David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> maintains his defiant,
obtuse refusal to accept the evidence that points to Bush, Blair and
Howard being unconscionable liars in message
news:<9qp4hvsjocblnjfo6ij9g9mq
Hell, even the gullible "patriots" in the American media realise that
now.
"humanitarian" concerns, they wouldn't have supported Saddam Hussein's
government for ten years, and they wouldn't have tried to cover up the
nerve gas murders of 30,000 Kurds. And they wouldn't have still been
bankrolling Israel's terror campaign against the Palestinian people.
Would they?
other issues".
> record of intervening in humanitarian crises without any other
> advantage to the US... Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia spring to mind here,
Notice how this dishonest pro-Bush stooge deliberately gives the USA
credit for UNITED NATIONS operations. Or maybe he is genuinely
ignorant.
co-operative, obedient, "helpful") reporters were "embedded" in U.S.
army units and dutifully went about sending back bullshit stories
like the Jessica Lynch A-Team script, and patriotically held back from
asking awkward questions about the checkpoint murder by U.S. soldiers
of a carload of women and children. Pretty well organised media
strategy, I would have thought.
obtuse refusal to accept the evidence that points to Bush, Blair and
Howard being unconscionable liars in message
news:<9qp4hvsjocblnjfo6ij9g9mq
....<Snip imbecilic, humour-free blather about substituting New
Zealand for Iraq>....
>
> As I've said before, there isn't just a single reason for the invasion. ..... It
> isn't just oil.
Oh? Then what? Mr Pears has the answer! Maybe. Let's see, shall
we?....
Zealand for Iraq>....
>
> As I've said before, there isn't just a single reason for the invasion. ..... It
> isn't just oil.
Oh? Then what? Mr Pears has the answer! Maybe. Let's see, shall
we?....
>
> It isn't just weapons of mass destruction.
Well, he's right there! There ARE no weapons of mass destruction.> It isn't just weapons of mass destruction.
Hell, even the gullible "patriots" in the American media realise that
now.
>
> It isn't just humanitarian concerns.
Well, we kinda realised that from the start. If the USA had had any> It isn't just humanitarian concerns.
"humanitarian" concerns, they wouldn't have supported Saddam Hussein's
government for ten years, and they wouldn't have tried to cover up the
nerve gas murders of 30,000 Kurds. And they wouldn't have still been
bankrolling Israel's terror campaign against the Palestinian people.
Would they?
>
> It is a combination of all three, along with about a dozen other issues,
> that made it more worthwhile for the Allies to invade
Note that Pears does not bother to tell us even one of these "dozen> It is a combination of all three, along with about a dozen other issues,
> that made it more worthwhile for the Allies to invade
other issues".
>
> ....rather than to sit on their chuffs like NZ. You'll remember the US's
> ....rather than to sit on their chuffs like NZ. You'll remember the US's
> record of intervening in humanitarian crises without any other
> advantage to the US... Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia spring to mind here,
credit for UNITED NATIONS operations. Or maybe he is genuinely
ignorant.
>
>....and they look set to intervene soon in Liberia.
Great! The USA is doing something decent! Congratulations! But of
course they're intervening because they've being shamed into it. They
could hardly refuse, given the fact that their misleader was on a
state visit to Africa when the Liberians requested aid. Perhaps Mr
Pears thinks we haven't noticed that, either.
>....and they look set to intervene soon in Liberia.
Great! The USA is doing something decent! Congratulations! But of
course they're intervening because they've being shamed into it. They
could hardly refuse, given the fact that their misleader was on a
state visit to Africa when the Liberians requested aid. Perhaps Mr
Pears thinks we haven't noticed that, either.
>
> Why was the communications strategy so confused?
"Confused"? The "strategy" worked perfectly. "Responsible" (i.e.> Why was the communications strategy so confused?
co-operative, obedient, "helpful") reporters were "embedded" in U.S.
army units and dutifully went about sending back bullshit stories
like the Jessica Lynch A-Team script, and patriotically held back from
asking awkward questions about the checkpoint murder by U.S. soldiers
of a carload of women and children. Pretty well organised media
strategy, I would have thought.
>
> The media are partly to blame....
Ooooooh, I think most of us consider the media are very much to be
blamed here. You EXPECT politicians to lie. Even the "good" ones
are deeply compromised, sometimes even corrupted, individuals. But I
would have thought that reporters would see it as their duty to be at
least a bit skeptical. Instead, they acted as willing mouthpieces for
the U.S. government, from the brutal marginalising and ridiculing of
Hans Blix and the other UN weapons inspectors, to their credulous
collaboration in the Jessica Lynch canard, and their cowardly
reluctance to ask questions at those preposterous Army press
conferences.
> The media are partly to blame....
