On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:20:34 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
<me@no-spam> wrote:
>Its a sad day for the left and socialists every where. as Uday and Qusay
>Hussain were killed today.
>
>After months of the left wing campaigning to keep these 2 in power over the
>Iraqi people the left today will have to admit defeat
is this some kind of propghana assignment for school? Uday and Qusay
should have been hunted down and tried by the Iraqi people, not hunted
down and killed like the Nazi's did with Jews.
Only a sick person rejoices in the death of another, even an enemy.
That's the difference between the Tory right wing in America and those
who wish for peace. You don't see Allied troops dancing over the
bodies of the people they just killed, so why are you???
THOM
Viet Nam vet
>
>http://mosley.arach.net.au/lib/news/dead%20socialists.htm
>
>
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:33:58 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
<me@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"amadis" <amadis@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:bfkkg6$f8u$1@no-spam
>> Mosley Jones III meant to write:
>>
>> > Its a sad day for the far right loonies every where. as Uday and Qusay
>> > Hussain were killed today.
>
>
>Since they were members of the Baarth Socialist party and that the left
>supported them staying in power I think you pulling your dick
here we go again trying to make Hitler and Saddam left wingers so the
right wing can see itself and pure and good. Are you so stupid as to
believe that the Socialist part of the name wasn't anything but a con
game? If you believe it then you must believe that all the so called
socisalist democratic republics the USSR set up were in fact
democratic and republics. Do you really believe that?
Lets get back to basics, Saddam, Bin Laden and those nut cases you
took down the WTC were all RIGHT WINGERS. They were not waving Moas'
little red book in the cockpits or reading Marx they were yelling God
is good god is great!. They were your lot, the religious right wing.
THOM
>
>
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:57:25 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
<me@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f1f438e@no-spam
>>
>> "Dumb-as-dogshit Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:3f1f3c74@no-spam
>> >
>> > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > news:3f1f0b92@no-spam
>> > >
>> > > "Dumb-as-a-rock Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > > news:3f1df259$2@no-spam
>> > > >
>> > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > > > news:3f1de2ae@no-spam
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Dumb-as-a-rock Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in
>> message
>> > > > > news:3f1dde75$1@no-spam
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "amadis" <amadis@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > > > > > news:bfkkg6$f8u$1@no-spam
>> > > > > > > Mosley Jones III meant to write:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Its a sad day for the far right loonies every where. as Uday
>> and
>> > > > Qusay
>> > > > > > > > Hussain were killed today.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Since they were members of the Baarth Socialist party and that
>the
>> > > left
>> > > > > > supported them staying in power I think you pulling your dick
>> > > > >
>> > > > > **Which left wing politicians supported them staying in power?
>> > > >
>> > > > George Galloway for a start
>> > >
>> > > **What has George Galloway got to do with Australian politics?
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > you asked a question and could not cope with the answer.
>>
>> **Sure I did. You answered my question by telling me that some obscure,
>> Pommy politician supported Saddam. Fine by me. That one, lone nutcase,
>Pommy
>> politician supports Saddam means very little.
>
>
>Most of the ALP, the Greens and the Democrats, they were all aginst removing
>Saddam.
If I may pop in on behalf of the Greens, we wanted him gone (John
Howard didn't because of the business his lot was doing with Saddam
which is now gone) BUT we objected to the way it was done.
Australian demonstrations in the streets were againt John Howard being
told to saddle up and follow by Bush and thus the protests were
against Australian involvement under those circumstances.
THOM
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > You may also care to note that ONE lone politician's support for
>Saddam,
>> > > does not make universal support.
>> >
>> >
>> > Who said it did,
>>
>> **Well, you did. You said:
>> ---
>> "... that the left supported them staying in power..."
>> ---
>>
>> One lone, nutcase, Pommy politician, does not make support by the Left. It
>> just means that Saddam was supported by one lone, nutcase Pommy
>politician.
>> Moreover, since the CIA and the US government supported Saddam (under
>> Reagan), one could suggest that he received far more support from the
>right.
>> Support which was tangible and substantial.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > you asked for a exsample and you got one
>>
>> **I did. And I pointed out where your statement:
>>
>> "...that the left supported them staying in power..."
>>
>> was incorrect and over the top.
>>
>> Just as not all Liberal politicians are not like Jeffrey Archer, so not
>all
>> left wing pollies are like George Galloway.
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com
>>
>>
>
>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:07:55 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
<me@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f1f717d@no-spam
>>
>> "Dumb-as-dogshit Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:3f1f5fdd@no-spam
>> >
>> > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > news:3f1f438e@no-spam
>> > >
>> > > "Dumb-as-dogshit Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > > news:3f1f3c74@no-spam
>> > > >
>> > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > > > news:3f1f0b92@no-spam
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Dumb-as-a-rock Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in
>> message
>> > > > > news:3f1df259$2@no-spam
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > > > > > news:3f1de2ae@no-spam
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "Dumb-as-a-rock Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in
>> > > message
>> > > > > > > news:3f1dde75$1@no-spam
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > "amadis" <amadis@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > > > > > > > news:bfkkg6$f8u$1@no-spam
>> > > > > > > > > Mosley Jones III meant to write:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Its a sad day for the far right loonies every where. as
>> Uday
>> > > and
>> > > > > > Qusay
>> > > > > > > > > > Hussain were killed today.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Since they were members of the Baarth Socialist party and
>that
>> > the
>> > > > > left
>> > > > > > > > supported them staying in power I think you pulling your
>dick
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > **Which left wing politicians supported them staying in power?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > George Galloway for a start
>> > > > >
>> > > > > **What has George Galloway got to do with Australian politics?
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > you asked a question and could not cope with the answer.
>> > >
>> > > **Sure I did. You answered my question by telling me that some
>obscure,
>> > > Pommy politician supported Saddam. Fine by me. That one, lone nutcase,
>> > Pommy
>> > > politician supports Saddam means very little.
>> >
>> >
>> > Most of the ALP, the Greens and the Democrats, they were all aginst
>> removing
>> > Saddam.
>>
>> **You complete and utter moron. The ALP, the Greens, the Democrats AND 75%
>> of the Australian population (and the majority of the US population, for
>> that matter) were against an ILLEGAL invasion of Iraq.
>
>
>Absolute lies
>
>What fucking crap.
>
>their was no ileagle invasion
all invasions are illegal without UN Sanction including your boy
Ronnie Rayguns invasion of Grahnada (or however yous ell the damned
thing)
>
>1. show us what law was broken.
Lets start with one Bush is now in violation of "Exceeding a military
operational allowance of 90 days by the president without declaration
of war by the Congress". That one your lot, the right wing. put in
against Johnson.
>
>
>2. show us that 75% of people were against a war
all Polls done by THE AGE, The SUN-HERALD, the HERALD SUN and the
Australian came up with the same figures.
>
>the majority of Australians were for the war from day one.
so why were there massive protests (including almost a million people
in one day in Sydney alone.... that 1/19th of the population at one
demonstration)????
