Re: HAY RATCH, wanna argue republican neo-con dogma ?
- From: "Ratch" <watchit@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 09:17:33 -0500
"hutch--" <hutch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1180590694.519637.45740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1. Bush lied to start a war.
2. Young Americans are still dying for no purpose at all in sh*tholes
like Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. Funding two unwinnable wars has turned the US economy into a
shambles.
4. The level of foreign financial debt is compromising US security
with its massive debt to China and Japan.
1. Bush lied to start a war.
1:(a) Plamegate. Niger yellowcake etc ....
1:(b) 1989 CIA evidence on gassed Kurds.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/110107Kurds.htm Watch
the video of Stephen Pelletiere.
a) The yellowcake debacle was initiated by a faulty Italian
intelligence report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery What
was scandalous was the failure of the intelligence agencies of both Britain
and the US to ferret out this mistake earlier, and more forcefully deny it.
Also Bush has to take some responsibility in believing it too readily. But
I would not call that an act of deliberate cooking up evidence.
b)Even Stephen Pelletiere agrees that Iraq gassed the Kurds, albeit not
as an act of genocide, but as a counterattack against the Iranians. Don't
you think Sadamn should not have used chemical weapons in a civilian
populated area? And doesn't Sadamn's actions indicate a callous disregard
for civilian casualities at the very least? Anyway, Pelletiere's statements
and conclusions are contradicted in http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html by Juan
Cole a professor of Modern Middle Eastern and South Asian History at the
University of Michigan. It is the organization called Human Rights Watch
which calls Sadamn's and "Chemical Ali's" actions genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack Others who visited
the site stated that the corpses showed signs of mustard gas, which was also
consistent with the symptoms described by some of the survivors.
1:(c) UN weapon inspections under the control of Hans Blix proved NO
WMDs.
Yes, Hans was right as far as an active program was concerned. Sadamn
still had a latent program that was ready to go again as soon as the
scrutiny abated. For better or worse, Bush did not think Hans was correct.
Lots of other people didn't either. So Bush did not lie because he went
ahead with the invasion against the evidence givin by Hans. Lying means
intent, and it has not been proven that Bush intended to fasify evidence.
Bush and his cronies LIED to start a war and the proof is there to
back it up.
So far, I have not seen any. You can call him gullible and incompetent
for believing what others told him, but you cannot rightfully call him a
liar and justify it.
2. Young Americans are still dying for no purpose at all in sh*tholes
like Afghanistan and Iraq.
Over 3300 young Americans dead in Iraq, 25000 more seriously injured
in two was that are already lost. They have been injured and have died
in combat for no purpose.
In Afghasnistan they chased out the Taliban once, thereby allowing
women could go to school again,
Proof required.
http://www.helpafghanwomen.com/ See caption below picture.
and gave the people a chance to govern themselves instead of being
under the control of a religious theocracy.
Proof required.
This link shows that the Taliban favors a religious theocracy.
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=23645 "The
exodus increased in 1992, when the Soviet-backed government collapsed, and
again in 1996, when the repressive Taliban theocracy ruled the country."
Come on Hutch. Do you need proof that Sadamn is no longer terrorizes
In Iraq they got rid of Sadamn for good, and gave the people a chance
to make something of their country.
Proof required.
the Middle East?
Too bad they seem more interested in settling old scores by killing
each other, and anyone else trying to stop them from doing so instead
of cooperating to form a government.
Proof required.
You sound like a stuck record. Just read the daily news coming out of
Iraq.
3. Funding two unwinnable wars has turned the US economy into a
shambles.
A laughable observation. I live here and I sure don't see any
financial shambles. Looking at too many far-left websites, Hutch?
Naval introspecting again Ratch, try reading 2 BILLION USD$ a week on
2 unwinnable wars.
That amount of money might seem like a lot for you, but for a wealthy
nation of 300,000,000 , it is doable. The wars have been won, the political
goals have not been met.
4. The level of foreign financial debt is compromising US security
with its massive debt to China and Japan.
It was at a high level long before the Iraq invasion,
Its a lot higher now.
And will be higher tomorrow.
and it would
probably still be high without the invasian. True, that is not a good
thing, but China and Japan would be in a bad situation if the US could
not
pay them back on time.
Like the early 70s gold default ?
What about it? A vibrant economy is better than gold. The US is not
on the gold standard any more.
And still Japan and China allow the US credit. Do
they think they will be payed off after all?
All bad things come to an end, have you converted your savings to
Euros yet ?
Nope, the USD and the Euro are joined at the hip more than you think.
Time to deliver some proof Ratch, I don't give a flying PHUK how much
mess you make in ALA.
It is you that needs to offer some better "proof". After all, you are
the one making the initial assertions. By a mess, you really mean answering
the BS you spew out regarding political matters. Ratch
.
- References:
- HAY RATCH, wanna argue republican neo-con dogma ?
- From: hutch--
- Re: HAY RATCH, wanna argue republican neo-con dogma ?
- From: Ratch
- Re: HAY RATCH, wanna argue republican neo-con dogma ?
- From: hutch--
- HAY RATCH, wanna argue republican neo-con dogma ?
- Prev by Date: Re: HAY RATCH, wanna argue republican neo-con dogma ?
- Next by Date: Re: HAY RATCH, wanna argue republican neo-con dogma ?
- Previous by thread: Re: HAY RATCH, wanna argue republican neo-con dogma ?
- Next by thread: Re: HAY RATCH, wanna argue republican neo-con dogma ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|