Ooooooh, I think most of us consider the media are very much to be
blamed here. You EXPECT politicians to lie. Even the "good" ones
are deeply compromised, sometimes even corrupted, individuals. But I
would have thought that reporters would see it as their duty to be at
least a bit skeptical. Instead, they acted as willing mouthpieces for
the U.S. government, from the brutal marginalising and ridiculing of
Hans Blix and the other UN weapons inspectors, to their credulous
collaboration in the Jessica Lynch canard, and their cowardly
reluctance to ask questions at those preposterous Army press
conferences.
>
> ....by only broadcasting soundbites these days.
Errrrrr, it wasn't the soundbites that was the problem, it was the
failure to ask questions and the willing acceptance of Pentagon and
White House lies.
> ....by only broadcasting soundbites these days.
Errrrrr, it wasn't the soundbites that was the problem, it was the
failure to ask questions and the willing acceptance of Pentagon and
White House lies.
....<snip obfuscatory babbling about cats up trees>...
>
> And using the humanitarian aspects of the invasion .....
The "humanitarian aspects"? The bombing of the Baghdad market? The
shooting up of women and children at checkpoints? The killing of Al
Jazeera journalists?
> And using the humanitarian aspects of the invasion .....
The "humanitarian aspects"? The bombing of the Baghdad market? The
shooting up of women and children at checkpoints? The killing of Al
Jazeera journalists?
....<snip insulting, condescending, supercilious crap>....
>
> But, world leaders shouldn't stop doing the right thing,....
Is that "right thing" as in "right wing" as in "ignore the U.N." and
"ignore international opinion" and ignore international law"? Thought
so....
> But, world leaders shouldn't stop doing the right thing,....
Is that "right thing" as in "right wing" as in "ignore the U.N." and
"ignore international opinion" and ignore international law"? Thought
so....
....<snip more insulting, condescending, supercilious crap>....
POINT TO PONDER: Our friend WeeWillyWonka opined recently that this
fellow's "analysis" is "sophisticated and perceptive".
fellow's "analysis" is "sophisticated and perceptive".
 |
Post of the Year Award (Entry 1: DAVID PEARS)
Apart from bewildered U.S. president George W. Bush's assertion that
the English-sourced poppycock he gets from the CIA is "darn good",
the following gem by David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> in
message news:<9qp4hvsjocblnjfo6ij9g9mq
surely qualify for the prestigious Daisycutter Sports Digest "Post of
the Year" award, which goes to the
(a) most morally obtuse,....
(b) most obnoxiously hypocritical. or ....
(c) just plain ignorant statement of the year.
the English-sourced poppycock he gets from the CIA is "darn good",
the following gem by David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> in
message news:<9qp4hvsjocblnjfo6ij9g9mq
surely qualify for the prestigious Daisycutter Sports Digest "Post of
the Year" award, which goes to the
(a) most morally obtuse,....
(b) most obnoxiously hypocritical. or ....
(c) just plain ignorant statement of the year.
>
> ....using the humanitarian aspects of the invasion doesn't work....
> ....using the humanitarian aspects of the invasion doesn't work....
Well done, David Pears! The above nine words on the latest U.S.
imperialist adventure mean you qualify in ALL THREE CRITERIA for the
award!!!!!
imperialist adventure mean you qualify in ALL THREE CRITERIA for the
award!!!!!
LET YOUR CRETINISM WORK FOR YOU....
|
w...@freenet.co.nz (WeeWillyWonka) wrote in message news:<3f12708a...@news.
"argument" is defiantly re-state this canard that "Bush did not lie,
it was the British intelligence". I can't see why the fellow has any
"personal stake" in it.
timid, cowed "reporters". How exactly does that make me "dogmatic"
again?
>
> Consider it a glimpse, Morrissey, of the real world where people have
> a genuine stake in an agenda,
What "genuine stake" does pears have? All he does by way of> Consider it a glimpse, Morrissey, of the real world where people have
> a genuine stake in an agenda,
"argument" is defiantly re-state this canard that "Bush did not lie,
it was the British intelligence". I can't see why the fellow has any
"personal stake" in it.
>
> instead of just being a dogmatic twit without a clue, as you are.
Dogmatic? I react very strongly to corrupt, dishonest politicians and> instead of just being a dogmatic twit without a clue, as you are.
timid, cowed "reporters". How exactly does that make me "dogmatic"
again?
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:42:38 +1200, "Barry Phease" <bar...@es.co.nz>
wrote:
wrote:
>> Yes, and the fruit loop in charge of North Korea is making his threats
>> again. Fifty years of appeassement and bribe paying hasn't helped the
>> situation.
>
>This argument would have more effect if the bribes had in fact been paid.