>
>
>never was the majority against a war.
Sorry but it was. Some are pacifists, some lost people in other wars
but most disagreed with Bush and the way he went about it. They
realized that war is the failure of politicians in diplomacy and that
is one area John Howard and George Bush are total failures.
>
>
>when put with tricky question, like did you want to go with the UN or go it
>alone with the US many said with the UN. Obviously they had to choose they
>could not pick both.
Thats close. IF the UN had been involved there would have been less
objection.
>
>but once the UN was taken out of the picture the same amount of people that
>voted to go with the UN or with the US both then said they would go with the
>US.
Wrong. They see the USA as a rouge state in many if not most parts of
the world. Most people around the world see the UN as the way for the
21st century, not the New World Order.
>
>Now why should we believe you that tells so many lies in one paragraph?
please put ther question in properly composed english please?
>
>
>none were against the
>> removal of Saddam, per se. It was the method of removal, that they had
>> (rightfully) issues with.
>
>
>yes theuy were,
"Theuy"? I think you will find that the Australian people would like
to see both Saddam and Bush removed.
>
>they were against any real means of removing him.
One .31 caliber bullet from a Dragunov sniper rifle would have been a
lot cheaper than the way it was done.
>
>don't be stupid
he'se not a republican, he can't be.
>
>
>
>
> All agreed that if the UN could come to agreement,
>> that such an invasion could take place. ]
>
>
>Abolute crap, France and Germany said they would vote NO no mater what, dont
>LIE
so France and Germany are the UN now? By the way "mater" has 2 T's
and dont is spelled "Don't".
>
>
>Your inability to comprehend even
>> the broadest issues, is simply breathtaking.
>
>
>stop telling so many childish lies
are you saying this to Bush?
>
>
>>
>> Please try to make use of your remaining 15 functioning neurons.
he can't he donated them to the republican 2004 campaign, they badly
need them.
THOM
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>>
>>
>
>
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:31:45 +0000 (UTC), amadis <amadis@no-spam>
wrote:
>Mosley Jones III wrote:
>
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:3f1f438e@no-spam
>>>
>>> "Dumb-as-dogshit Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> news:3f1f3c74@no-spam
>>> >
>>> > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> > news:3f1f0b92@no-spam
>>> > >
>>> > > "Dumb-as-a-rock Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> > > news:3f1df259$2@no-spam
>>> > > >
>>> > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> > > > news:3f1de2ae@no-spam
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > "Dumb-as-a-rock Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in
>>> message
>>> > > > > news:3f1dde75$1@no-spam
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > "amadis" <amadis@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> > > > > > news:bfkkg6$f8u$1@no-spam
>>> > > > > > > Mosley Jones III meant to write:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Its a sad day for the far right loonies every where. as
>>> > > > > > > > Uday
>>> and
>>> > > > Qusay
>>> > > > > > > > Hussain were killed today.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Since they were members of the Baarth Socialist party and that
>> the
>>> > > left
>>> > > > > > supported them staying in power I think you pulling your dick
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > **Which left wing politicians supported them staying in power?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > George Galloway for a start
>>> > >
>>> > > **What has George Galloway got to do with Australian politics?
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > you asked a question and could not cope with the answer.
>>>
>>> **Sure I did. You answered my question by telling me that some obscure,
>>> Pommy politician supported Saddam. Fine by me. That one, lone nutcase,
>> Pommy
>>> politician supports Saddam means very little.
>>
>>
>> Most of the ALP, the Greens and the Democrats, they were all aginst
>> removing Saddam.
>
>Are you another of those idiots who can't think beyond binary? Abelard's
>on/off logic. Not wanting a military invasion does not imply support for
>Saddam.
too many of us yanks just can't turn off the cold war mentality.
THOM
>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:44:50 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Mike Price" <mickp@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:pq22iv0i9mhak62a5nhn14imak2sgr3maq@no-spam
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:42:47 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <trevor@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >> Inaction and allowing Saddam to continue to murder his people would be
>> >> a far greater crime than the deaths during the war.
>> >
>> >**What? Like the inaction during the mass murder in Rwanda? Or the mass
>> >murder in Kampuchia? Or the mass murder in Tibet (still going on)? Or the
>> >mass murder in North Korea? The US did not act to protect the Iraqi
>people.
>> >It should not pretend to do so.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The real shame about this whole affair is not about the validity of
>> >> reports of WMD or otherwise, but why the UN was allowed to blunder
>> >> along for some many years, while so many suffered and died at the
>> >> hands of a brutal dictator, when it could have been over as quickly
>> >> and relitively cleanly (considering the size and implications of the
>> >> invasion) as this.
>> >
>> >**Well, yes. One could say that Saddam should have been routed, back in
>> >1990. Or he should never have been supported by the US, in the first
>place.
>> >The real problem are the inequities which are built into the UN. It is
>> >hamstrung by various veto powers of some nations.
>>
>> Trevor, your "IF THEY DID THAT, THEN HOW COME THEY DIDNT DO THAT OTHER
>> THING?" reply is typical of the crap sort of debates you get on this
>> newsgroup.
>
>**Because it goes to the very heart of the matter. The US needs to act
>fairly, honestly and without favour, if it wants to be taken seriously by
>the rest of the world. So far, its foreign policy is bereft of moral reason
>and long term vision.
One should separate Bush's screw ups from American screw ups.
>
>>
>> It is impossible to be somewhere in the middle ground between full
>> support of the US and rabid hatred of the US.
>
>**For me, personally, I don't hate the US. I have some nice American friends
>and some of their politicians have some good, common sense. Unfortunately,
>nobody seems to have figured out any kind of logical foreign policy in the
>US.
Its a simple policy, if it makes us money its a good policy. Is Bush
willing to give back to Australia all the wheat sales to Iraq he took
during the war? American wheat is now what they eat. When we
complain Bush just says "shut up and eat your sheep".
>
>>
>> How does the fact that attrocities are going on in other countries
>> somehow make the liberation of Iraq a bad thing? Is it bad because it
>> is not fair on those other countries?
>
>**Nope. The problem of Iraq is several-fold:
>1) The US is at least partially responsible for Saddam's rise to power.
More than partially. America has this terrible problem of supporting
right wing mad men if they are anti-communist or will fight our
enemies. Problem is that whats left over is worse than the original
problem.
>2) The US routinely condemns some nations for atrocities, but ignores
>others.
Not to mention our own or our allies. John Howards immigration
policies would be considered terrible if Saddam had them
>3) The US has crippled the UN and its ability to act in Israel.
Not just Israel, anyway
>4) The US should have waited for the UN to come to a decision to act.
>
>>
>> The US' movites are not an issue for me here, the fact that a brutal
>> dicatator and his evil sons, who tortured and murdered their own
>> people and were bound to cause problems for the west at sometime in
>> the future, are removed from power is what I care about.
