002


Yes, and who bullied the CIA into providing such BS reports that pulled the
wool over our Senators' and Representatives' eyes? Kerry's decision of
support could only be as bad as the intelligence provided to him.

So the CIA was bullied for over 10 years to continually provide the BS
reports you dream about?

"Lindsay" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:14:32 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

Dumbass -

When a government's existence is in question is when they will use WMD.

That's when ours would use them right?

So when Saddam's government was being vaporized, over a period of weeks
(plenty
of time to give the order), why didn't he use them?

Answer: he didn't have them.

Felching Moron,

Like I said before, you must not be able to think very clearly to only
understand or believe one scenario.

And you have the nerve to use the term 'Dumbass' on others? Not only
has it become one of the lamest things ever seen on usenet, but it
seems to describe you every time you use it.

Laughable.



Dumbass -

That scenario is the one pointed to by nearly all the evidence, whether they
be testimony from scientists in his regime, his lack of use of the phantom
WMD, the lack of WMD found, the testimony of higher ups in the regime or
simple logic.


Other scenarios: JFK was killed by aliens from outer space. It's possible
isn't it?

OJ Simpson was framed by Mark Fuhrman. Possible.

Do you believe that OJ is guilty? or does your incredibly expansive mind
embrace all scenarios?

"Lindsay" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:57:25 -0600, Kevan Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:35:11 -0500, Lindsay
from
wrote:

Rump ranger, I haven't made my mind up one way or the other. You on
the other hand can only envision one scenario. There is far too much
evidence, noise and rhetoric floating around for anyone to make any
definitive statements one way or the other and be taken seriously.

No, there is solid evidence that Iraq was disarmed, and then there are
flaky
weaselings by the Bush cabal that he hadn't.

You can say that over and over, but yet you can not provide one shred
of credible evidence to back up your claim. Just like Saddam.



Dumbass -

A negative cannot be proven.

You warmongers are such pussies. Saddam Hussein a threat to the United
States. haha.