>the deal was that N. Korea stop using the graphite reactors, and the
>Americans would provide them with newer reactors that could produce power,
>but less fissile material. These never eventuated.
>> again. Fifty years of appeassement and bribe paying hasn't helped the
>> situation.
>
>This argument would have more effect if the bribes had in fact been paid.
>the deal was that N. Korea stop using the graphite reactors, and the
>Americans would provide them with newer reactors that could produce power,
>but less fissile material. These never eventuated.
The reactors have been in construction, altho I suspect that has
halted due to NK not holding up its end of the bargain. The US also
delivered all the fuel oil it was supposed to, again without NK
fulfilling its end of the contract.
halted due to NK not holding up its end of the bargain. The US also
delivered all the fuel oil it was supposed to, again without NK
fulfilling its end of the contract.
The appeasement thing goes a lot deeper tho... NK government sells
drugs all around the world. People do nothing. NK government forges
large quantities of western currency. People do nothing. NK government
kidnaps Japanese civilians. People do nothing. NK government lands
special forces in SK, or shoot up a SK boat. People do nothing. NK
government assassinates NK defectors in SK. People do nothing. NK
government digs huge tunnels under DMZ. People do nothing. NK
government blows up SK airliner. People do nothing. See the pattern
emerging?
drugs all around the world. People do nothing. NK government forges
large quantities of western currency. People do nothing. NK government
kidnaps Japanese civilians. People do nothing. NK government lands
special forces in SK, or shoot up a SK boat. People do nothing. NK
government assassinates NK defectors in SK. People do nothing. NK
government digs huge tunnels under DMZ. People do nothing. NK
government blows up SK airliner. People do nothing. See the pattern
emerging?
David
|
In article <pan.2003.07.15.09.37.11.
says...
> It all seems rather circular. You people seem to think that Bush can do
> no wrong.
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:33:19 +0000, David Pears wrote:
says...
> It all seems rather circular. You people seem to think that Bush can do
> no wrong.
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:33:19 +0000, David Pears wrote:
> > But, given Iraq's record in invading Kuwait, invading Iran, invading
> > Saudi Arabia, and attacking Israel, then the possession by Iraq of a
> > large and threatening army would be grounds for invasion.
> But Iraq's army was no longer large nor threatening.
> > Saudi Arabia, and attacking Israel, then the possession by Iraq of a
> > large and threatening army would be grounds for invasion.
> But Iraq's army was no longer large nor threatening.
A 400,000 strong army is large by any meaning of the word. And
it is crippling for a struggling economy.
it is crippling for a struggling economy.
> > This was a scientist who should
> > have been taken (with his family) out of the country for questioning
> > about weapons programs, but who wasn't due to Iraqi government
> > threats. No point going to all that trouble, and incurring all those
> > years of sanctions, unless you intended to dig up the documentation
> > and carry on with the programs once the inspectors had gone.
> > have been taken (with his family) out of the country for questioning
> > about weapons programs, but who wasn't due to Iraqi government
> > threats. No point going to all that trouble, and incurring all those
> > years of sanctions, unless you intended to dig up the documentation
> > and carry on with the programs once the inspectors had gone.
> They were buried for 12 years. For most of the last 5 years there have
> been no inspections, and still they were not exhumed. It is quite
> reasonable to assume that they might have been forgotten, or that having
> denied them originally Saddam might have been afraid to declare them for
> fear that they would indicate non-compliance.
> been no inspections, and still they were not exhumed. It is quite
> reasonable to assume that they might have been forgotten, or that having
> denied them originally Saddam might have been afraid to declare them for
> fear that they would indicate non-compliance.
But by concealing them, Saddam was in non-compliance just as he was
by not declaring those trucks.
by not declaring those trucks.
> IN any case they provide an
> indication that Saddam was NOT actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons
> in the last 12 years.
> indication that Saddam was NOT actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons
> in the last 12 years.
Shortly after the war finished, the French issued a document aimed
at countering numerous falsehoods circulating about their nation's
conduct. The first allegation was:
at countering numerous falsehoods circulating about their nation's
conduct. The first allegation was:
:: 1. September 1-15, 2002: In its "Week in Review" section, The New York
:: Times published an article entitled "Psst... Can I Get a Bomb
:: Trigger?" alleging that in 1998, France and Germany had supplied Iraq
:: with high-precision switches used in detonating nuclear weapons.
:: Times published an article entitled "Psst... Can I Get a Bomb
:: Trigger?" alleging that in 1998, France and Germany had supplied Iraq
:: with high-precision switches used in detonating nuclear weapons.
The article said that Iraq had brought six medical machines, each
containing one such trigger, and ordered 120 more as "spare parts".
containing one such trigger, and ordered 120 more as "spare parts".