But that's not the stated reason for war. Bush lied thru his teeth to
Congress about the Iraqi threat to American (and other English
speaking countries) and WOMD. I laugh at the attempts by the
embarrassed right wing to skirt that issue and try and tell us how
great it is Saddam is gone (which it is) and that WOMD lies are of "no
never mind" anymore.
>
>**Unfortunately, in the real world, the process is just as important as the
>outcome. In the case of Iraq, the process was illegal.
>
>>
>> So what if there are problems in other countries? I would fully
>> support similar actions there.
>
>**China has regularly killed and tortured its citizens and those of other
>countries. In fact, they still are. North Korea is torturing and killing its
>own citizens as we speak. Iraq murdered its own citizens (the Kurds) using
>WMD but the world did absolutely nothing. The civil war in Rwanda killed
>hundreds of thousands, but the world did nothing. Israel is regularly
>murdering its own citizens. The list is long.Only when US interests are
>threatened, does the US act. Personally, I can see nothing wrong with such
>an approach. What the US needs to do is simply admit that fact, rather than
>cover it up with a lie.
>
>>
>> Your argument about Rwanda, North Korea etc, makes about as much sense
>> as arguing that Chocolate Ice Cream doesn't taste nice with a cry of
>> "What about Vanilla, Rum Rasin and Neopolitan??!!?!" because I don't
>> happen to be eating them at the moment.
>
>**Why? It goes to the heart of the matter. It simply shows that US foreign
>policy has no bearing on the well-being of other nations. The US only cares
>about the US. Again, I have njo problem with that. Let's not dress it up
>though. The US attacked Iraq, to secure reasonably priced oil for the US.
>Nothing more.
I think Bush's EGO is in there someplace too. Those very unstable
comments about Saddam being "the man that tried to kill my Daddy" had
the psychology community very worried.
>
>>
>> Because other things have been left undone, does not automatically
>> make another thing bad.
>
>**Sure it does. Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with the reasons given. It
>was about cheap oil.
Probably one of the reasons but another big one is the need for
politicians to be seen to be doing something. He failed to get Bin
Laden in Afghanistan (and now that country is falling apart again) so
he needed something to cover that failure up. Plus you have dark
shadowy figures like Wolfowitz and the other neocons who have wanted a
war with Iraq for many years and couldn't get it under Clinton, who
have been whispering in the AWOL presidents ear. It might also be as
some kind of cover up for his disgracefull military service during
Viet Nam.
THOM
>
>
>--
>Trevor Wilson
>www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
>
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:18:16 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
<me@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f21a4d1$1@no-spam
>>
>> "Mike Price" <mickp@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:pq22iv0i9mhak62a5nhn14imak2sgr3maq@no-spam
>> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:42:47 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> > <trevor@no-spam> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Inaction and allowing Saddam to continue to murder his people would
>be
>> > >> a far greater crime than the deaths during the war.
>> > >
>> > >**What? Like the inaction during the mass murder in Rwanda? Or the mass
>> > >murder in Kampuchia? Or the mass murder in Tibet (still going on)? Or
>the
>> > >mass murder in North Korea? The US did not act to protect the Iraqi
>> people.
>> > >It should not pretend to do so.
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> The real shame about this whole affair is not about the validity of
>> > >> reports of WMD or otherwise, but why the UN was allowed to blunder
>> > >> along for some many years, while so many suffered and died at the
>> > >> hands of a brutal dictator, when it could have been over as quickly
>> > >> and relitively cleanly (considering the size and implications of the
>> > >> invasion) as this.
>> > >
>> > >**Well, yes. One could say that Saddam should have been routed, back in
>> > >1990. Or he should never have been supported by the US, in the first
>> place.
>> > >The real problem are the inequities which are built into the UN. It is
>> > >hamstrung by various veto powers of some nations.
>> >
>> > Trevor, your "IF THEY DID THAT, THEN HOW COME THEY DIDNT DO THAT OTHER
>> > THING?" reply is typical of the crap sort of debates you get on this
>> > newsgroup.
>>
>> **Because it goes to the very heart of the matter. The US needs to act
>> fairly, honestly and without favour, if it wants to be taken seriously by
>> the rest of the world. So far, its foreign policy is bereft of moral
>reason
>> and long term vision.
>
>
>No you do.
>
>you are a compulsive liar and a bit of a slow learner
so you believe that the US doesn't need to act fairly, honestly and
without favour? We should just go invading who and where we like,
like Hitler???
By the way Mr. Jones
where are the WOMD?..... still waiting
where are Bin Laden and Saddam?...... still waiting
THOM
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > It is impossible to be somewhere in the middle ground between full
>> > support of the US and rabid hatred of the US.
>>
>> **For me, personally, I don't hate the US. I have some nice American
>friends
>> and some of their politicians have some good, common sense. Unfortunately,
>> nobody seems to have figured out any kind of logical foreign policy in the
>> US.
>>
>> >
>> > How does the fact that attrocities are going on in other countries
>> > somehow make the liberation of Iraq a bad thing? Is it bad because it
>> > is not fair on those other countries?
>>
>> **Nope. The problem of Iraq is several-fold:
>> 1) The US is at least partially responsible for Saddam's rise to power.
>> 2) The US routinely condemns some nations for atrocities, but ignores
>> others.
>> 3) The US has crippled the UN and its ability to act in Israel.
>> 4) The US should have waited for the UN to come to a decision to act.
>>
>> >
>> > The US' movites are not an issue for me here, the fact that a brutal
>> > dicatator and his evil sons, who tortured and murdered their own
>> > people and were bound to cause problems for the west at sometime in
>> > the future, are removed from power is what I care about.
>>
>> **Unfortunately, in the real world, the process is just as important as
>the
>> outcome. In the case of Iraq, the process was illegal.
>>
>> >
>> > So what if there are problems in other countries? I would fully
>> > support similar actions there.
>>
>> **China has regularly killed and tortured its citizens and those of other
>> countries. In fact, they still are. North Korea is torturing and killing
>its
>> own citizens as we speak. Iraq murdered its own citizens (the Kurds) using
>> WMD but the world did absolutely nothing. The civil war in Rwanda killed
>> hundreds of thousands, but the world did nothing. Israel is regularly
>> murdering its own citizens. The list is long.Only when US interests are
>> threatened, does the US act. Personally, I can see nothing wrong with such
>> an approach. What the US needs to do is simply admit that fact, rather
>than
>> cover it up with a lie.
>>
>> >
>> > Your argument about Rwanda, North Korea etc, makes about as much sense
>> > as arguing that Chocolate Ice Cream doesn't taste nice with a cry of
>> > "What about Vanilla, Rum Rasin and Neopolitan??!!?!" because I don't
>> > happen to be eating them at the moment.
>>
>> **Why? It goes to the heart of the matter. It simply shows that US foreign
>> policy has no bearing on the well-being of other nations. The US only
>cares
>> about the US. Again, I have njo problem with that. Let's not dress it up
>> though. The US attacked Iraq, to secure reasonably priced oil for the US.
>> Nothing more.
