Deeply Filled Mortician

Make credence recognised that on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:48:23 -0700,
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> has scripted:

>
>
>Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
>>
>> Make credence recognised that on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:53:34 -0700,
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> has scripted:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Make credence recognised that on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:04:35 -0700,
>> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> has scripted:
>> >>
>> >> >Iraq was and is a failed state. It was failed with a leader in Saddam
>> >> >who was holding the situation in abeyance, perhaps even a permanent
>> >> >state of not moving forward. The invasion has knocked it out of
>> >> >equilibrium and it is currently seeking its solace elsewhere.
>> >> >
>> >> >Is everyone happy? No. Are some people wishing for the stability of
>> >> >Saddam again? Yes. Is that the majority view? No. In fact, it's surely a
>> >> >minority view of a minority group, especially if they really thought
>> >> >about it. People can react with anger at what they rightly see is the
>> >> >responsible force for providing security even though that force is doing
>> >> >all it can. Outside the emotionalism of the conflict, we can discuss the
>> >> >ultimate outcomes and what policies are calculable to effect things for
>> >> >the greatest benefit of the United States, Iraqis and the world.
>> >>
>> >> Iraq is much worse off now. That is why people are leaving in the same
>> >> proportions as they are dying.
>> >>
>> >The security situation in Iraq, especially Baghdad is worse than under
>> >late era Saddam.
>>
>> Politicians are given 4 year terms to demonstrate success. If it can't
>> show signs of progress in that time, it's failure on their part.
>>
>So Truman failed because the Cold War wasn't won before he left office?
>
>
>> The Republicans have shamed America, and the only thing holding them
>> together is the collective pride that it was "the right thing", and
>> even most Americans doubt that about now.
>>
>So helping people in Iraq isn't the right thing? What is so evil about
>helping Iraqis get free from Saddam?

Oops, I didn't realise I was talking to a complete ****wit.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Bill Bonde

John Rennie wrote:
>
> "John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] ...
> >
> > "Crusader Rabbit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected] d.net...
> >> In article <[email protected]>
> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>> > > Al Qaeda was always in the Middle East, that's where it came from.
> >>> > > Iraq
> >>> > > is about engaging that threat.
> >>
> >> Somehow, whenever you (or the Shrub) are askes about WHY the Shrub
> >> invaded Iraq at the cost of a half million Iraqi lives, 25,000 US
> >> casualties, and 4 million refugees in the region, 9/11 and al Qaeda are
> >> invariably mentioned in the reply.
> >>
> >> Not Osama bin Laden.
> >>
> >> He's never mentioned.
> >>
> >> Not Weapons of Mass Destruction.
> >>
> >> The USA has them. Saddam Hussein did not.
> >>
> >> Even the Shrub has given up flogging that dead horse.
> >>
> >> So the invasion of Iraq was based on lies.
> >>
> >> And America's punishment is to LOSE that war.
> >>
> >>> > Why? Al Qaeda were not in Iraq, as I keep on telling you. Are you
> >>> > entirely stupid, Bill?
> >>
> >>> I think you are of limited capability because you can't address what I'm
> >>> actually saying.
> >>
> >> Yes, he's entirely stupid.
> >> He's simply here to provide amusement for his betters.
> >> Kicking the retarded when they're down is a bit childish, but it's SO
> >> satisfying!
> >>
> >>> Is it your contention that the US should've invaded
> >>> Saudi Arabia?
> >>
> >> My position is that the USA should not have invaded Iraq, because there
> >> was no justification for doing so and because doing so made the situation
> >> in the Middle East far worse than it was before.
> >>
> >> It didn't accomplish anything (other than to make George 'WMD' Bush the
> >> most hated man on earth).
> >> It destroyed America's influence in the world.
> >> It cost a lot more lives, both Iraqi and American, than Osama bin Laden
> >> could ever have dreamed of.
> >> It destroyed the balanced budget Bill Clinton left to the shrub.
> >> It has substantially eroded American freedoms.
> >>
> >> And it has destroyed the Republican Party.
> >>
> >
> >
> > And now we all await with a certain amount of eagerness a repeat of Bill's
> > 2003 post wherein he lists the 12 reasons for invading Iraq.
> >
>
> Calling Bill. We are still waiting.
>
You have google, don't you? OK, fine, from 2003:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...97f569c?hl=en&
#begin quote
A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam

1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
resources in the
region since 1990.

2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
harping on point of bin Laden's.

3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.

4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
the Arab Street is possible.

5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
talking paper tiger.

6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
something to aspire to.

7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
go after all those who support international terrorism.

8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
international terrorism.

9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
to this limited window of opportunity.

10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
international supporters of terrorism.

11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
starved to the tune of several millions.

12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
#end quote



--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"

Bill Bonde

Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
>
> Make credence recognised that on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:48:23 -0700,
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> has scripted:
>
> >
> >
> >Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
> >>
> >> Make credence recognised that on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:53:34 -0700,
> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> has scripted:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Make credence recognised that on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:04:35 -0700,
> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> has scripted:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Iraq was and is a failed state. It was failed with a leader in Saddam
> >> >> >who was holding the situation in abeyance, perhaps even a permanent
> >> >> >state of not moving forward. The invasion has knocked it out of
> >> >> >equilibrium and it is currently seeking its solace elsewhere.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Is everyone happy? No. Are some people wishing for the stability of
> >> >> >Saddam again? Yes. Is that the majority view? No. In fact, it's surely a
> >> >> >minority view of a minority group, especially if they really thought
> >> >> >about it. People can react with anger at what they rightly see is the
> >> >> >responsible force for providing security even though that force is doing
> >> >> >all it can. Outside the emotionalism of the conflict, we can discuss the
> >> >> >ultimate outcomes and what policies are calculable to effect things for
> >> >> >the greatest benefit of the United States, Iraqis and the world.
> >> >>
> >> >> Iraq is much worse off now. That is why people are leaving in the same
> >> >> proportions as they are dying.
> >> >>
> >> >The security situation in Iraq, especially Baghdad is worse than under
> >> >late era Saddam.
> >>
> >> Politicians are given 4 year terms to demonstrate success. If it can't
> >> show signs of progress in that time, it's failure on their part.
> >>
> >So Truman failed because the Cold War wasn't won before he left office?
> >
> >
> >> The Republicans have shamed America, and the only thing holding them
> >> together is the collective pride that it was "the right thing", and
> >> even most Americans doubt that about now.
> >>
> >So helping people in Iraq isn't the right thing? What is so evil about
> >helping Iraqis get free from Saddam?
>
> Oops, I didn't realise I was talking to a complete ****wit.
>
How about answering the question?

