«

vonroach <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:28:24 +1300, "jasmine"
> <> wrote:
>
> >Dubya, Rumsfeld and gang are war criminals who should be put behind bars
> >with Saddam.
>
> Opinion from a declared communist - Jazzy. ...snore...


I have been reading these posts for a while and never heard her
declare herself as a "communist"! she provided links and sources. You
supply smears. Why these wild accusations and lies? What is in this
for you Roach?


Dubya and Rumsfeld were certainly white washed by the media and the
various congressional committees (whose congressmen supported the
illegal invasion).

"Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Dude, give it up. If he doesn't realize that he's spouting nonsense by
> now, he never will.
>
> If he's as politally engaged as he seems he must know that five(5)
> independant investigations said that Bush did not lie.


'Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned
before the war that its Iraq claims were weak'

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/mai...hey_knew_0802/

--
U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03

By DOUGLAS JEHL

"Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> >
> > There likely are now...thanks to Bush. We know they likely moved in
after
> > Bush's bloody mess in Iraq. There was little connection, if any before
the
> > illegal (according to most legal experts) invasion.
>
> Except maybe for the training camps that Al Qaeda trained in and the
> visits from Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Qaeda's#2)there was little connection
> before the war... Geez!

GEEZ Michael this is a myth and simply a lie. NO evidence supports that
Saddam encouraged Al Qaeda training camps in any report our side the Looney
far right fantasy imagination. No evidence exist that Ayman al-Zawahiri
visdited Hussein any more thna men form Mars did!!! OK now I know that you
are troll like von raoch.

There is ample evidence that Iraq is in the middle of the world's richest
oil producing region.

>
> I'm glad you were able to poll most legal experts to determine the
> legality of the war.

"It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost international law
experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is correct (i.e.,
true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal.."

"Obviously, this dispute raises a legal question: "Whose opinion is correct,
and whose is incorrect?" Additionally, we should be asking ourselves: "Who
decides? (i.e., 'Whose jurisprudential opinion shall be dispositive for
purposes of resolving this dispute?')"

It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that
the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would
have to be the world's foremost experts in the field of international law.
Hence, the UN's chief and the coalition's leaders need to know how the
world's top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential
dispute. And we, the people, need to know who's right and who's wrong here.

Realistically, one cannot seriously expect the disputants -- much less their
national electorates -- to wade through numerous legal documents, most of
which contain rigorous and not-occasionally tedious reasoning, to find the
correct answer. Thus, it seems prudent to proceed directly to the world's
most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: "Was the Iraq
War legal, or illegal, under international law?"

And The World's Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world's foremost
experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential
consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of
Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]

Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive
wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars
of aggression.

And the experts' answer would hold true regardless of whether their
governing legal authority was: (A) the UN Security Council Resolutions that
were passed to implement the conflict-resolution provisions of the UN
Charter; or (B) prior treaties and juridical holdings which have long since
become general international law. [4]

Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves
that the experts' overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should
read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down
approximately one-fourth of the way, after you've clicked onto this ES
website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm "The Legality Of The
Iraq War" .) Why?

That document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international
law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law
Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion
concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large
body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd
drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior
to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international
law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their
joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would
constitute prosecutable war crimes.

Skeptical readers who don't regard this highly-authoritative conclusion as
an adequate answer are invited to undertake the legal reasoning for
themselves at the ES website. Note that every applicable Article in the UN
Charter, and every relevant UN Security Council Resolution, is cited and
analyzed therein. And readers who continue to scroll down the ES website
will find a succession of articles which summarize the opinions of
noteworthy individual experts on international law. These, too, strongly
confirm that the invasion of Iraq constituted an illegal war of aggression
under international law. [5]

Finally, ambitious readers will learn what non-credible source was most
responsible for propagating the fictitious pre-war claim that Saddam
Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC and the
Pentagon (hint: yet another uncredentialed neocon think-tanker from the
thoroughly-discredited American Enterprise Institute).

Three Conclusions It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost
international law experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is
correct (i.e., true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal; and

(2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing's" leaders is incorrect
(i.e., false) because their Iraq War was NOT legal.