>>
>> >
>> > Because other things have been left undone, does not automatically
>> > make another thing bad.
>>
>> **Sure it does. Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with the reasons given.
>It
>> was about cheap oil.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>>
>>
>>
>
>
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:00:05 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
<me@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Thom" <thomandpam@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f231dd5.4106478@no-spam
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:07:55 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
>> <me@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >news:3f1f717d@no-spam
>> >>
>> >> "Dumb-as-dogshit Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> news:3f1f5fdd@no-spam
>> >> >
>> >> > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> > news:3f1f438e@no-spam
>> >> > >
>> >> > > "Dumb-as-dogshit Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in
>message
>> >> > > news:3f1f3c74@no-spam
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> > > > news:3f1f0b92@no-spam
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > "Dumb-as-a-rock Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> > > > > news:3f1df259$2@no-spam
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> > > > > > news:3f1de2ae@no-spam
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > "Dumb-as-a-rock Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote
>in
>> >> > > message
>> >> > > > > > > news:3f1dde75$1@no-spam
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > "amadis" <amadis@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> > > > > > > > news:bfkkg6$f8u$1@no-spam
>> >> > > > > > > > > Mosley Jones III meant to write:
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Its a sad day for the far right loonies every where.
>as
>> >> Uday
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > > > > Qusay
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Hussain were killed today.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Since they were members of the Baarth Socialist party and
>> >that
>> >> > the
>> >> > > > > left
>> >> > > > > > > > supported them staying in power I think you pulling your
>> >dick
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > **Which left wing politicians supported them staying in
>power?
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > George Galloway for a start
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > **What has George Galloway got to do with Australian politics?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > you asked a question and could not cope with the answer.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > **Sure I did. You answered my question by telling me that some
>> >obscure,
>> >> > > Pommy politician supported Saddam. Fine by me. That one, lone
>nutcase,
>> >> > Pommy
>> >> > > politician supports Saddam means very little.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Most of the ALP, the Greens and the Democrats, they were all aginst
>> >> removing
>> >> > Saddam.
>> >>
>> >> **You complete and utter moron. The ALP, the Greens, the Democrats AND
>75%
>> >> of the Australian population (and the majority of the US population,
>for
>> >> that matter) were against an ILLEGAL invasion of Iraq.
>> >
>> >
>> >Absolute lies
>> >
>> >What fucking crap.
>> >
>> >their was no ileagle invasion
>>
>> all invasions are illegal without UN Sanction
>
>
>crap, your a liar
can't be a liar, I'n not a republican.
>
>what law is this
>
>evidence or admit I caught you lying?
In a modern world we have this world body called the UN. The UN
Charter may be found at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ for your
enlightenment.
I have no problem with Saddam going down but we should have declared
war first, put in the price controls that go along with that and then
moved in that way since we didn't have the approval of the world body.
Please tell me what the difference was between us moving into Iraq and
Saddam moving into Kuwait? Or us invading Ghranda???
Also remember as C-in-C Bush has the right under standing law to
initiate such action only for 90 days without a declaration of war and
140 days later we are still fighting and dieing.
The current action is playing games with the War Powers Act of 1973
and twisting things to their own ends.
For your education I present the War Powers Act of 1973
_______________
The War Powers Act of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United
States of America in
Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers
Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent
of the framers of the Constitution of
the United States and insure that the collective judgement of
both the Congress and the
President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed
Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicate by the circumstances,
and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such
situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is
specifically provided that the Congress
shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for
carrying into execution, not
only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the
Constitution in the Government
of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief
to introduce United
States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where
imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are
exercised only pursuant to (1) a
declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3)
a national emergency created
by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions,
or its armed forces.
CONSULTATION
SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with
Congress before introducing
United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation
where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after
every such introduction shall
consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed
Forces are no longer engaged
in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
REPORTING
Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which
United States Armed Forces are
introduced--
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent
involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation,
while equipped for combat,
except for deployments which relate solely to supply,
replacement, repair, or training
of such forces; or
(3)
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of
United States Armed
Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under
which such introduction took
place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or
involvement.
Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the
Congress may request in the
fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect
to committing the Nation to war
and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into
hostilities or into any situation
described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall,
so long as such armed forces
continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report
to the Congress periodically on
the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the
scope and duration of such
hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the
Congress less often than once
every six months.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
SEC. 5. (a)
Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be
transmitted to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the
Senate on the same
calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the
Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the
Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is
transmitted, the Congress has adjourned
sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three
calendar days, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the
Senate, if they deem it
advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the
membership of their respective
Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress
in order that it may consider
the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.
SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is
required to be submitted
pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President
shall terminate any
use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such
report was submitted
(or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has
declared war or has
enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States
Armed Forces, (2) has
extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically
unable to meet as a
result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day
period shall be
extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the
President determines and
certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military
necessity respecting
the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued
use of such armed
forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such
forces.
SEC. 5. (c)
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States
Armed Forces are engaged in
hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its
possessions and territories without a
declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such
forces shall be removed by the
President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR
JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL
SEC. 6. (a)
Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b)
at least thirty calendar days
before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such
section shall be referred to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or
the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee
shall report one such joint
resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later
than twenty-four calendar
days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in
such section, unless such
House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (b)
Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending
business of the House in
question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be
equally divided between the
proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three
calendar days thereafter,
unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (c)
Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be
referred to the committee of the
other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not
later than fourteen
calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period
specified in section 5(b). The
joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending
business of the House in
question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after
it has been reported, unless
such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC 6. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of
Congress with respect to a joint
resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be
promptly appointed and the
committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect
to such resolution or bill
not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the
sixty-day period specified in
section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree
within 48 hours, they shall report
back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding
any rule in either House
concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or
concerning any delay in the
consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by
both Houses not later than
the expiration of such sixty-day period.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
SEC. 7. (a)
Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at
least thirty calendar days
before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such
section shall be referred to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or
the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such
concurrent resolution shall be
reported out by such committee together with its recommendations
within fifteen calendar
days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and
nays.
SEC. 7. (b)
Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending
business of the House in
question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be
equally divided between the
proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three
calendar days thereafter,
unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (c)
Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be
referred to the committee of the
other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by
such committee together
with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall
thereupon become the
pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three
calendar days after it has
been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by
yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of
Congress with respect to a
concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be
promptly appointed and
the committee of conference shall make and file a report with
respect to such concurrent
resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is
referred to the committee of
conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning
the printing of conference
reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the
consideration of such reports, such
report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six
calendar days after the conference
report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree
within 48 hours, they shall
report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
SEC. 8. (a)
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into
hostilities or into situations wherein
involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1)
from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before
the date of the enactment of
this joint resolution), including any provision contained in
any appropriation Act,
unless such provision specifically authorizes the
introduction of United States Armed
Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating
that it is intended to constitute
specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this
joint resolution; or
(2)
from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such
treaty is implemented by
legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of
United States Armed Forces into
hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is
intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint
resolution.