Fred Bloggs

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
>
> Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Get this into your head, Bill - the "good guys" don't necessarily get on
> > > > with other "good guys" and the "bad guys" don't necessarily get along
> > > > with other "bad guys". The world is a wee bit more complicated than
> > > > that.
> > > >
> > > Could you address what I actually said?
> > >
> > What you said doesn't make sense.
> >
> You just cut what I said.

Makes more sense that way.

>
>
>
>

Fred Bloggs

In article <[email protected] t>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > Is it your contention that the US should've invaded
> > Saudi Arabia?
>
> My position is that the USA should not have invaded Iraq, because there was no justification for doing so and because doing so made the situation in the Middle East far worse than it was before.
>
> It didn't accomplish anything (other than to make George 'WMD' Bush the most hated man on earth).
> It destroyed America's influence in the world.
> It cost a lot more lives, both Iraqi and American, than Osama bin Laden could ever have dreamed of.
> It destroyed the balanced budget Bill Clinton left to the shrub.
> It has substantially eroded American freedoms.
>
> And it has destroyed the Republican Party.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/t...e#contentSwap1

Bush's secret war on America

Evan Whitton
June 23, 2007

Florian von Donnersmarck's haunting film The Lives of Others is a
warning to us all. It shows how the East German secret police, the
Stasi, went about their deadly work of spying on 17 million citizens.

It is a stretch, but not impossible, to see the US President, George
Bush, as the new Erich Honecker, the dictator of East Germany from 1971
until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.

Apart from lying, politicians tend to be overly fond of running other
people's lives. There is a wickedly hilarious scene in Keating: The
Musical in which the opposition leader, John Howard, clumps up and down
the catwalk rasping: "I want powerrr!"

The events of September 11, 2001, gave Bush the excuse to procure absurd
legal advice that, as commander-in-chief in a war on a high-order
abstraction, terrorism, he has the power to do what he liked with the
lives of millions at home and abroad.

He soon signed a secret executive order instructing the National
Security Agency's 30,000 operatives to spy without a warrant on US
citizens. Whatever certain lawyers or judges might say, this was plainly
unlawful under the Fourth Amendment (1791) to the US constitution. It
states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not
be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause
supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The unlawful violations of people's security remained hidden for more
than four years until The New York Times revealed them in December 2005.

Bush periodically renewed the order and the former attorney-general John
Ashcroft had to certify it was legal, but James Comey supervised a re-
evaluation soon after he became deputy attorney-general in December
2003.

A week before the next renewal, due on March 11, 2004, Comey, Ashcroft
and the FBI director, Robert Mueller, agreed that the spying was
illegal, but Ashcroft was shortly in intensive care with gall-bladder
pancreatitis. His wife, Janet, banned all visitors and telephone calls.

Comey, now the acting attorney-general, told the White House on March 9
that he would not certify that the spying was legal.

The reaction of Bush and his people, as revealed by Comey's jaw-dropping
evidence to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 15 this year, put
commentators in mind of the scene in The Godfather in which Al Pacino
saves the hospitalised Marlon Brando from being whacked by his enemies.

Not long before 8pm on March 10, 2004, Bush telephoned Janet Ashcroft at
the hospital to say his legal adviser, Alberto ("Seedy") Gonzales, and
Bush's chief-of-staff, Andrew Card, were on their way to see Ashcroft.

Janet Ashcroft got a warning to Comey, who was being driven home by his
FBI security detail. He understood that Bush was making "an end run"
round him to get Ashcroft to sign. Speeding to the hospital with the
siren on and the lights flashing, Comey told two of his lawyers to go
there. Mueller said he would join the resistance.

At the hospital, the towering two-metre tall Comey "literally ran up the
stairs". Ashcroft's room was dark; Comey tried to see if he "could focus
on what was happening and it wasn't clear to me that he could. He seemed
pretty bad off."

Contacted by Comey, Mueller "instructed the FBI agents present not to
allow me to be removed from the room under any circumstances".

Comey sat in an armchair to the left of Ashcroft's bed. His officers,
Jack Goldsmith and Patrick Philbin, stood behind him. Janet Ashcroft
held her husband's arm. "And," Comey said, "we waited."

Minutes later, Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Card arrived.
Ignoring the phalanx, Seedy told Ashcroft he was there "to seek his
approval" for the renewal.

Comey said: "Attorney-General Ashcroft then stunned me. He lifted his
head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the
matter, rich in both substance and fact ? and then laid his head back
down on the pillow, seemed spent, and said to them, 'But that doesn't
matter, because I'm not the attorney-general ? There is the attorney-
general', and he pointed to me."

Gonzales and Card turned and left, but Card soon after called Comey and
"demanded that I come to the White House immediately". Comey said he
"would not meet with him without a witness present".

Bush alone renewed the order on March 11, but the following day Comey
and then Mueller told him that they and other Justice Department
officers, probably including Ashcroft, were ready to resign on the
issue.

Bush understood what that portended. In October 1973, he was 27 and a
drunk but he was involved in Republican politics and he knew that
impeachment bills followed president Richard Nixon's Saturday night
massacre of Justice Department lawyers. Bush told Mueller to tell Comey
to put the spying on a proper legal footing.