(3) Therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons' self-delusional
groupthink mentality by learning to differentiate between fact and truth,
which are all-too-easily confused. For instance, it's an undeniable fact
that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been arguing along the campaign trail that
"The Iraq War was legal!" Nevertheless, the mere fact that they've been
vehemently arguing that point certainly does NOT make it true! Their
argument is flawed by a logical fallacy called an ipse dixit (i.e.,
"something asserted but not proved"). As we've already seen, their argument
is just plain WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW! Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney
are making a false argument (i.e., deceptively asserting something that is
untrue).

The Bottom Line Americans should reject the temptation to vote for Messrs.
Bush and Cheney, because: (1) both men were advised beforehand that their
decision to commence the invasion of Iraq would be blatantly illegal under
international law; (2) they invaded nonetheless, and now they're cynically
attempting to mislead the public again by falsely arguing that "The Iraq War
was legal!"; (3) however, their argument is legally-meritless nonsense --
the current equivalent of their earlier false argument that torture is a
legal method for the US military's interrogation of prisoners; (4) they've
repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for universal human rights and
democratic governance under the rule of law; and

(5) the 21st-century world isn't Tombstone's OK Corral and they certainly
aren't Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday -- however much they might wish us to
believe that they are! [6]

ENDNOTES

[1] Read this 9-16-04 PI article by clicking on these blue words:
http://www.politinfo.com/articles/ar...9_16_4815.html "UN Says
Nothing New In Annan's 'Illegal War' Comment". Also see this 9-17-04 GU
article, which contends that UN Secretary General Annan's statement wasn't
his long-held opinion, but is new and belated:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...306642,00.html "The War
Was Illegal"

[2] Read this 9-17-04 JO article by clicking on these blue words:
http://snipurl.com/94y0 "Bush Joins Coalition Leaders In Defending War
Against Iraq"

[3] Read the 9-15-04 ES's indispensable analysis by clicking on these blue
words: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm#TOP Legality of the Iraq
War. If the click-on doesn't link, paste this URL into your webserver:
http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm [Skeptical readers should not
read to confirm their biases, but instead should set their biases aside
until they've finished reading all of the legal arguments on this website,
which will take awhile.]

[4] There seems to be one relevant omission from the ES website. General
international law could have been be cited as an alternative basis for
proving the Iraq War's illegality by analyzing these authoritative
precedents: (A) the Kellogg-Briand Pact of Paris (192; and (B) the
Charters, Principles, Indictments, and Holdings from the International
Military Tribunals at Nüremberg and Tokyo (1945-4.

[5] Generally speaking, legal opinions offered by government attorneys are
NOT considered to be authoritative because: (a) they're drafted in the
adversarial mode of an advocate, often under self-interested political
pressure from the executive branch; (b) even at its best, their reasoning
tends toward casuistry, reflecting Cicero's injudicious maxim,"salus populi
suprema lex esto" (De Legibus, III, 3.8: "Let the welfare of the people be
the supreme law!" Or the Bushites' tortuous translation thereof: "We feel
that we can legally torture our prisoners now if it might save our people
later!"); and (c) for an apt example, see the history of the Third Reich's
attorneys Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, whose pre-war legal advice to
Reichsführer Hitler was that Germany could use the pretext of an imminent
threat to "preemptively" invade Poland, for which war crime they were both
tried, sentenced, and hanged to death by the International Military Tribunal
at Nüremberg. Note bene, Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush administration
"torture memo" attorneys Bybee, Chertoff, Gonzales, Haynes and Woo!

[6] Read Douglas Jehl's 9-16-4 CD/SPI article by clicking on these blue
words: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-02.htm "CIA Analysis
Holds Bleak Vision For Iraq's Future". Also see the 9-16-04 Dreyfuss Report
column: http://tompaine.com/archives/the_dreyfuss_report.php "Annan For
President"

Author: Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the
American Center for International Law ("ACIL"). <>

Maybe they forgot that the terms of the treaty that
> ended Gulf War '91 gave us the right to go back in again should Saddam
> not abide by the US and UN inspections and restrictions. Saddam gave the
> finger to the US and bribed the UN. Clinton should've done what Bush did
> years ago but he was too busy getting blow jobs from heavyset interns
> (after sticking cigars in her ****) and blowing up Aspirin factories
> when he wanted to turn the media's attention from him committing
> perjury.

"Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> >
> > There likely are now...thanks to Bush. We know they likely moved in
after
> > Bush's bloody mess in Iraq. There was little connection, if any before
the
> > illegal (according to most legal experts) invasion.
>
> Except maybe for the training camps that Al Qaeda trained in and the
> visits from Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Qaeda's#2)there was little connection
> before the war... Geez!
> Except maybe for the training camps that Al Qaeda trained in and the
> visits from Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Qaeda's#2)there was little connection
> before the war... Geez!

GEEZ Michael these examples are well known urban myths. NO evidence supports
that
Saddam encouraged Al Qaeda training camps in any report (outside the Looney
far right). No evidence exists that suggests that Ayman al-Zawahiri
visited Hussein !!!

However, there is ample evidence that Iraq is in the middle of the world's
richest
oil producing region.

>
> I'm glad you were able to poll most legal experts to determine the
> legality of the war.

"It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost international law
experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is correct (i.e.,
true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal.."

"Obviously, this dispute raises a legal question: "Whose opinion is correct,
and whose is incorrect?" Additionally, we should be asking ourselves: "Who
decides? (i.e., 'Whose jurisprudential opinion shall be dispositive for
purposes of resolving this dispute?')"

It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that
the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would
have to be the world's foremost experts in the field of international law.
Hence, the UN's chief and the coalition's leaders need to know how the
world's top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential
dispute. And we, the people, need to know who's right and who's wrong here.

Realistically, one cannot seriously expect the disputants -- much less their
national electorates -- to wade through numerous legal documents, most of
which contain rigorous and not-occasionally tedious reasoning, to find the
correct answer. Thus, it seems prudent to proceed directly to the world's
most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: "Was the Iraq
War legal, or illegal, under international law?"

And The World's Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world's foremost
experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential
consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of
Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]

Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive
wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars
of aggression.

And the experts' answer would hold true regardless of whether their
governing legal authority was: (A) the UN Security Council Resolutions that
were passed to implement the conflict-resolution provisions of the UN
Charter; or (B) prior treaties and juridical holdings which have long since
become general international law. [4]

Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves
that the experts' overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should
read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down
approximately one-fourth of the way, after you've clicked onto this ES
website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm "The Legality Of The
Iraq War" .) Why?

That document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international
law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law
Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion
concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large
body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd
drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior
to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international
law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their
joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would
constitute prosecutable war crimes.

Skeptical readers who don't regard this highly-authoritative conclusion as
an adequate answer are invited to undertake the legal reasoning for
themselves at the ES website. Note that every applicable Article in the UN
Charter, and every relevant UN Security Council Resolution, is cited and
analyzed therein. And readers who continue to scroll down the ES website
will find a succession of articles which summarize the opinions of
noteworthy individual experts on international law. These, too, strongly
confirm that the invasion of Iraq constituted an illegal war of aggression
under international law. [5]

Finally, ambitious readers will learn what non-credible source was most
responsible for propagating the fictitious pre-war claim that Saddam
Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC and the
Pentagon (hint: yet another uncredentialed neocon think-tanker from the
thoroughly-discredited American Enterprise Institute).

Three Conclusions It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost
international law experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is
correct (i.e., true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal; and

(2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing's" leaders is incorrect
(i.e., false) because their Iraq War was NOT legal.

(3) Therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons' self-delusional
groupthink mentality by learning to differentiate between fact and truth,
which are all-too-easily confused. For instance, it's an undeniable fact
that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been arguing along the campaign trail that
"The Iraq War was legal!" Nevertheless, the mere fact that they've been
vehemently arguing that point certainly does NOT make it true! Their
argument is flawed by a logical fallacy called an ipse dixit (i.e.,
"something asserted but not proved"). As we've already seen, their argument
is just plain WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW! Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney
are making a false argument (i.e., deceptively asserting something that is
untrue).