SEC. 8. (b)
Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require
any further specific statutory
authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to
participate jointly with
members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in
the headquarters
operations of high-level military commands which were established
prior to the date of
enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United
Nations Charter or any treaty
ratified by the United States prior to such date.
SEC 8. (c)
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of
United States Armed Forces"
includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to
command, coordinate,
participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or
irregular military forces of any
foreign country or government when such military forces are
engaged, or there exists an
imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in
hostilities.
SEC. 8. (d)
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1)
is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the
Congress or of the President, or
the provision of existing treaties; or
(2)
shall be construed as granting any authority to the
President with respect to the
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities
or into situations wherein
involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances which authority he
would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application
thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution
and the application of such
provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected
thereby.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its
enactment.
CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 7, 1973.
The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the
resolution (H. J. Res 542)
entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and
the President", returned by
the President of the United States with his objections, to the House
of Representatives, in which it
originated, it was
Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of
Representatives agreeing to
pass the same.
Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.
I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of
Representatives.
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 7, 1973
The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J.
Res. 542) entitled "Joint
resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President",
returned by the President of
the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives,
in which it originate, it was
Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the
Senators present having voted in the
affirmative.
Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO
Secretary.
Acknowledgments
This file obtained from byrd.mu.wvnet.edu
Contributed by: "Andrew M. Ross" <aross@no-spam>
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:17 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
<me@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Thom" <thomandpam@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f232230.5221507@no-spam
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:44:50 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <trevor@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mike Price" <mickp@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >news:pq22iv0i9mhak62a5nhn14imak2sgr3maq@no-spam
>> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:42:47 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> >> <trevor@no-spam> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Inaction and allowing Saddam to continue to murder his people would
>be
>> >> >> a far greater crime than the deaths during the war.
>> >> >
>> >> >**What? Like the inaction during the mass murder in Rwanda? Or the
>mass
>> >> >murder in Kampuchia? Or the mass murder in Tibet (still going on)? Or
>the
>> >> >mass murder in North Korea? The US did not act to protect the Iraqi
>> >people.
>> >> >It should not pretend to do so.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The real shame about this whole affair is not about the validity of
>> >> >> reports of WMD or otherwise, but why the UN was allowed to blunder
>> >> >> along for some many years, while so many suffered and died at the
>> >> >> hands of a brutal dictator, when it could have been over as quickly
>> >> >> and relitively cleanly (considering the size and implications of the
>> >> >> invasion) as this.
>> >> >
>> >> >**Well, yes. One could say that Saddam should have been routed, back
>in
>> >> >1990. Or he should never have been supported by the US, in the first
>> >place.
>> >> >The real problem are the inequities which are built into the UN. It is
>> >> >hamstrung by various veto powers of some nations.
>> >>
>> >> Trevor, your "IF THEY DID THAT, THEN HOW COME THEY DIDNT DO THAT OTHER
>> >> THING?" reply is typical of the crap sort of debates you get on this
>> >> newsgroup.
>> >
>> >**Because it goes to the very heart of the matter. The US needs to act
>> >fairly, honestly and without favour, if it wants to be taken seriously by
>> >the rest of the world. So far, its foreign policy is bereft of moral
>reason
>> >and long term vision.
>>
>> One should separate Bush's screw ups from American screw ups.
>
>
>you should proved evidence of them first
>
>in fact you should see evidence before believing the shit yourself, your a
>idiot
can't be, I didn't vote for AWOL Bush. I was too busy polishing my
medals from Nam much like Dubbya polishes his empty beer can
collection (personally emptied).
Evidence can be the lack of it too. I see a lack of truth on WOMD and
Yellow Cake from Africa. I see lack of truth about his military
record. I see lack of any effort to repeal the illegal and
unconstitutional gun control laws and it must drive your epublicans
absolutely crazy to have a republican president that won't do that!
But then again Ronnie or Bush 41 kept the laws didn't they so we see
that republicans talk a lot about freedom but unless its about
corporate freedom all you hear is Reagans snoring.
Why hasn't pretzel boy kept his promise to the 3 million members of
the NRA and dumped all these illegal laws??? Why did he lie to the
members of the NRA??
THOM
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> It is impossible to be somewhere in the middle ground between full
>> >> support of the US and rabid hatred of the US.
>> >
>> >**For me, personally, I don't hate the US. I have some nice American
>friends
>> >and some of their politicians have some good, common sense.
>Unfortunately,
>> >nobody seems to have figured out any kind of logical foreign policy in
>the
>> >US.
>>
>> Its a simple policy, if it makes us money its a good policy. Is Bush
>> willing to give back to Australia all the wheat sales to Iraq he took
>> during the war? American wheat is now what they eat. When we
>> complain Bush just says "shut up and eat your sheep".
>> >
>> >>
>> >> How does the fact that attrocities are going on in other countries
>> >> somehow make the liberation of Iraq a bad thing? Is it bad because it
>> >> is not fair on those other countries?
>> >
>> >**Nope. The problem of Iraq is several-fold:
>> >1) The US is at least partially responsible for Saddam's rise to power.
>>
>> More than partially. America has this terrible problem of supporting
>> right wing mad men if they are anti-communist or will fight our
>> enemies. Problem is that whats left over is worse than the original
>> problem.
>>
>> >2) The US routinely condemns some nations for atrocities, but ignores
>> >others.
>>
>> Not to mention our own or our allies. John Howards immigration
>> policies would be considered terrible if Saddam had them
>>
>> >3) The US has crippled the UN and its ability to act in Israel.
>>
>> Not just Israel, anyway
>>
>> >4) The US should have waited for the UN to come to a decision to act.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The US' movites are not an issue for me here, the fact that a brutal
>> >> dicatator and his evil sons, who tortured and murdered their own
>> >> people and were bound to cause problems for the west at sometime in
>> >> the future, are removed from power is what I care about.
>>
>> But that's not the stated reason for war. Bush lied thru his teeth to
>> Congress about the Iraqi threat to American (and other English
>> speaking countries) and WOMD. I laugh at the attempts by the
>> embarrassed right wing to skirt that issue and try and tell us how
>> great it is Saddam is gone (which it is) and that WOMD lies are of "no
>> never mind" anymore.
>> >
>> >**Unfortunately, in the real world, the process is just as important as
>the
>> >outcome. In the case of Iraq, the process was illegal.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So what if there are problems in other countries? I would fully
>> >> support similar actions there.
>> >
>> >**China has regularly killed and tortured its citizens and those of other
>> >countries. In fact, they still are. North Korea is torturing and killing
>its
>> >own citizens as we speak. Iraq murdered its own citizens (the Kurds)
>using
>> >WMD but the world did absolutely nothing. The civil war in Rwanda killed
>> >hundreds of thousands, but the world did nothing. Israel is regularly
>> >murdering its own citizens. The list is long.Only when US interests are
>> >threatened, does the US act. Personally, I can see nothing wrong with
>such
>> >an approach. What the US needs to do is simply admit that fact, rather
>than
>> >cover it up with a lie.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Your argument about Rwanda, North Korea etc, makes about as much sense
>> >> as arguing that Chocolate Ice Cream doesn't taste nice with a cry of
>> >> "What about Vanilla, Rum Rasin and Neopolitan??!!?!" because I don't
>> >> happen to be eating them at the moment.