It is a pity that Bush did not mulishly persist. The resignations would have revealed the illegal surveillance and it is probable that even John Kerry would have become president eight months later and that the war in Iraq would be over.
>

Fred Bloggs

In article <[email protected]>, john-
[email protected] says...
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > John Rennie wrote:
> >>
> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> > > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]>
> >> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> > > > > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]>
> >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > Sid9 wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Make credence recognised that on Sat, 16 Jun 2007
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> 10:12:34
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> -0700,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> <[email protected]> has
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> scripted:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> I think your assessment is flawed. The Middle East
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> was set
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> abject
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> hopelessness before Bush invaded Iraq. 9/11
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> happened
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> *before*
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Bush
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> invaded Iraq. You can't blame that on Bush
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> invading
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Iraq.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Gawd, jusr how far can this delusion go?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > What delusion?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> Actually, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> would
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> you
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> care to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> indicate why on Earth it was a good idea?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Freeing the people of Iraq from Saddam, engaging the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > enemy in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Middle East? What would you have done after Pearl
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Harbor?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> I am kinda lost as to the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> reason.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are deluded.
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Wow!
> >> >> > > > > > > > > You are getting desperate!
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Pearl Harbor?
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > Pearl Harbor is an excellent example. If the claim is
> >> >> > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > acting
> >> >> > > > > > > > causes
> >> >> > > > > > > > things to be "worse", that is what you say in Iraq, then
> >> >> > > > > > > > surely
> >> >> > > > > > > > acting
> >> >> > > > > > > > against Japan caused things to be worse by all measures
> >> >> > > > > > > > since it
> >> >> > > > > > > > brought
> >> >> > > > > > > > the US into engagement in WWII and a lot of Americans
> >> >> > > > > > > > died,
> >> >> > > > > > > > a lot
> >> >> > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > civilians died, etc. What was the problem with just
> >> >> > > > > > > > leaving
> >> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > leaders
> >> >> > > > > > > > of Imperial Japan in power? I mean, all they wanted to
> >> >> > > > > > > > do
> >> >> > > > > > > > was
> >> >> > > > > > > > take
> >> >> > > > > > > > over
> >> >> > > > > > > > their part of the world. Whatever answer you have for
> >> >> > > > > > > > that,
> >> >> > > > > > > > consider
> >> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > in light of the threat, the global threat, of al Qaeda
> >> >> > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > its
> >> >> > > > > > > > army
> >> >> > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > hypernihilist crazy-bots.
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > And since when was Saddam Hussein in league with al Queda?
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > They both hated the US. But that's irrelvant since being in
> >> >> > > > > > league
> >> >> > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > each other isn't the point.
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > They had an
> >> >> > > > > > > uneasy truce at best, what with him being a secular
> >> >> > > > > > > dictator
> >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > them
> >> >> > > > > > > being a bunch of religious fruitcakes.
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > This is like saying how could Iran be in league with al
> >> >> > > > > > Qaeda
> >> >> > > > > > when al
> >> >> > > > > > Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shia. Saddam allied himself with
> >> >> > > > > > religoion
> >> >> > > > > > at
> >> >> > > > > > least post 1991.
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > Get this into your head, Bill - the "good guys" don't
> >> >> > > > > > > necessarily
> >> >> > > > > > > get
> >> >> > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > with other "good guys" and the "bad guys" don't
> >> >> > > > > > > necessarily
> >> >> > > > > > > get
> >> >> > > > > > > along
> >> >> > > > > > > with other "bad guys". The world is a wee bit more
> >> >> > > > > > > complicated
> >> >> > > > > > > than
> >> >> > > > > > > that.
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > Could you address what I actually said?
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > I did, Bill. You are simply too obtuse to understand that
> >> >> > > > > simple
> >> >> > > > > fact.
> >> >> > > > > You spoke of the global threat of al Qaeda as if it justified
> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > invasion of Iraq.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > Isn't Iraq part of the globe?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > I demonstrated to you that al Qaeda and the Iraqi
> >> >> > > > > regime were in no way allied so an invasion of Iraq was not a
> >> >> > > > > strike
> >> >> > > > > upon al Qaeda.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > I never claimed they were "allied". I said that leaving Saddam
> >> >> > > > in
> >> >> > > > place,
> >> >> > > > aided al Qaeda. That's true.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > I hope that I do not have to join the dots for you again in
> >> >> > > > > future,
> >> >> > > > > Bill. It is extremely tedious.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > What's tedious is explaining again and again that the threat of
> >> >> > > > al
> >> >> > > > Qaeda
> >> >> > > > comes from the Middle East, that's its nexus, and focusing on
> >> >> > > > wherever
> >> >> > > > bin Laden and his boys happen to be hiding today isn't enough.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > And what I am telling you, time after time, is that Al Qaeda were
> >> >> > > not
> >> >> > > based in Iraq prior to the invasion.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > Why do you keep repeating this strawman? Isn't it because you are
> >> >> > incapable of addressing what I'm actually saying?
> >> >>
> >> >> As I understand it, your argument seems to go
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) Al Qaeda are in the Middle East
> >> >> 2) Therefore we invaded Iraq.
> >> >>
> >> > The nexus of al Qaeda is the Middle East. This means that the US must
> >> > respond to al Qaeda in the Middle East, not just the subcontinent or
> >> > Africa.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Ergo, my point is hardly a straw man.
> >> >>
> >> > You keep claiming that you refute what I say when you point out that no
> >> > one on the planes on 9/11 was Iraqi. I didn't claim they were Iraqi.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> > > Now, it appears, that is no longer
> >> >> > > the case.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > Al Qaeda was always in the Middle East, that's where it came from.
> >> >> > Iraq
> >> >> > is about engaging that threat.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why? Al Qaeda were not in Iraq, as I keep on telling you. Are you
> >> >> entirely stupid, Bill?
> >> >>
> >> > I think you are of limited capability because you can't address what
> >> > I'm
> >> > actually saying. Is it your contention that the US should've invaded
> >> > Saudi Arabia?
> >>
> >> Breath in, Bill, and try to absorb this. Your country shouldn't have
> >> invaded any middle eastern country. The invasion of Afghanistan was
> >> credible because that's where the terrorists were.
> >>
> > The terrorists come from the Middle East, silly. It wasn't Afghanis who
> > attacked America, it was Arabs. If the US doesn't deal with that, the US
> > isn't dealing with the problem.
> >
> >
> >
> >> They were not
> >> 'operating' in the Middle East. Now they are.
> >>
> > That is the most absurd contention possible. They were operating in the
> > Middle East. They were building their power base. They are now finally
> > engaged, by the way, even in Saudi.
> >
> >
> >> Why? Because Uncle Sam
> >> just couldn't leave the Middle East alone. Why couldn't he leave it
> >> alone - because that's where the oil is and that's what he was interested
> >> in
> >> not terrorists.
> >>
> > Oil is vital to the US economy but the issue we are discussing is the
> > reality that the Middle East is the nexus of the threat of bin Ladenist
> > terrorism. Recall that bin Laden is the son of a Yemeni and a Syrian,
> > born in Saudi Arabia, built terror bases in the Sudan and Afghanistan
> > and merged with the Egyptian terrorist group that killed Sadt. What more
> > do you want to see that this is a threat that is emanating from the
> > Middle East?
> >
> >
> >
> >> The USA did not invade Iraq because of the war on terror.
> >>
> > I gave you a list of a dozen reasons to invade Iraq back in 2003. Go
> > read it.
>
> That was four years ago. You repeat it here and I will demolish every one
> of your reasons one by one
> >
> >
> >> That is a deceit that you and 45% of your fellow Americans are still
> >> stupid
> >> enough to believe in.
> >>
> > You can get angry about it all you want, but Iraq is vital in the war
> > against terrorism.
>
> I'm not angry. It's Americans who should be angry - 14 Americans soldiers
> killed in the last wo days for absolutely ****all. I repeat: Invading
> Iraq had NOTHING to do with TWAT otherwise known as the war on terror. Now
> the situation has changed - the invasion has undoubtedly attracted freedom
> fighters cum terrorists and will continue to attract them whilst America
> exposes her soldiers in Iraq. How much easier it is to kill Americans in
> Iraq than go through the incredibly complicated and very expensive
> procedures that led to 9/11. America is in a big hole and commonsense
> informs one that when one is in a hole one should stop digging.
>
Not if one is American, it seems:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/