The Bottom Line Americans should reject the temptation to vote for Messrs.
Bush and Cheney, because: (1) both men were advised beforehand that their
decision to commence the invasion of Iraq would be blatantly illegal under
international law; (2) they invaded nonetheless, and now they're cynically
attempting to mislead the public again by falsely arguing that "The Iraq War
was legal!"; (3) however, their argument is legally-meritless nonsense --
the current equivalent of their earlier false argument that torture is a
legal method for the US military's interrogation of prisoners; (4) they've
repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for universal human rights and
democratic governance under the rule of law; and

(5) the 21st-century world isn't Tombstone's OK Corral and they certainly
aren't Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday -- however much they might wish us to
believe that they are! [6]

ENDNOTES

[1] Read this 9-16-04 PI article by clicking on these blue words:
http://www.politinfo.com/articles/ar...9_16_4815.html "UN Says
Nothing New In Annan's 'Illegal War' Comment". Also see this 9-17-04 GU
article, which contends that UN Secretary General Annan's statement wasn't
his long-held opinion, but is new and belated:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...306642,00.html "The War
Was Illegal"

[2] Read this 9-17-04 JO article by clicking on these blue words:
http://snipurl.com/94y0 "Bush Joins Coalition Leaders In Defending War
Against Iraq"

[3] Read the 9-15-04 ES's indispensable analysis by clicking on these blue
words: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm#TOP Legality of the Iraq
War. If the click-on doesn't link, paste this URL into your webserver:
http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm [Skeptical readers should not
read to confirm their biases, but instead should set their biases aside
until they've finished reading all of the legal arguments on this website,
which will take awhile.]

[4] There seems to be one relevant omission from the ES website. General
international law could have been be cited as an alternative basis for
proving the Iraq War's illegality by analyzing these authoritative
precedents: (A) the Kellogg-Briand Pact of Paris (192; and (B) the
Charters, Principles, Indictments, and Holdings from the International
Military Tribunals at Nüremberg and Tokyo (1945-4.

[5] Generally speaking, legal opinions offered by government attorneys are
NOT considered to be authoritative because: (a) they're drafted in the
adversarial mode of an advocate, often under self-interested political
pressure from the executive branch; (b) even at its best, their reasoning
tends toward casuistry, reflecting Cicero's injudicious maxim,"salus populi
suprema lex esto" (De Legibus, III, 3.8: "Let the welfare of the people be
the supreme law!" Or the Bushites' tortuous translation thereof: "We feel
that we can legally torture our prisoners now if it might save our people
later!"); and (c) for an apt example, see the history of the Third Reich's
attorneys Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, whose pre-war legal advice to
Reichsführer Hitler was that Germany could use the pretext of an imminent
threat to "preemptively" invade Poland, for which war crime they were both
tried, sentenced, and hanged to death by the International Military Tribunal
at Nüremberg. Note bene, Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush administration
"torture memo" attorneys Bybee, Chertoff, Gonzales, Haynes and Woo!

[6] Read Douglas Jehl's 9-16-4 CD/SPI article by clicking on these blue
words: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-02.htm "CIA Analysis
Holds Bleak Vision For Iraq's Future". Also see the 9-16-04 Dreyfuss Report
column: http://tompaine.com/archives/the_dreyfuss_report.php "Annan For
President"

Author: Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the
American Center for International Law ("ACIL"). <>

Maybe they forgot that the terms of the treaty that
> ended Gulf War '91 gave us the right to go back in again should Saddam
> not abide by the US and UN inspections and restrictions. Saddam gave the
> finger to the US and bribed the UN. Clinton should've done what Bush did
> years ago but he was too busy getting blow jobs from heavyset interns
> (after sticking cigars in her ****) and blowing up Aspirin factories
> when he wanted to turn the media's attention from him committing
> perjury.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:43:15 +1300, "jasmine"
<> wrote:

>
>"vonroach" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:11:25 +1300, "jasmine"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> >Sure...just like both the Catholic Church and Galileo skewed the
>> >"half-truths" as facts to support their agendas. It happened that Galileo
>> >was mostly right, and the Church wrong... but we will not split hairs,
>eh?
>>
>> You see some connection between the Catholic Church/Galileo and
>> Moore/Limbaugh? Jazzy, you are ready for the psychiatrist couch,
>> before you require restraints. Yours aren't `half-truths', they are
>> wild delusions.
>
>Why? The point is that there is not necessarily a "middle ground" in this
>debate.
>
>E.G. the earth did not go around the sun sometimes, and the sun went around
>the earth the other...(Which is what Galileo was put under house arrest for
>by the Church.)
>
>Bush lied. No WMD. No al Qaeda 9/11 connection. But there is much oil.
>Bush's lieutenants Rumsfeld and co all supported Saddam and other worse
>dictators (and still do!) as they crushed democracy movements, yet we expect
>to believe that they now uphold democracy when it suites?!
>
Suites? Yours belongs in the loony bin. Incidentally, Kepler using
data furnished by Brache worked out the solar system and its
movements. Every day brings reports of new French, German, North
Korean, and Chinese weapons found in Iraq. Every day brings accounts
of terrorists and cars or trucks loaded with explosives causing mass
destruction. Elections loom in the near future and terrorists and
their supporters such as you are in a state of panic.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:21:01 -0500, "3_D" <>
wrote:

>
>"jasmine" <> wrote in message
>news:ckhc4n$8g7$...
>>
>> "vonroach" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:11:25 +1300, "jasmine"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Sure...just like both the Catholic Church and Galileo skewed the
>>> >"half-truths" as facts to support their agendas. It happened that
>>> >Galileo
>>> >was mostly right, and the Church wrong... but we will not split hairs,
>> eh?
>>>
>>> You see some connection between the Catholic Church/Galileo and
>>> Moore/Limbaugh? Jazzy, you are ready for the psychiatrist couch,
>>> before you require restraints. Yours aren't `half-truths', they are
>>> wild delusions.
>>
>> Why? The point is that there is not necessarily a "middle ground" in this
>> debate.
>>
>> E.G. the earth did not go around the sun sometimes, and the sun went
>> around
>> the earth the other...(Which is what Galileo was put under house arrest
>> for
>> by the Church.)
>>
>> Bush lied. No WMD. No al Qaeda 9/11 connection. But there is much oil.
>> Bush's lieutenants Rumsfeld and co all supported Saddam and other worse
>> dictators (and still do!) as they crushed democracy movements, yet we
>> expect
>> to believe that they now uphold democracy when it suites?!
>>
>>
>
>Kerry also lied then.
>FACT: He actually stated, on several occasions, that Saddam had WMD's.( He
>was on the Senate intelligence committee)
>FACT: Eight other nations and their intelligence agencies also stated that
>Saddam had WMD's.
>FACT: Kerry voted for the second Gulf War, but guess what?
>FACT: He voted against the first Gulf War!!!!! The United States established
>a broad-based international coalition to confront Iraq militarily and
>diplomatically. The military coalition consisted of Afghanistan, Argentina,
>Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark,
>Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco,
>the Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland,
>Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey,
>the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The war
>also was financed by countries which were unable to send in troops. Saudi
>Arabia and Kuwait were the main donors. More than $53 billion was pledged
>and received. President George Bush waited two days after the UN deadline
>for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait before ordering the Coalition to begin
>action against Iraq.

Fact: after Kerry voted for the invasion of Iraq, he voted against
funding the forces who had the mission (just like he turned on the
troops in Vietnam and exploited that war for personal gain by
spreading lies about those that were serving.
Fact: Kerry is an appeaser like Neville Chamberlain when he sees some
personal advantage to that position.

Fact: Kerry supported Clinton, Allbright, and Carter in their decision
that nuclear technology should be given to North Korea

Fact: Kerry now wants to leave decisions involving US national
security open to a French or German veto.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:00:25 +1300, "jasmine"
<> wrote:

>Yes you are right..they all lied. However Bush's lies do take the cake and
>got us into a quagmire we may not get out of alive.

Pure poppycock. Bush's preemptive strike put Sadaam and his sons out
of business, and worse in the view of you and your terrorist
sympathizers, there are about to be free elections despite the French,
German, and Chinese attempts to furnish weapons to the foreign
terrorists operating in Iraq.

On 12 Oct 2004 20:00:14 -0700, (L.Clark) wrote:

> At least they are confining their
>venom to newsgroups instead of bullying or beating up people in the
>real world. (I hope!)

No the democrat directed AFL-CIO brown shirts are doing that. Going
around destroying property and firing cowardly shots through windows.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:25:42 +1300, "jasmine"
<> wrote:

> UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is correct

Just offered to distract attention from the fact that old Kofi was
busy stuffing his pockets with cash that was designated for feeding
children in Iraq. Just another UN con man.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:16:53 +1300, "jasmine"
<> wrote:

>GEEZ Michael these examples are well known urban myths

That is clearly the spin that you would like to sell. I don't buy it
anymore than the rest of your hate and lies.