; > -Original Message-
> > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:13 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Dems git r done
> >
> > um ok so what happene to the kurds wasn't terrorism, just genocide?
&
> Nick wrote:
> I'd agree with that. I don't think that if it is directly done by the
> government it would classify as terrorism.
Ah, so supporting genocide is ok, but supporting terrorism is verboten?
~|
Introducing the Fusion
a [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 10:13 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
>
> um ok so what happene to the kurds wasn't terrorism, just genocide?
>
> On 11/12/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I
I'd say that is just murder, or maybe genocide.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> How about if they used munitions the US gave them against their own
> unarmed citizens?
>
~|
Introd
This book should be required reading. Should have been, it been around
for years.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N25C6282E
"All political beliefs aside Terry Prachett knocks one out of the park
with this installment of the Discworld saga. Sam Vimes sets off to
stop a war started by idiots. What mak
> Dana wrote:
> um ok so what happene to the kurds wasn't terrorism, just genocide?
>
This whole thing is the ole we-always-do-everything-right routine. We
don't. We do bad things, we support bad people, we poke our noses
where they shouldn't be, etc.
Look at China and India - they're only invo
> Nick wrote:
> If Iraq used that support during terrorist operations against somebody
How about if they used munitions the US gave them against their own
unarmed citizens?
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80
hat support during terrorist operations against somebody else
> then maybe it would be supporting terrorism.
>
>
>
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sun 11/12/2006 2:53 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
>
>
>
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 11/12/2006 2:53 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Dems git r done
well I am just confused then . Please bear with me. When you say
"Supporting the enemy of our enemy isn't terrorism, it isn't good
practice, but it isn't terrorism." you
r support of Iraq during
> their war was equal to us supporting terrorism is wrong.
>
>
>
>
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sat 11/11/2006 3:55 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
>
>
>
> ok so
> Nick wrote:
> China and the people in China want money and prosperity.
> Arab countries also want that, however radical Islam doesn't.
But they are the same. Mostly.
Your average Chinaman and your average Arab both want a BMW and a 4
bedroom home. The rulers, too, are the same: they want to r
ay, November 11, 2006 7:55 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
>
> Dude, besides the whole 1984-ness of a "War on Terror" (give me a kit-
> kat),
> there is the fact that Iraq wasn't the "main" terror maker. Not even top
> 3, I
> wo
th another country. To suggest our support of Iraq during
> their war was equal to us supporting terrorism is wrong.
>
>
>
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sat 11/11/2006 3:55 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
>
&g
her country. To suggest our support of Iraq during their war
was equal to us supporting terrorism is wrong.
From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 11/11/2006 3:55 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Dems git r done
ok so when we support the enemies of ou
gt; > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 12:55 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Dems git r done
> >
> > ahhh... so wait though. This doesn't work in the opposite direction?
> > Cause they sure are saying that it
Only if the enemy is terrorism is it called terrorism.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 12:55 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
>
> ahhh... so wait though. This doesn't work
ahhh... so wait though. This doesn't work in the opposite direction?
Cause they sure are saying that it's terrorism when our enemies
support other enemies, as in the reported links between Iran and
islamic extremists.
On 11/10/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Supporting the enemy of o
Supporting the enemy of our enemy isn't terrorism, it isn't good practice, but
it isn't terrorism.
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So here's the problem with this "war on terrorism" propaganda; it
makes possible all kinds of arguments.
Hey, did you h
> RoMunn wrote:
> What do you call paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Not
> supporting terrorism?
>
So here's the problem with this "war on terrorism" propaganda; it
makes possible all kinds of arguments.
Hey, did you hear that the US supports terrorism? Yup, they PAID
Hussein m
What do you call paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Not
supporting terrorism?
On 11/8/06, Rick Root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >> - that Hussein did *NOT* support terrorism
> > He most certainly did. Proven.
>
> Actually, it's been proven time and again that Saddam did NOT s
> Larry wrote:
> Gates was the
Gates is also a Bush #1 pragmatist and close buddies with another Bush
#1 pragmatist, James Baker. So, basically, daddy is going to save
Georgie.
And he needs it with military equipment running at 5 times the program
rate and soldiers on the edge of burnout.
~
>don't know a thing about gates. I want to say that anyone would be
>better but you never know. It does look like one of those mutual
>things though
>
>On 11/8/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
Gates was the #2 CIA man during the Ronnie Raygun era. He resigned shortly
after he wa
Look if it had in fact been proven that Saddam had WMD it would have
been all over the mainstream press. The weekly standard is conspiracy
theories recycled. I can find you something equivalent that says the
Twin Towers were bombed by Bush under instructions from space aliens,
but that won't make i
you're quoting Colin Powell now?
> Colin Powell said Iraq had 500 mustard shells that were missing. We
> found them buried in the desert. Even though we were looking for much
> more, you can't say we knew they didn't exist. On top of that
> thousands of suspect sites have never been checked. Then
> Sam wrote:
> > So why are you and Sam so eager to prove that either Bush is moron or you
> > are?
>
> There is third choice. :P
>
Ah, right, I forgot. Both.