Danger lurking at the seaside
Sun, sand, sea and surf - the four Ss that spell the idyllic summertime
vacation that most of us dream of. But wait, there's danger lurking in
this gentle scene... No, it's not the scary shark fin cruising the ocean
waves - it's the killer sandcastles.

Yes, research in the New England Journal of Medicine found sandcastles
are more deadly than sharks - 16 deaths in the US since 1990 were caused
by sandcastles, according to Harvard Medical School's Bradley Maron.
Compare that to the measly 12 fatalities from shark attacks. Jaws is
looking pitifully like a soft-touch.

The main hazard appears to be people lethally falling into holes they
had dug - presumably for the moat - which means the sandcastles of
America must be on a far more impressive scale than the ones I'm used
to.

Alarmingly, in addition to the prospect of being consumed by their
architecture, the bucket-and-spade brigade are at risk of infection from
fecal matter. A study published this week in Environmental Science and
Technology, found strains of E. coli bacteria that indicate unhealthy
levels of fecal matter on US beaches and around Lake Superior. Yuck.

The researchers found two broad types of E. coli in the sand: those
"deposited more recently", as team member Michael Sadowsky put it, and
those "that have learned to kind of grow or reproduce in the sand," he
said. Microbes survive longer in the sand than they do in water, they
found, so you may want to wash after a day at the beach.

>
>

Bill Bonde

Fred Bloggs wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> >
> >
> > Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Get this into your head, Bill - the "good guys" don't necessarily get on
> > > > > with other "good guys" and the "bad guys" don't necessarily get along
> > > > > with other "bad guys". The world is a wee bit more complicated than
> > > > > that.
> > > > >
> > > > Could you address what I actually said?
> > > >
> > > What you said doesn't make sense.
> > >
> > You just cut what I said.
>
> Makes more sense that way.
>
You aren't winning in any sort of debate, you are just tossing out fire
bombs like usual.

Deeply Filled Mortician

Make credence recognised that on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:06:50 +0200,
Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> has
scripted:

>Oops, I didn't realise I was talking to a complete ****wit.

I nearly forgot... <plonque>
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

John Rennie

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
.
>> >
>>
>> Calling Bill. We are still waiting.
>>
> You have google, don't you? OK, fine, from 2003:


>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...97f569c?hl=en&
> #begin quote
> A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
>
> 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> resources in the
> region since 1990.
>
> 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> harping on point of bin Laden's.
>
> 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
>
> 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
> the Arab Street is possible.
>
> 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> talking paper tiger.
>
> 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
> give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
> something to aspire to.
>
> 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> go after all those who support international terrorism.
>
> 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
> international terrorism.
>
> 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
> range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> to this limited window of opportunity.
>
> 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> international supporters of terrorism.
>
> 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> starved to the tune of several millions.
>
> 12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
> senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
> #end quote
>
>
>
> --
> "There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
> and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
> "How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
> George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"

Grant Kinsley

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:57:04 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>John Rennie wrote:
>>
>> "John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected] ...
>> >
>> > "Crusader Rabbit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected] d.net...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>
>> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>> > > Al Qaeda was always in the Middle East, that's where it came from.
>> >>> > > Iraq
>> >>> > > is about engaging that threat.
>> >>
>> >> Somehow, whenever you (or the Shrub) are askes about WHY the Shrub
>> >> invaded Iraq at the cost of a half million Iraqi lives, 25,000 US
>> >> casualties, and 4 million refugees in the region, 9/11 and al Qaeda are
>> >> invariably mentioned in the reply.
>> >>
>> >> Not Osama bin Laden.
>> >>
>> >> He's never mentioned.
>> >>
>> >> Not Weapons of Mass Destruction.
>> >>
>> >> The USA has them. Saddam Hussein did not.
>> >>
>> >> Even the Shrub has given up flogging that dead horse.
>> >>
>> >> So the invasion of Iraq was based on lies.
>> >>
>> >> And America's punishment is to LOSE that war.
>> >>
>> >>> > Why? Al Qaeda were not in Iraq, as I keep on telling you. Are you
>> >>> > entirely stupid, Bill?
>> >>
>> >>> I think you are of limited capability because you can't address what I'm
>> >>> actually saying.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, he's entirely stupid.
>> >> He's simply here to provide amusement for his betters.
>> >> Kicking the retarded when they're down is a bit childish, but it's SO
>> >> satisfying!
>> >>
>> >>> Is it your contention that the US should've invaded
>> >>> Saudi Arabia?
>> >>
>> >> My position is that the USA should not have invaded Iraq, because there
>> >> was no justification for doing so and because doing so made the situation
>> >> in the Middle East far worse than it was before.
>> >>
>> >> It didn't accomplish anything (other than to make George 'WMD' Bush the
>> >> most hated man on earth).
>> >> It destroyed America's influence in the world.
>> >> It cost a lot more lives, both Iraqi and American, than Osama bin Laden
>> >> could ever have dreamed of.
>> >> It destroyed the balanced budget Bill Clinton left to the shrub.
>> >> It has substantially eroded American freedoms.
>> >>
>> >> And it has destroyed the Republican Party.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > And now we all await with a certain amount of eagerness a repeat of Bill's
>> > 2003 post wherein he lists the 12 reasons for invading Iraq.
>> >
>>
>> Calling Bill. We are still waiting.
>>
>You have google, don't you? OK, fine, from 2003:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...97f569c?hl=en&
>#begin quote
>A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
>
>1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
>resources in the
>region since 1990.