>> >
>> >**Why? It goes to the heart of the matter. It simply shows that US
>foreign
>> >policy has no bearing on the well-being of other nations. The US only
>cares
>> >about the US. Again, I have njo problem with that. Let's not dress it up
>> >though. The US attacked Iraq, to secure reasonably priced oil for the US.
>> >Nothing more.
>>
>> I think Bush's EGO is in there someplace too. Those very unstable
>> comments about Saddam being "the man that tried to kill my Daddy" had
>> the psychology community very worried.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Because other things have been left undone, does not automatically
>> >> make another thing bad.
>> >
>> >**Sure it does. Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with the reasons given.
>It
>> >was about cheap oil.
>>
>> Probably one of the reasons but another big one is the need for
>> politicians to be seen to be doing something. He failed to get Bin
>> Laden in Afghanistan (and now that country is falling apart again) so
>> he needed something to cover that failure up. Plus you have dark
>> shadowy figures like Wolfowitz and the other neocons who have wanted a
>> war with Iraq for many years and couldn't get it under Clinton, who
>> have been whispering in the AWOL presidents ear. It might also be as
>> some kind of cover up for his disgracefull military service during
>> Viet Nam.
>>
>> THOM
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Trevor Wilson
>> >www.rageaudio.com.au
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:30:22 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
<me@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Thom" <thomandpam@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f23257a.6063762@no-spam
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:18:16 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
>> <me@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >news:3f21a4d1$1@no-spam
>> >>
>> >> "Mike Price" <mickp@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> news:pq22iv0i9mhak62a5nhn14imak2sgr3maq@no-spam
>> >> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:42:47 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> >> > <trevor@no-spam> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >> Inaction and allowing Saddam to continue to murder his people
>would
>> >be
>> >> > >> a far greater crime than the deaths during the war.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >**What? Like the inaction during the mass murder in Rwanda? Or the
>mass
>> >> > >murder in Kampuchia? Or the mass murder in Tibet (still going on)?
>Or
>> >the
>> >> > >mass murder in North Korea? The US did not act to protect the Iraqi
>> >> people.
>> >> > >It should not pretend to do so.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> The real shame about this whole affair is not about the validity
>of
>> >> > >> reports of WMD or otherwise, but why the UN was allowed to blunder
>> >> > >> along for some many years, while so many suffered and died at the
>> >> > >> hands of a brutal dictator, when it could have been over as
>quickly
>> >> > >> and relitively cleanly (considering the size and implications of
>the
>> >> > >> invasion) as this.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >**Well, yes. One could say that Saddam should have been routed, back
>in
>> >> > >1990. Or he should never have been supported by the US, in the first
>> >> place.
>> >> > >The real problem are the inequities which are built into the UN. It
>is
>> >> > >hamstrung by various veto powers of some nations.
>> >> >
>> >> > Trevor, your "IF THEY DID THAT, THEN HOW COME THEY DIDNT DO THAT
>OTHER
>> >> > THING?" reply is typical of the crap sort of debates you get on this
>> >> > newsgroup.
>> >>
>> >> **Because it goes to the very heart of the matter. The US needs to act
>> >> fairly, honestly and without favour, if it wants to be taken seriously
>by
>> >> the rest of the world. So far, its foreign policy is bereft of moral
>> >reason
>> >> and long term vision.
>> >
>> >
>> >No you do.
>> >
>> >you are a compulsive liar and a bit of a slow learner
>>
>> so you believe that the US doesn't need to act fairly,
>
>never said that
>
>
>honestly and
>> without favour?
>
>never said it
>
>
> We should just go invading who and where we like,
>> like Hitler???
>>
>
>or saddam, no they dont do that
Saddam Whosucks had a war with Iran (with our blessings) and invaded
Kuwait. We have invaded Iraq, Ghranada, Afghanistan, Kuwait plus
these little actions in Africa and Central America during that same
time. We are calling the kettle black.
>
>
>
>
>
>> By the way Mr. Jones
>> where are the WOMD?..... still waiting
>
>that's why we attracted he never told us where they are , he never destoyed
>them
or never had them? Where are they? They have found NOTHING.
>
>
>
>> where are Bin Laden
>
>shitting his pants somewhere
well with all the victories he'se won against the freedom of the
American people like 9-11 and the various Patriot Acts that he tricked
idiot Bush into getting plus gun control I'd say except for
Afghanistan he'se doing pretty well.
>
>
>and Saddam?...... still waiting
>
>no dining with his sons
and how are the Bush brats? Not fighting like the idiot sons and
grandson were I notice and living under 100X's the security they were
last week I'll bet. Good that they big bad two were killed though.
I'd just like to see more chickenhawn off spring in Iraq though.
>
>
>Are you trying to say that saddam and bin laden never existed because they
>cant be found?
I'm asking why Bush the Great is so incompetant he can't find them?
he can find the bottle, he can find pretzels but he can't seem to find
them and the WOMD he justified the war with.
THOM
>
>
>>
>> THOM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > It is impossible to be somewhere in the middle ground between full
>> >> > support of the US and rabid hatred of the US.
>> >>
>> >> **For me, personally, I don't hate the US. I have some nice American
>> >friends
>> >> and some of their politicians have some good, common sense.
>Unfortunately,
>> >> nobody seems to have figured out any kind of logical foreign policy in
>the
>> >> US.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > How does the fact that attrocities are going on in other countries
>> >> > somehow make the liberation of Iraq a bad thing? Is it bad because
>it
>> >> > is not fair on those other countries?
>> >>
>> >> **Nope. The problem of Iraq is several-fold:
>> >> 1) The US is at least partially responsible for Saddam's rise to power.
>> >> 2) The US routinely condemns some nations for atrocities, but ignores
>> >> others.
>> >> 3) The US has crippled the UN and its ability to act in Israel.
>> >> 4) The US should have waited for the UN to come to a decision to act.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The US' movites are not an issue for me here, the fact that a brutal
>> >> > dicatator and his evil sons, who tortured and murdered their own
>> >> > people and were bound to cause problems for the west at sometime in
>> >> > the future, are removed from power is what I care about.
>> >>
>> >> **Unfortunately, in the real world, the process is just as important as
>> >the
>> >> outcome. In the case of Iraq, the process was illegal.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > So what if there are problems in other countries? I would fully
>> >> > support similar actions there.