//runs away
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 8
On 11/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So why are you and Sam so eager to prove that either Bush is moron or you are?
There is third choice. :P
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-
You can't just dismiss The Weekly Standard because you don't like them.
This is what they're talking about:
Page 53 or (71 pdf)
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/special/iraq/ipp.pdf
The Fedayeen Saddam also took part in the regime's terrorism
operations, which they conducted inside Iraq, and at leas
I definitely think that the dems put out more centrist's this campaign
season, but I don't agree with the second part. The dems only have a
razor thin majority. If they want to keep it for 2008 and get one of
theirs in office, they're going to have to move more to the center.
It's easier for them
> Nick wrote:
> You want me to list the reasons I thought we should have invaded Iraq?
>
No because whatever they were they sure didn't outweigh the costs.
Remember, as the President always reminds us, invasion is only one
possible solution.
~~
thought we should have invaded Iraq?
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:26 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
>
> > Nick wrote:
> > When we entered Iraq we found small terror t
> Nick wrote:
> When we entered Iraq we found small terror training areas in the north. It
> was news on the major sources. I'll see if I can't find some more info.
>
To what end? I'm sure if you look in the UP of Michigan or the out
back of Montana you'll find terrorist training camps there too.
ommunity
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
>
> Nick McClure wrote:
> > Hussein did support terrorism, there were training camps in Iraq, and he
> did
> > give money to various groups that were targeting the Israelis.
>
>
> I'd like to see a valid cite on
On 11/8/06, Rick Root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's NOT debatable. There are no WMDs. IT's not being debated anymore
> BECAUSE it's not debatable.
Colin Powell said Iraq had 500 mustard shells that were missing. We
found them buried in the desert. Even though we were looking for much
more,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:36 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
>
> um. I am not going to bother discrediting the weekly standard, as it does
> that well on its own. The fas link is to congressional remarks that parrot
> the
>Hussein did support terrorism, there were training camps in Iraq, and he did
>give money to various groups that were targeting the Israelis.
Hussein did give money to Palestinian terrorists. However those terrorists
camps were in the northern areas controlled by the US. Ansar al-Islam was an
A
Ok... I know. Find me cites that say it wasn't... And I'll decide which
pieces of liberal drivel to discredit myself.
;-)
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:36 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Dems git r done
um
//www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910112-terror.htm
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:13 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
>
> Nick McClure wrote:
> > Hussein did support t
Root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:13 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Dems git r done
Nick McClure wrote:
> Hussein did support terrorism, there were training camps in Iraq, and
> he did give money to various groups that were targeting the Israelis.
I
Nick McClure wrote:
> Hussein did support terrorism, there were training camps in Iraq, and he did
> give money to various groups that were targeting the Israelis.
I'd like to see a valid cite on that, because everything I'd heard said
that there weren't terrorist training cells in Iraq... at le
Sam wrote:
>
>> - that Iraq had no WMDs
> Debatable - beat to death
It's NOT debatable. There are no WMDs. IT's not being debated anymore
BECAUSE it's not debatable.
>> - that Iraq did *NOT* play a part in 9/11
> Nobody ever said they did
Many of the Bush cronies implied that Iraq was involv
; -Original Message-
> > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:10 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Dems git r done
> >
> > rumsfeld resigned! No further information just now
> >
>
>
>
>
~
Bush is going to appoint Robert M. Gates as the replacement.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:10 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
>
> rumsfeld resigned! No further
bject: Re: Dems git r done
>
> Sam wrote:
> > Why would they lie like that?
>
> The real question is.. why did they lie like they DID, rather than
> telling the TRUTH:
>
> - that Iraq had no WMDs
> - that Iraq did *NOT* play a part in 9/11
> - that Hussein did *N
My bet is Murtha will be the speaker, not Pelosi. If the Dems want to win in
two years, they batter not pick Pelosi
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 3:38 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Dems git r done
&g
rumsfeld resigned! No further information just now
On 11/8/06, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The good news is that we'll see change in Iraq. I've heard the new
> > slogan is "Truth, Accountability, Progress". We'll see. That being
He doesn't need support from Congress. The Dems already said they would fund
the thing, so for next two years the President can continue to do what he
wants with the War.
This election didn't change the Constitution, just the people in the chairs.
Who now have two years to make a change in an area
I don't believe that. Most republicans believe and support the fight.
It's too important to throw away.
On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Plus we're talking about the entire Congress. America has spoken:
> they want change in Iraq. If the Dems are smart they'll take the
> Baker
On 11/8/06, Rick Root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam wrote:
> > Why would they lie like that?
>
> The real question is.. why did they lie like they DID, rather than
> telling the TRUTH:
You said: "We know Ira doesn't..."
Nobody knew so they would have been lies.
> - that Iraq had no WMDs
Debat
Sam wrote:
> Why would they lie like that?
The real question is.. why did they lie like they DID, rather than
telling the TRUTH:
- that Iraq had no WMDs
- that Iraq did *NOT* play a part in 9/11
- that Hussein did *NOT* support terrorism
- that Iraq was *NOT* an imminent threat.
These are know
Rush made an interesting point today.