Not really, since the US seems to have an interest in tying up
resources in the area anyway, furthermore those resources could have
been better utilised in Afghanistan dealing with the state that
actually harbored the terrorists
>
>2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
>harping on point of bin Laden's.

the USA wants a foothold in the area, one they are not entitled to, so
this is simply a spurious argument
>
>3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
>trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
>more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.

not likely, since the world gets significant oil from several other
sources, a simple issue of the oil from 2 states is irrelevant, and
further, that oil belongs to the states they are in, it's not the
right of the US to have that oil. If the US wants to free itself of
ties to oil states they should be looking internally at the way oil
companies are run, and perhaps they might look at other energy
technologies (but that doesn't suit bush and buddies does it)
>
>4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
>average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
>the Arab Street is possible.

The US has shown it's willingness to not give a shit about Arabs, they
are responsible for making life worse in Iraq, with little evidence
that things will improve. The average guy in the arabic world is now
less enamored of the US and now more likely to take up terrorism. Bush
couldn't have been a better recruiter for terrorism.
>
>5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
>talking paper tiger.

No, they are now seen as interfering with countries that they have no
right to be interfering with, and will stoop to the level of the
terrorists in the process.
>
>6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
>give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
>something to aspire to.

Not going to happen. The American leadership has made it clear that
they have no understanding of Arabic Society, the differences between
religions in the area, or the dynamic of dealing with that. These
countries cannot be pushed into a democracy, especially with muslim
fundamentalists who will work to insure that democracy only serves the
males. Iraqi and Afghan females are slowly having their rights eroded,
as are any who do not follow the extremists desires. You apparently
are unaware that the problems of religion and social dynamics in these
countries as well or you would not have made such a stupid argument.
>
>7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
>go after all those who support international terrorism.

actually there are several states that that could be said about, some
of them a far more clear and present danger (like North Korea)
>
>8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
>terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
>long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
>international terrorism.

Yeah, that's working out real well isn't it, as Israel and Lebanon
collide with Syria snickering on the sidelines, Iran snickering while
Iraq tears itself apart, just waiting to subsume control over the
majority population. All the war has done is to destabilize the area
in a way that allows terrorists easier access to recruitment and
training, while the US continues to throw billions into a hole, while
actually losing substantial sums (probably in the hand of terrorists),
but enriching oils and arms companies at the cost to everthing else.
>
>9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
>needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
>weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
>range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
>Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
>to this limited window of opportunity.

Baloney, these conflicts in the Middle East are 1500 years old, they
can't be changed overnight, they certainly aren't about to be changed
by adding gas to the fire. The bold opportunities were missed, but
since North Korea has no oil, they weren't "a threat to the bush
buddies"
>
>10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
>next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
>international supporters of terrorism.

The US can't maintain the fronts it has, and invading a country to
allow access to other countries is simply a bad argument, period.
>
>11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
>starved to the tune of several millions.

What about North Korea, their dictator insured the starvation of 1 in
5 of the population in the 90's, food rationing is still the case,
they are actually a threat to the rest of the world. How about any
number of African dictators, How about China. Using that argument the
US should be invading a couple of dozen countries. However it really
isn't a good argument, because one country really doesn't have the
authority to decide how another country is run. They can certainly
withdraw aid, withdraw ties and stop trade with the country, but
unilateral decisions to invade because Saddam is a bad guy don't wash,
especially without international sanction. Especially by a country
that won't sign on to the world court (Bush wants to prosecute other
countries for war crimes, but certainly won't be beholden to the same
rules)
>
>12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
>senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.

1) Gulf War 1 was prosecuted for the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was
forced to withdraw, goals were met.
2) the wars with Iran were between Iraq and Iran. Both parties were at
fault, and it was their war.
3) genocide is dealt with by the world court, however one has to be a
signatory to be prosecuted. just as Bush will not be tried in that
court for his war crimes neither could Saddam. Had he been captured
and brought to the Hague he would have been prosecuted as losers in a
war are another story. (see Milosevic)

>#end quote

John Rennie

"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> Calling Bill. We are still waiting.

Sorry for the missend.
>>
> You have google, don't you? OK, fine, from 2003:

Yes, Bill, I have google. Indeed I'm an expert when it comes to delving
around this monster - we all are on alt.activism.death-penalty. Please
note the above groups this message is crossposted to. Do you see
alt.society.liberalism amongst them? No I thought not. But your message
of 2003 was sent to that group by "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced
Conservatives". Obviously in that year you were a gungho Faux News loving
twit - not so 'many' of them now, Bill. How did you expect me to find a
message that you sent to a news group not even listed above? What a bloody
fool you are.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...97f569c?hl=en&
> #begin quote
> A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
>
> 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> resources in the
> region since 1990.

The policy of containment was working which is more than can be said for the
invasion. That policy sharpened by the raid and missile attack of 1998
had Saddam floored which is why he was forced to invite the UN Inspectorate
back to Iraq. I should also remind you that whatever resources were being
'tied up' no American servicemen were being killed.
>
> 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> harping on point of bin Laden's.

Inexplicable. Destroying Saddam helps America to get on with bin Laden?
Saudi Arabia's rulers would never let America leave them - their goose would
be cooked if it did by more than one group.
>
> 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.

Proof of the pudding. There is far less Iraqi oil flowing into the world
markets now than there was even during the period of sanctions.

> 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
> the Arab Street is possible.

Proof of the pudding but easily demolished even in 2003. America
expended its resources no end in Vietnam and won no friends at all. One
does not win friends by invading a country that was no threat to you.

> 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> talking paper tiger.

Proof of the pudding. I have to keep saying that because although it was
obvious to me and others on this group a.a.d-p. in 2003 that the invasion
would fail and America would be shown to be a great deal weaker than
supposed world wide, it should be obvious to you now. Indeed if a real
emergency blew up say North Korea invading South Korea again Bush or any
future American President would have to look the other way because although
s/he might still possess the armour they would be hard put to find the
soldiers especially as they would still be heavily involved in Iraq.

> 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
> give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
> something to aspire to.