>> >>
>> >> **China has regularly killed and tortured its citizens and those of
>other
>> >> countries. In fact, they still are. North Korea is torturing and
>killing
>> >its
>> >> own citizens as we speak. Iraq murdered its own citizens (the Kurds)
>using
>> >> WMD but the world did absolutely nothing. The civil war in Rwanda
>killed
>> >> hundreds of thousands, but the world did nothing. Israel is regularly
>> >> murdering its own citizens. The list is long.Only when US interests are
>> >> threatened, does the US act. Personally, I can see nothing wrong with
>such
>> >> an approach. What the US needs to do is simply admit that fact, rather
>> >than
>> >> cover it up with a lie.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Your argument about Rwanda, North Korea etc, makes about as much
>sense
>> >> > as arguing that Chocolate Ice Cream doesn't taste nice with a cry of
>> >> > "What about Vanilla, Rum Rasin and Neopolitan??!!?!" because I don't
>> >> > happen to be eating them at the moment.
>> >>
>> >> **Why? It goes to the heart of the matter. It simply shows that US
>foreign
>> >> policy has no bearing on the well-being of other nations. The US only
>> >cares
>> >> about the US. Again, I have njo problem with that. Let's not dress it
>up
>> >> though. The US attacked Iraq, to secure reasonably priced oil for the
>US.
>> >> Nothing more.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Because other things have been left undone, does not automatically
>> >> > make another thing bad.
>> >>
>> >> **Sure it does. Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with the reasons
>given.
>> >It
>> >> was about cheap oil.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Trevor Wilson
>> >> www.rageaudio.com.au
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:17:06 +0100, Greg Hennessy
<spamcatcher@no-spam> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:30:32 GMT, thomandpam@no-spam (Thom) wrote:
>
>
>> not hunted
>>down and killed like the Nazi's did with Jews.
>
>
>You are one sick, miserable twisted excuse for a human being to claim that
>the two are even remotely equivalent.
I can't be a miserable twisted excuse for a human, I'm not a
republican.
Look moron, chickenhawks like you have no idea what a war is like and
one of the few good things about war is that there is supposed to be a
set of rules by which you operate to keep it less vicious. These are
outlined in the Geneva convention. I TOTALLY disagree with the policy
of targeting a leader and especially his family and that includes
Saddam and his evil spawn and Bush and his drunken spawn. If the
world has a beef with a leader then there such a thing as a trial.
What Bush is into is the killing of non-combatants because of their
status. Hitler (for much sicker political reasons) targeted a group
of non-combatants (called Jews, Gypsies etc) because of their status.
Does the fact that they are both right wingers also strike any cords
for you? Even those right wing nut cases on 911 didn't go for Bush or
his family though we don't know the target of the plane lost over
central PA.
I don't care how bad a dictator is, if their family is non-combatant
then their destiny lies in the courts. That's what being civilized is
all about. You will notice that when the FBI gores after organized
crime they don't go out and kill the families do they? (we won't
include WACO in that statement).
This whole war is insane, the WOMD are a huge lie and now we're acting
like animals, our kids are dieing and those that aren't are scared
shitless half the time when they should be home with their families.
You go tell the families of those GI's that its OK for their kids to
die in retaliation for the evil spawn being killed and come back and
tell us what they said.
THOM
Viet Nam Vet (unlike ALL of the chicken hawks that make up the Bush
administration)
>
>
>
>greg
>
>--
>$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@no-spam # Delete everything after the '@no-spam
>Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
>Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
>She'll chew you up, ain't no lie
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:03:35 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
<me@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Thom" <thomandpam@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f231d4b.3967817@no-spam
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 05:41:18 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <trevor@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dumb-as-dogshit Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >news:3f1f5fdd@no-spam
>> >>
>> >> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> news:3f1f438e@no-spam
>> >> >
>> >> > "Dumb-as-dogshit Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in
>message
>> >> > news:3f1f3c74@no-spam
>> >> > >
>> >> > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> > > news:3f1f0b92@no-spam
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > "Dumb-as-a-rock Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in
>> >message
>> >> > > > news:3f1df259$2@no-spam
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> > > > > news:3f1de2ae@no-spam
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > "Dumb-as-a-rock Mosley Jones III" <me@no-spam> wrote in
>> >> > message
>> >> > > > > > news:3f1dde75$1@no-spam
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > "amadis" <amadis@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> > > > > > > news:bfkkg6$f8u$1@no-spam
>> >> > > > > > > > Mosley Jones III meant to write:
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > Its a sad day for the far right loonies every where. as
>> >Uday
>> >> > and
>> >> > > > > Qusay
>> >> > > > > > > > > Hussain were killed today.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Since they were members of the Baarth Socialist party and
>that
>> >> the
>> >> > > > left
>> >> > > > > > > supported them staying in power I think you pulling your
>dick
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > **Which left wing politicians supported them staying in
>power?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > George Galloway for a start
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > **What has George Galloway got to do with Australian politics?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > you asked a question and could not cope with the answer.
>> >> >
>> >> > **Sure I did. You answered my question by telling me that some
>obscure,
>> >> > Pommy politician supported Saddam. Fine by me. That one, lone
>nutcase,
>> >> Pommy
>> >> > politician supports Saddam means very little.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Most of the ALP, the Greens and the Democrats, they were all aginst
>> >removing
>> >> Saddam.
>> >
>> >**You complete and utter moron. The ALP, the Greens, the Democrats AND
>75%
>> >of the Australian population (and the majority of the US population, for
>> >that matter) were against an ILLEGAL invasion of Iraq. none were against
>the
>> >removal of Saddam, per se. It was the method of removal, that they had
>> >(rightfully) issues with. All agreed that if the UN could come to
>agreement,
>> >that such an invasion could take place. Your inability to comprehend even
>> >the broadest issues, is simply breathtaking.
>> >
>> >Please try to make use of your remaining 15 functioning neurons.
>>
>> When Australian troops went to East Timor to clearn up the mess left
>> by the Yanks
>
>the mean the Australian labor party
Nope, the roots of the Timore thing go back to when we allowed if not
encourage the Indonesians to invade and occupy Timore in 1976 on the
grounds of preventing Communism! I have no idea who was PM in 1976 in
Australia.
thom
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:29:15 +0100, Greg Hennessy
<spamcatcher@no-spam> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 02:25:37 GMT, thomandpam@no-spam (Thom) wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>>I can't be a miserable twisted excuse for a human, I'm not a
>>>>republican.
>>>
>>>Attempting to deflect attention away from your morally bankrupt oneliner
>>>wont work fscknut.
>>
>>you mean like the Bushies who try and deflect attention away from the
>>WOMD lies by saying it was really about liberation and getting ride of
>>Saddam???
>
>This is my answer to your unqualified support for a mass murdering
>dictatorship.
I won't bother to go to your silly link simply because of your opening
statement. There's two mass murdering dictators I don't support, Bush
and Saddam. I consider them both what you would pick up on your shoes
in a field full of cows.
>
>http://www.normangeras.blogspot.com/2003_07_27_normangeras_archive.html#105948316257163866
snip snip becvause its not relivant
>I hope you choke on it.
not really because Saddam and Bush are evil hold overs from the 20th
and 19th centuries.
