XPost: calgary.general, can.general, tor.general
XPost: wash.general, chi.general
From: jteeple@cogeco.ca
"Ivan Gowch" wrote in message
news:m48b701gj6n0ql43tnktv16nstlq4moosk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:54:14 -0500, "Jeff T" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> IG:
> ==>> Any starvation in Iraq prior to the illegal American
> ==>> occupation was a direct result of the U.S.-enforced
> ==>> sanctions against the country, and had little if
> ==>> anything to do with Saddam Hussein's policies
> ==>> or actions.
>
> ==>WRONG! The UN sanctions against Iraq are a direct result of Saddam's
polices
> ==>and actions.
> ==>Namely his refusal to allow weapons inspectors in (until the
> ==>last second), and his polices towards the Kurdish north.
>
> Bullshit. The UN sanctions against Iraq were the
> direct result of American lies about Iraq's
> harbouring "weapons of mass destruction"
> and its supposed efforts to acquire offensive
> nuclear weapons. Saddam's policies presented
> not the slightest threat to any country since Iraq's
> forced retreat from Kuwait. His policies towards
> the Kurds may well have been brutal, but no more
> so than Turkey's policies towards the Kurds, and
> no more so than those of a number of repressive
> regimes around the world towards various minorities --
> policies that did not (and do not) prompt a U.S.
> invasion.
>
> This excuse is lame in the extreme, and you know it.
>
The bullshit is on you old boy.
> ==> Secondly, the
> ==>imbargo (sic) (UN sanctions) did not include food or medical supplies.
>
> But the sanctions certainly did prevent Iraq from
> carrying out normal trade, rendering it unable to
> afford food or medical supplies. The (U.S.'
> self-serving) "oil-for-food" program was wholly
> inadequate to supply the Iraqis with either food
> or medicine -- a fact well-documented by
> international aid agencies over the years.
>
> You are either woefully ignorant, or a liar.
>
Take a good hard look in the mirror.
> ==>In fact the
> ==>US, amongst other countries, was sending food aid to Iraq, it just
never got
> ==>to the people.
>
> The U.S. may have been *selling* some food to
> Iraq in exchange for "food-for-oil" revenues,
> but your suggestion it donated food to Iraq
> for presumably humanitarian purposes is a lie.
> And if you have any evidence that food that
> was supplied to Iraq did not get to the people,
> you'd better post it, because otherwise your
> claim seems like just so much propaganda.
>
Try looking to the UN website for answers to that... Perhaps if you had of
done so to begin with, you would appear to be less the witless wonder you
appear here.
> ==>The people starving IS a direct result of Saddam Insanes (sic)
> ==>actions, and that of his regime.
>
> Keep believing that. It will aid you in your
> desperate attempt to maintain your state of
> denial.
>
Ya...
> [snip]
>
> IG:
> ==>> You are deliberately misusing the
> ==>> language, and that doesn't help your argument.
> ==>> I am a working man, not a mercenary.
> ==>> The term mercenary refers to those who
> ==>> perform *military* services for money. Sportwriters
> ==>> sometimes use it whimsically to designate
> ==>> professional athletes. Attempting to broaden the term
> ==>> to include all working people is dishonest and absurd.
>
> [...]
>
> ==>Etymology: Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from
merced-,
> ==>merces wages -- more at MERCY
> ==>: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into
> ==>foreign service
>
> As I said, a mercenary is a *soldier.*
>
> ==>Now, it is generally accepted to mean soldier,
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> ==> however the term is not
> ==>exclusive to soldiering.
>
> Well, I do apologize for choosing words according
> to what they actually mean. . . .
>
> ==> Now it can be used to describe the average working
> ==>Joe,
>
> No, it can't. Not if one cares a fig for
> exactitude in language.
>
If one does care, then yes it can according to Websters, and every other
dictionary on the planet... Go figure, backpeddel away.
> ==> esp if the individual has a habit of going from job to job, for an
> ==>increase in pay.
>
> No, the term for such a one is "itinerant
> worker."
>
> Nice try. Wanna play again?
>
Next time you play, check the link I provide. Dolt.
> [...]
>
> IG:
> ==>> Because, historically, people are regarded as
> ==>> justified in punishing countrymen who
> ==>> co-operate with an oppressive invader. Even
> ==>> if you dispute its justifiability, it's still
> ==>> historical fact. If you don't understand this, you
> ==>> need to go back and read some more history.
>
> ==>True enough... But the comparisons to Nazi occupation certainly do not
match
> ==>what is going on (even today). There is a complete lack of a round up
and
> ==>whole sale murder of civilians, say Sunni muslims.
>
> There needs to be "whole sale (sic) murder of
> civilians" for there to be reprisals against
> selected collaborators? Where is that written?
> Can't find it? Perhaps that's because you
> just pulled that "fact" out of your ass.
>
Take it in context, and again, you would appear to be less the witless
wonder you are. I attacked your comparision of the American occupation to
the Nazi occupation... Apples to rotten oranges. But go figure, a pot
smoking, granola eating left wing wing nut such a syourself couldn't grasp
such a simple concept.
> [snip]
>
> IG:
> ==>> I'm intolerant towards hired killers, goons, thugs,
> ==>> cowboy wannabes and swaggering bullies of
> ==>> all types. Especially the cowardly types who
> ==>> wait until they feel their asses are protected by
> ==>> a real army before they go in to sell their strong-arm
> ==>> services for huge profits.
>
> ==>The Blackwaters boys are NOT making HUGE profits. They are making more
then
> ==>the average soldier there, but less then say a neurosurgeon.
>
> As if the size of their paycheques makes any
> difference at all. Don't be more absurd than
> necessary, OK?
>
> ==>A lot of the persons in question originally joined the service of their
own
> ==>countries out of a need to serve something bigger then they are.
>
> Get serious. How the hell would you know anything
> about the motivations of these goons?
>
The answer to that question is easy and factual.
Clean the shit out of your ears, because here it comes.
I AM A SOLDIER. THESE ARE MY PEERS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
> I say most of them joined up because they are
> undiagnosed sociopaths who relish the idea
> of blowing people away with automatic weapons.
>
BULSHIT.
> Prove me wrong.
>
That does not describe me in the least. See the above for the rest.
> ==> After a
> ==>couple of years of putting up with left wing PC types bullshit, they
become
> ==>disillusioned and get out...
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