You are aware of the different cultures and tribes in this made up country,
Bill. You should be by now. You will have learnt that what suits the
Sunnis doesn't suit the Shias and vice versa. What suits the Kurds who are
not Arabs doesn't suit the other two. Our form of parliamentary democracy
is alien to this part of the world - the elections held were a sham. The
voters voted strictly on religious lines with no other consideration.

> 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> go after all those who support international terrorism.

He did not. It was well known then that he didn't and it has been proven
now to all, except perhaps to the babbling Cheney, that he didn't. Bin
Laden was his enemy. Long before the invasion bin Laden called Saddam a
tool of the Americans and even when the invasion happened bin Laden still
called Saddam an enemy of Islam. I asked you on another ocassion if you
knew what 'secular' meant. You said that you did. If you do
(problematical) you will know that secular Arab states do not get on with
those that are not such as Iran. There is no meeting of the minds.
Saddam and the US were closer than bin Laden and Saddam.


> 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
> international terrorism.

Proof of the pudding again. Since the invasion Iran has voted in a hard
line government. Thankfully it doesn't know how to run an economy and may
well be on its way out but it is now with Syria a major threat to Iraq.
Both these countries have been made stronger by American's invasion because
America has removed Saddam a threat to both of them. Your question shows
that you had no knowledge whatsoever about relations between Syria, Iran and
Iraq. You should have - Iraq and Iran did fight an eight year war with
America firmly on Iraq's side.

> 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
> range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> to this limited window of opportunity.

As pointed out above, since the invasion Iran has developed its nuclear
potential. It may well have done so without the invasion but then a
united stance by much of the world could perhaps have been forthcoming.
Not now. As far as much of the world is concerned Israel and the US are
on their own.

> 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> international supporters of terrorism.

That would have made sense if there was a sufficent number of troops in
Afghanistan - there isn't. Iran hated the Taleban - America got rid of
the Taleban (for the moment). Everything that America has done since 2003
has helped Iran. America got rid of Saddam, hated enemy in the West and
got rid of the Taleban hated enemy of the East - you could almost make a
case for saying Iran and America were in cahoots with each other. They're
not of course but it goes to show just how America under Bush has worked
against its own long term interests. And you supported this nonsense as
well, Bill. What a patriot you are - I don't think.


> 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> starved to the tune of several millions.

We now know how difficult is to rule a country like Iraq using western
methods - I mean decent western methods. Many of the murders (and there
were many) had a lot to do with the long war against Iran. The Kurds for
instance are racially connected to the Iranians or Persians which is why for
a period they were treated as enemies. We also know that Bush senior
encouraged the Shias of the South to rise up against Saddam and the policy
of containment which was primarily used against WMDs and against Saddam's
air force could do nothing to stop Saddam taking steps to quell this
uprising. As for the starvation, much of that was due to UN sanctions. I
say UN but they were the policy of America.


> 12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
> senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.

That it has done. But it has made the threat of Iran together with Syria
that much more pressing. Iran has five times the population of Iraq and is
much more developed - this is the country to make friends with not to go to
war against. America could start off by saying "Look what we've done for
you. We've got rid of your enemies".

John Rennie

"grant kinsley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

snipped excellent demolition - probably better than mine.

>>
> 1) Gulf War 1 was prosecuted for the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was
> forced to withdraw, goals were met.
> 2) the wars with Iran were between Iraq and Iran. Both parties were at
> fault, and it was their war.
> 3) genocide is dealt with by the world court, however one has to be a
> signatory to be prosecuted. just as Bush will not be tried in that
> court for his war crimes neither could Saddam. Had he been captured
> and brought to the Hague he would have been prosecuted as losers in a
> war are another story. (see Milosevic)
>
>>#end quote
>

Great minds etc.

Bill Bonde

John Rennie wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Calling Bill. We are still waiting.
>
> Sorry for the missend.
> >>
> > You have google, don't you? OK, fine, from 2003:
>
> Yes, Bill, I have google. Indeed I'm an expert when it comes to delving
> around this monster - we all are on alt.activism.death-penalty.
>
This is talk.politics.misc, actually.


> Please
> note the above groups this message is crossposted to. Do you see
> alt.society.liberalism amongst them? No I thought not.
>
I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't claim that I'd posted the
dozen reasons to any specific newsgroup.


> But your message
> of 2003 was sent to that group by "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced
> Conservatives". Obviously in that year you were a gungho Faux News loving
> twit - not so 'many' of them now, Bill.
>
I've never been a FoxNews watcher.


> How did you expect me to find a
> message that you sent to a news group not even listed above? What a bloody
> fool you are.
>
You could've just typed in "Dozen reasons Saddam" into groups.google:
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...am&qt_s=Search



> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...97f569c?hl=en&
> > #begin quote
> > A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
> >
> > 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> > resources in the
> > region since 1990.
>
> The policy of containment was working which is more than can be said for the
> invasion. That policy sharpened by the raid and missile attack of 1998
> had Saddam floored which is why he was forced to invite the UN Inspectorate
> back to Iraq.
>
This is an utter misrepresentation of reality. Saddam didn't invite them
back in 1998 under Clinton, Bush forced the issue in 2002.



> I should also remind you that whatever resources were being
> 'tied up' no American servicemen were being killed.
>
There were loses in the no-fly zones and the aircrews were being
attacked by Saddam's air defences.


>
> > 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> > harping on point of bin Laden's.
>
> Inexplicable. Destroying Saddam helps America to get on with bin Laden?
> Saudi Arabia's rulers would never let America leave them - their goose would
> be cooked if it did by more than one group.
>
American troops left Saudi Arabia soon after the invasion of Iraq.



> > 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> > trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> > more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
>
> Proof of the pudding. There is far less Iraqi oil flowing into the world
> markets now than there was even during the period of sanctions.
>
That's not really true:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/iz.html
#begin quote
Oil - production:
2.13 million bbl/day; note - prewar production in 2002 was 2.2 million
bbl/day (2006 est.)
#end quote

The efforts to deal with insurgents are relevant but there was damage to
the oil fields from various poor practices under Saddam such as
reinjection of waste oil.


> > 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> > average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
> > the Arab Street is possible.
>
> Proof of the pudding but easily demolished even in 2003. America
> expended its resources no end in Vietnam and won no friends at all. One
> does not win friends by invading a country that was no threat to you.
>
Was France a threat to the US in WWII? The US invaded it, won friends.
Of course the French are difficult but the reality is that you can win
friends by freeing people.