>
>
>> You seemed to be wanting to protect either Hitler or
>>Bush... are you a nazi???
>>
>
>Given you're the one who made the original inane comparison and seem to
>have forgotten you did I am very tempted to invoke godwins law, however
>given your deeply disturbed take on reality I'd doubt you'd understand.
Understanding anything the republicans think or say requires massive
doses of LSD or Coors. You then enter the same state of mind and like
pink elephants, everything is funny.
>
>
>>I was attached to the 13th Recon in 1966 and the 6470th recon in 1967.
>>The 13th had people in Ton Son Nhute, Da Nang and Udorn while the
>>6470th was out of Ton Son Nhute only. After Nam I was sent to
>>Hamilton AFB with the 76th FIS (F-101B's) and after a year with them I
>>was 2 years reserve in Denver.... unlike the chickenhawks.... 6 years
>>total.
>
>No 'Thom', I know for a *fact* you spent your entire tour living the
>comfortable life of a Rear Echelon Mother F*cker sat in an air conditioned
>office analysing photo recon intelligence, while those from a less
>privileged position were *actually* meeting Charles face to face in the
>boonies and bleeding and dying as a consequence.
well first of all you show yourself for what you are...ignorant of
Viet Nam. NO ONE was behind the lines. Next, your damned right there
were worse off than me and my hats off to them. I see you've learned
to use a search engine. and putting in my units does come up with
results including me! And your a fool because I never did any
analysing as you say, I was a combat and recon photographer, AFSC
23250, the interp people were a different AFSC. Most of my 6470th
time was inside and those folks were upstairs if memory serves me. I
never really did much field stuff after January 67. But unlike you
details like that are on my website. and your military record is?
You are really desperate to defame others in order to save your
chickhawk hide aren't you. Basically heres the facts. Anyone who
served in any capacity in Viet Nam (including the cooks who tried to
kill more GI's than the VC) are 10,000X's more honorable than any
draft dodger, evader or country leaver. I consider the guys from my
bases that just worked in the post office to have more guts than the
likes of Cheney, Clinton or Bush. Unlike these people, they served
honorably.
You see my friend, Viet Nam vets have this thing about brotherhood.
We don'r care what you did, where you were, what rank you were or what
branch you were in, "welcome home brother" is the same for all. In a
way its like an extension of the USO thing. You would go for a good
time (such as the San Francisco USO) and argue with the "airdales',
"swobbies", "Grunts", "Anchor Clankers" etc but the second someone
stuck their head in the door and yelled "GI in a fight" all that was
forgotten and we were all out the door to help no matter who they
were.
Personally I think the medics had it the worst and after sitting in
on some special medicas PTSD groups no one will ever convince me
otherwise. Just the picking up the body parts thing alone gets to me.
because we know what the Nam was like we know what Iraq is like. We
don't want our kids there and if they must go then this time everybody
should go including the Bush and Cheney brats. But we will never see
them or any kids of the rich and connected there will we.
Now while your looking on the search engines look up Xmas eve 1966
just for starters and see the reference to the attack on our compound
(thats the biggest one). Then talk to other Air Force types who had
bases hit, bombs planted etc. Ask them about the horrors and the
parties, the good and bad times, the excitement and the boredom. Ask
them why all the vehicals we used had heavy wire mesh on all the
windows. You might learn something about war.... then go tell Cheney
and Bush, they might learn something. When your done there then go
pay a visit to the VA hospital and talk to the folks there suffering
from Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome problems.
>
>I also have it on good authority that despite all your 'Viet Nam Vet'
>posturing, your comfortable Air Force sinecure was classified *non*
>combatant. So give up your grizzled 'Viet Nam Vet' routine you liar its
>impressing no-one. You were in no more danger than anyone serving
>stateside.
I love this, KILL THE MESSENGER TIME. Please let us know what your
good authority is? Google?
And your service is? Did you serve with the anti-Viet Nam Spit on the
Vets Corps? Perhaps you sold dope on the various campus protests
during that time? Was it good training for today when you sit at work
and surf the net and news groups on your bosses time?
>
>
>I also have it on good authority Mr Mitty that the 13 jumps you refer to
>were *sport* jumps and had SFA to do with combat operations.
Please keep the sport jumps separate from the others and get the
numbers right. Yes I did jump for sport there and that fact is on
public record on the web. It wasn't like going to the local DZ on
sunday though. Perhaps the holes in the DZ at Ap Dong migh tell you a
few things about Russian 81mm mortars. And your service is?
>
>You have some cheek calling anyone a chickenhawk you odious little man when
>the worst wound you ever got out there was from the M.Os needle for the
>clap.
I love this, why don't you drop over and look at the scar on my lower
back and while your down there you can kiss my butt chickenhawk. :-)
Oh and if your wondering about the two times, the first time was
because we were climbing over the fence after hours and a Viet Guard
threw some bird shot at us (very embarrassing indeed) and the second
time I was running for the nearest hole like a very scared rabbit (and
I was scared) and caught a chunk of mortar round in the back.
Fortunately my gerry belt took most of the impact and the scar I have
is from the piece that did get thru and boy did it burn! So lets not
play the self-agrandesment card, it makes you sound like a fool. Tons
of us got BS wounds like that tha didn't merit a purple heart.
If you had been in Nam you would know that it was one insane day after
another and when it wasn't hell it was plain stupidity, some of it
helarious. But you weren't were you.
Oh and the clap thing, sorry I've never slept with a republican so I
never caught it. :-)
>
>So give it up you miserable freeloading PoS, claiming wholly undeserved
>credit and insight.
Nope I'll never give into a chicken hawk coward. Next time you want
to quote from my website please read the whole thing.. By the way who
is My Mitty, your pet shadow puppet???
Oh and the freeloading thing? Please explain. I get no VA pension,
am 9000 miles from the nearest VA hospital so I can't use it right
now, just what am I freeloading on ole chap?
Like the WOMD, we're still waiting for your estemed military record.
Or is it like Bush's,,,, the dog ate it?
By the way in regards to the "Little man" comment, you can't even get
that right, I'm 6'2".
Oh and the insight remark. What insight do you have since you never
served? Please also tell us the difference between Saddams
concentration camps and the ones Bush has in Cuba? Please tell us
what the GI's in Iraq are feeling and how their stomach turns every
time you hear a shot you weren't ready for? Please tell us what its
like when 3 of you and your humvee are suddenly surrounded by 50
civilians and you have no idea if they are friendly or not. Bush and
Cheney can't tell us because they avoided Viet Nam yet they are happy
to send other people to experience that, how nice of them.
>
>
>greg
Oh and by the way Greg, where are the WOMD? Still waiting
THOM
PS: one other small thing Greg, someone e-mailed me a bit ago about
your posting and asked why your masked. It seems that theres no real
path back to your provider and the "example.com" doesn't register in
Google. Nor does it come up as www.example.com. Why is that greg?
One also wonders where you get your good authority about me (in
Australia) from Spokane, Washington?