He said the Democrats that won were picked by Pelosi and campaigned as
conservatives and or moderates while Pelosi and Reid went into hiding
for the last two weeks.
Now we have an extremely liberal leadership running both houses and
the new freshmen will have
Why would they lie like that?
On 11/8/06, Rick Root wrote:
> If GWB and his crew said "We know Ira doesn't have WMD, and they weren't
> involved in 9/11 and Hussein doesn't support terrorism, but we'd like to
> take over their country anyway and instill a democracy"... I wonder if
> Leiberman (or
> Rick wrote:
> I think it's not that black and white.
> Leiberman doesn't support a specified time line for pulling out.
>
Plus we're talking about the entire Congress. America has spoken:
they want change in Iraq. If the Dems are smart they'll take the
Baker proposal, get Pentagon buy in, and
Sam wrote:
> Plus Lieberman supports the War
I think it's not that black and white.
Leiberman doesn't support a specified time line for pulling out.
I don't think Leiberman supports the way the American people and
congress were duped into GOING to war.
If GWB and his crew said "We know Ira doe
Plus Lieberman supports the War
On 11/8/06, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Won't happen. Even when dems were in the minority and knew they could pass a
> "no" vote without suffering any repurcussions, bills to fund the war always
> passed with huge majorities.
>
> Now that they are in the
On 11/8/06, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Then again given that Congress has the power of the purse, they can defund
> any appropriations going towards the forces in Iraq.
>
Won't happen. Even when dems were in the minority and knew they could pass a
"no" vote without suffering any re
Which they said they wouldn't do.
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Then again given that Congress has the power of the purse, they can defund
> any appropriations going towards the forces in Iraq.
~~~
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Because Congress now has investigative and subpoena power as well
>> "political capital". Worst case scenario, if the President resists,
>> they impeach him.
>
>OK, so they impeach him, then what, they don't have th
> RoMunn wrote:
> not going to happen. nancy pelosi will be the leader. murtha can plan
> whatever he wants, but bush runs the military
Iraq policy has already changed with the resignation of Rummy. Well
to the new Iraq policy!
~~~
not going to happen. nancy pelosi will be the leader. murtha can plan
whatever he wants, but bush runs the military and he isn't facing another
election. one thing you can say about bush is that he will do what he
believes, everyone else be damned. the dems, frankly, would be smart to let
the presi
> Nick wrote:
> I don't see anything changing, cause the Democrats never gave a strategy
> during the campaign.
>
They would've been ridiculous too! They did the smart thing and gave
the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves; and they did.
Now that the election is over I'll predict a few th
I don't see anything changing, cause the Democrats never gave a strategy
during the campaign.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Last night the country told Pres Bush that they DEMAND change in Iraq
> policy. If he resists he'll take himself down and he
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Because Congress now has investigative and subpoena power as well
> "political capital". Worst case scenario, if the President resists,
> they impeach him.
OK, so they impeach him, then what, they don't have the votes
> Nick wrote:
> But the President doesn't have to do anything they say regarding Iraq. That
> was one of the things the reporters were saying last night. Congress doesn't
> set military strategy, they can hold hearings, but they can't change
> anything.
>
Last night the country told Pres Bush that
> gMoney wrote:
> How do you see a change coming in Iraq when the executors of the war all
> remain in place?
Because Congress now has investigative and subpoena power as well
"political capital". Worst case scenario, if the President resists,
they impeach him.
> So congress will issues some str
On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The good news is that we'll see change in Iraq. I've heard the new
> slogan is "Truth, Accountability, Progress". We'll see. That being
> said that's no more a strategy than, "we're going to fight, and we're
> going to win."
How do you see
But the President doesn't have to do anything they say regarding Iraq. That
was one of the things the reporters were saying last night. Congress doesn't
set military strategy, they can hold hearings, but they can't change
anything.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
a good nutjob is always welcomed in the morning.
tw
On 11/8/06, Russel Madere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So as a Libertarian I am painted with the same brush as a Republican? thanks
> for kicking me in the nuts this morning.
>
> >All and all a good night. I don't like liberals...but man I
> gMoney wrote:
> All and all a good night. I don't like liberals...but man I don't like
> conservatives.
>
The good news is that we'll see change in Iraq. I've heard the new
slogan is "Truth, Accountability, Progress". We'll see. That being
said that's no more a strategy than, "we're going
Huh
I don't care about Libertarians or their nuts.
On 11/8/06, Russel Madere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So as a Libertarian I am painted with the same brush as a
> Republican? thanks for kicking me in the nuts this morning.
>
> >All and all a good night. I don't like liberals...but m
So as a Libertarian I am painted with the same brush as a Republican? thanks
for kicking me in the nuts this morning.
>All and all a good night. I don't like liberals...but man I don't like
>conservatives.
>
>--
>Anarchist reactionary running dog revisionist
>Hindu muslim catholic creation
House turned blue over night, and the Senate might follow. Every major
republican who was contested in Kansas and Missouri was defeated. The stem
cell initiative looks like it has survived, barely, in Missouri.
All and all a good night. I don't like liberals...but man I don't like
conservative
71 matches
Mail list logo