> > 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> > talking paper tiger.
>
> Proof of the pudding. I have to keep saying that because although it was
> obvious to me and others on this group a.a.d-p. in 2003 that the invasion
> would fail and America would be shown to be a great deal weaker than
> supposed world wide, it should be obvious to you now. Indeed if a real
> emergency blew up say North Korea invading South Korea again Bush or any
> future American President would have to look the other way because although
> s/he might still possess the armour they would be hard put to find the
> soldiers especially as they would still be heavily involved in Iraq.
>
1) The law says that the US must be able to fight in two major wars and
still have enough strength to deal with other threats. Is that not being
followed?
2) The US was nothing more than a trip wire in Korea and nuclear weapons
would always be needed if that million man army of Kimites was real.
3) The US is not seen as paper tiger. The fact that insurgent attacks
are difficult to deal with is not news. The fact that they haven't been
countered enough also isn't news although perhaps it should be.




> > 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
> > give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
> > something to aspire to.
>
> You are aware of the different cultures and tribes in this made up country,
>
All countries are made up.


> Bill. You should be by now. You will have learnt that what suits the
> Sunnis doesn't suit the Shias and vice versa.
>
Wrong. What suits the *fundamentalist* Sunnis doesn't suit the
*fundmentalist* Shia. This is a feature, not a bug, although it's
certainly an issue.



> What suits the Kurds who are
> not Arabs doesn't suit the other two. Our form of parliamentary democracy
> is alien to this part of the world - the elections held were a sham. The
> voters voted strictly on religious lines with no other consideration.
>
They don't have political parties with viewpoints that they can support
so they vote based on what they know. This doesn't have to be this way
all the time. You could have a vote and people would come out for
security, say.



> > 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> > go after all those who support international terrorism.
>
> He did not.
>
Saddam has been on the terrorist list since Jimmy Carter, except when
Reagan tried to work with him during part of the Iran-Iraq war.


> It was well known then that he didn't and it has been proven
> now to all, except perhaps to the babbling Cheney, that he didn't. Bin
> Laden was his enemy.
>
This just gets repeated again and again with no evidence. Both bin Laden
and Saddam were Sunni.


> Long before the invasion bin Laden called Saddam a
> tool of the Americans and even when the invasion happened bin Laden still
> called Saddam an enemy of Islam. I asked you on another ocassion if you
> knew what 'secular' meant. You said that you did. If you do
> (problematical) you will know that secular Arab states do not get on with
> those that are not such as Iran. There is no meeting of the minds.
>
Bin Laden thinks that the Saudis aren't religious enough. No one is
religious enough for bin Laden.


> Saddam and the US were closer than bin Laden and Saddam.
>
You are just silly.



> > 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> > terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> > long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
> > international terrorism.
>
> Proof of the pudding again. Since the invasion Iran has voted in a hard
> line government.
>
Actually, there was cheating. And it's good that the US is engaged and
not letting Tehran increase its power without any impediments.


> Thankfully it doesn't know how to run an economy and may
> well be on its way out but it is now with Syria a major threat to Iraq.
> Both these countries have been made stronger by American's invasion because
> America has removed Saddam a threat to both of them.
>
I thought that Saddam was no threat at all. Why can't you make up your
mind?


> Your question shows
> that you had no knowledge whatsoever about relations between Syria, Iran and
> Iraq. You should have - Iraq and Iran did fight an eight year war with
> America firmly on Iraq's side.
>
Nope. America sold more arms to Iran in that war than to Iraq.



> > 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> > needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> > weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
> > range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> > Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> > to this limited window of opportunity.
>
> As pointed out above, since the invasion Iran has developed its nuclear
> potential. It may well have done so without the invasion but then a
> united stance by much of the world could perhaps have been forthcoming.
> Not now. As far as much of the world is concerned Israel and the US are
> on their own.
>
Does the world you are talking about not worry that those Iranian nukes
might be used on it?



> > 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> > next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> > international supporters of terrorism.
>
> That would have made sense if there was a sufficent number of troops in
> Afghanistan - there isn't.
>
There are currently 50,000 troops in Afghanistan. How many do you want?



> Iran hated the Taleban - America got rid of
> the Taleban (for the moment).
>
There is evidence that Iran is working with the Taliban.


> Everything that America has done since 2003
> has helped Iran. America got rid of Saddam, hated enemy in the West and
> got rid of the Taleban hated enemy of the East - you could almost make a
> case for saying Iran and America were in cahoots with each other. They're
> not of course but it goes to show just how America under Bush has worked
> against its own long term interests. And you supported this nonsense as
> well, Bill. What a patriot you are - I don't think.
>
I think you don't think. Whether or not Iraq is there to counter Iran or
the Taliban are there to counter Iran, your argument sounds like what
you argue against in the 80s, those things aren't long term issues. The
abject hopelessness in the region is the long term issue. That is what
feeds bin Ladenism.




> > 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> > starved to the tune of several millions.
>
> We now know how difficult is to rule a country like Iraq using western
> methods - I mean decent western methods. Many of the murders (and there
> were many) had a lot to do with the long war against Iran. The Kurds for
> instance are racially connected to the Iranians or Persians which is why for
> a period they were treated as enemies.
>
There are Kurds in Iran and depending on how things go, they would fight
against Saddam or against Iran.


> We also know that Bush senior
> encouraged the Shias of the South to rise up against Saddam and the policy
> of containment which was primarily used against WMDs and against Saddam's
> air force could do nothing to stop Saddam taking steps to quell this
> uprising. As for the starvation, much of that was due to UN sanctions. I
> say UN but they were the policy of America.
>
No it wasn't. The US didn't stop food from being imported to feed
starving Iraqis.


> > 12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
> > senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
>
> That it has done. But it has made the threat of Iran together with Syria
> that much more pressing. Iran has five times the population of Iraq and is
> much more developed - this is the country to make friends with not to go to
> war against.
>
The problem is that the US has 1953 to deal with with Iran. There are a
lot of Iranians who like America but to win heats and minds there enough
to see real change will require a lot of effort. Obviously the
leadership of Iran today is more interested in apocalyptic nonsense.


> America could start off by saying "Look what we've done for
> you. We've got rid of your enemies".
>
It's certainly true that America has kicked Saddam's ass six ways to
Sunday, including 2003 and 1991 and in between.


--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"

Mr Q. Z. Diablo

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:

> John Rennie wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > >> news:[email protected]:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > >> >> > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > Sid9 wrote:
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > >> Make credence recognised that on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:12:34
> > >> >> > > > > >> -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> > >> >> > > > > >> <[email protected]> has scripted:
> > >> >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > >>> I think your assessment is flawed. The Middle East was set
> > >> >> > > > > >>> in abject hopelessness before Bush invaded Iraq. 9/11
> > >> >> > > > > >>> happened *before* Bush invaded Iraq. You can't blame that
> > >> >> > > > > >>> on Bush invading Iraq.
> > >> >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > >> Gawd, jusr how far can this delusion go?
> > >> >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > What delusion?
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >> Actually, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, would you
> > >> >> > > > > >> care to indicate why on Earth it was a good idea?
> > >> >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > Freeing the people of Iraq from Saddam, engaging the enemy
> > >> >> > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > the Middle East? What would you have done after Pearl
> > >> >> > > > > > Harbor?
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >> I am kinda lost as to the
> > >> >> > > > > >> reason.
> > >> >> > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > Maybe you are deluded.
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > Wow!
> > >> >> > > > > You are getting desperate!
> > >> >> > > > > Pearl Harbor?
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > Pearl Harbor is an excellent example. If the claim is that
> > >> >> > > > acting
> > >> >> > > > causes things to be "worse", that is what you say in Iraq, then
> > >> >> > > > surely acting against Japan caused things to be worse by all
> > >> >> > > > measures since it brought the US into engagement in WWII and a
> > >> >> > > > lot of Americans died, a lot of civilians died, etc. What was
> > >> >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > > problem with just leaving the leaders of Imperial Japan in
> > >> >> > > > power?
> > >> >> > > > I mean, all they wanted to do was take over their part of the
> > >> >> > > > world. Whatever answer you have for that, consider it in light
> > >> >> > > > of
> > >> >> > > > the threat, the global threat, of al Qaeda and its army of
> > >> >> > > > hypernihilist crazy-bots.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > And since when was Saddam Hussein in league with al Queda?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > They both hated the US. But that's irrelvant since being in league
> > >> >> > with each other isn't the point.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > They had an
> > >> >> > > uneasy truce at best, what with him being a secular dictator and
> > >> >> > > them being a bunch of religious fruitcakes.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > This is like saying how could Iran be in league with al Qaeda when
> > >> >> > al
> > >> >> > Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shia. Saddam allied himself with
> > >> >> > religoion
> > >> >> > at least post 1991.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > Get this into your head, Bill - the "good guys" don't necessarily
> > >> >> > > get on with other "good guys" and the "bad guys" don't necessarily
> > >> >> > > get along with other "bad guys". The world is a wee bit more
> > >> >> > > complicated than that.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > Could you address what I actually said?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I did, Bill. You are simply too obtuse to understand that simple
> > >> >> fact.
> > >> >> You spoke of the global threat of al Qaeda as if it justified the
> > >> >> invasion of Iraq.
> > >> >>
> > >> > Isn't Iraq part of the globe?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >> I demonstrated to you that al Qaeda and the Iraqi
> > >> >> regime were in no way allied so an invasion of Iraq was not a strike
> > >> >> upon al Qaeda.
> > >> >>
> > >> > I never claimed they were "allied". I said that leaving Saddam in
> > >> > place,
> > >> > aided al Qaeda. That's true.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Senate finds no Saddam links to al-Qaeda
> > >>
> > > What's your point?
> >
> > The point is, Bill, that you didn't make much of a point in the first place.
> >
> Then it should've been easy to refute, yet you were forced into a
> strawman about how the 9/11 hijackers weren't Iraqis. They weren't
> Yemenis either yet Yemenis have been involved in terrorist attacks.

I don't see what you're trying to say here. In fact, I think that you
sound more than a little confused.

> > You made a statement "leaving Saddam in place, aided al Qaeda. That's true."
> > but you gave no reason WHY leaving Saddam in place aided al Qaeda.
> >
> I've extensively detailed my views on this over and over again. All I
> get back is that since the 9/11 hijackers weren't Iraqis, therefore Iraq
> has nothing to do with dealing with the threat that 9/11 showed us.

Abra-ca-duh.

You're catching on, perhaps, albeit slowly.

> The
> hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, do you think invading those
> countries would help?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

Not to mention the more basic fallacy. Your implication appears to be
that because attacking countries from which the terrorists originated
would not help then attacking a country from which they did not
originate must help.

Sounds like tosh to me, Bill.

> > In fact
> > DEPOSING Saddam aided al Qaeda because the war caused the chaos so necessary
> > for extremists to flourish.
> >
> No. The situation in Iraq is temporary. The status quo with Saddam was
> long term. That status quo is what brought us 9/11.

How did it bring us 9/11, Bill? Enlighten us all.

> Removing Saddam has
> upset the equilibrium in the Middle East and forces people to make
> decisions. That's good.

Ah. The politician's fallacy:

We must do something.
This is something.
Therefore we must do this.

> > I beginning to realise that you must be a youngster ie under 20 or so. A
> > more mature person whether he was a Bush sopporter or not would not keep on
> > making very much the same assertions time and time again that have been
> > demolished time and time again.
> >
> No one has touched my claims. And since I followed the war in Vietnam,
> I'm older than that.

People have actually demolished your claims, Bill. You are merely to
dim to see that.

> > You don't seem to realise that virtually
> > all the arguments for invading Iraq have fallen away a long time ago.
> >
> Then address the dozen reasons I posted in 2003.

Post them again. We did not see your post in 2003 and, since you raise
the issue, the onus is upon you to sift it out of Google Groups.

--
Mr Q. Z. D.
Remove luncheonmeat (truncheon) to reply.
" Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain.
But when you put it in the body of a great white shark,
ooohh! Suddenly you've gone too far!"

Mr Q. Z. Diablo

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think you are of limited capability because you can't address what I'm
> actually saying.

I can only address the words that you post, Bill. In your last, you
referred to a four year old post that I never read. I can only respond
to you in the content of the bollocks that you are currently
crossposting.

> Is it your contention that the US should've invaded
> Saudi Arabia?

See my previous post, Bill. You appear to be a particular fan of the
politician's syllogism.

--
Mr Q. Z. D.
Remove luncheonmeat (truncheon) to reply.
" Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain.
But when you put it in the body of a great white shark,
ooohh! Suddenly you've gone too far!"