:: The Embassy issued a denial, which was published the following week in
:: that section's Letters to the Editor column, noting that a French
:: company had indeed received an order for 120 switches, presented as
:: "spare parts" for medical equipment but that the French authorities
:: had immediately barred this sale and alerted both Germany and the
:: country that had previously sold the equipment that incorporated the
:: switches.
:: that section's Letters to the Editor column, noting that a French
:: company had indeed received an order for 120 switches, presented as
:: "spare parts" for medical equipment but that the French authorities
:: had immediately barred this sale and alerted both Germany and the
:: country that had previously sold the equipment that incorporated the
:: switches.
It's incidences like these which led people to believe that Iraq was
reactivating its program. Chicanery on Iraq's behalf (like concealing
the literature on copper vapour laser enrichment at the home of a nuclear
scientist whose existence was not declared in Iraq's full, final and
complete declaration of WMD programs) only aggravated those fears.
reactivating its program. Chicanery on Iraq's behalf (like concealing
the literature on copper vapour laser enrichment at the home of a nuclear
scientist whose existence was not declared in Iraq's full, final and
complete declaration of WMD programs) only aggravated those fears.
But when I point out stuff like this in the past, you bleated meekly
about interpreting the resolutions as they should be interpreted
could lead to innocent people (Saddam? Chemical Ali?) being hanged.
about interpreting the resolutions as they should be interpreted
could lead to innocent people (Saddam? Chemical Ali?) being hanged.
--Peter Metcalfe
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 21:37:11 +1200, "Barry Phease" <bar...@es.co.nz>
wrote:
wrote:
>It all seems rather circular. You people seem to think that Bush can do
>no wrong.
>no wrong.
He can do plenty wrong. But his record over Iraq has been moral and
right, if somewhat disorganised at times.
right, if somewhat disorganised at times.
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:33:19 +0000, David Pears wrote:
>
>> But, given Iraq's record in invading Kuwait, invading Iran, invading
>> Saudi Arabia, and attacking Israel, then the possession by Iraq of a
>> large and threatening army would be grounds for invasion.
>
>But Iraq's army was no longer large nor threatening. Since 1991 it had
>shrunk to less than half its size and its military hardware was old. It
>was formidable as a means of controlling the Iraqi population, but would
>not have been able to invade any of its neighbours.
>
>> But, given Iraq's record in invading Kuwait, invading Iran, invading
>> Saudi Arabia, and attacking Israel, then the possession by Iraq of a
>> large and threatening army would be grounds for invasion.
>
>But Iraq's army was no longer large nor threatening. Since 1991 it had
>shrunk to less than half its size and its military hardware was old. It
>was formidable as a means of controlling the Iraqi population, but would
>not have been able to invade any of its neighbours.
So it is OK to use his army to control the Iraqi population? Dead
Kurds and dead Shiites don't matter?
Kurds and dead Shiites don't matter?
And Iraq's army was only useless because of 12 years of sanctions
backed up by an indefinite deployment of US and UK military forces. A
deployment that involved them being shot at on a fairly recent basis.
If you're not willing to offer up troops and, since no fly zones were
involved, air power along with the risks of dead troops and if you're
not willing to pay the bills involved, then I don't see you get any
right in deciding that it should carry on in to the indefinite future.
backed up by an indefinite deployment of US and UK military forces. A
deployment that involved them being shot at on a fairly recent basis.
If you're not willing to offer up troops and, since no fly zones were
involved, air power along with the risks of dead troops and if you're
not willing to pay the bills involved, then I don't see you get any
right in deciding that it should carry on in to the indefinite future.
>> Documents describing the development have been recovered from the
>> garden of a scientist involved in nuclear weapons programs. He has
>> confessed to hiding them there on the orders of the Iraqi regime.
>> These were documents that should have been turned over to the UN
>> inspectors. Over a period of 12 years. This was a scientist who should
>> have been taken (with his family) out of the country for questioning
>> about weapons programs, but who wasn't due to Iraqi government
>> threats. No point going to all that trouble, and incurring all those
>> years of sanctions, unless you intended to dig up the documentation
>> and carry on with the programs once the inspectors had gone.
>
>They were buried for 12 years. For most of the last 5 years there have
>been no inspections, and still they were not exhumed. It is quite
>reasonable to assume that they might have been forgotten, or that having
>denied them originally Saddam might have been afraid to declare them for
>fear that they would indicate non-compliance. IN any case they provide an
>indication that Saddam was NOT actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons
>in the last 12 years.
>> garden of a scientist involved in nuclear weapons programs. He has
>> confessed to hiding them there on the orders of the Iraqi regime.
>> These were documents that should have been turned over to the UN
>> inspectors. Over a period of 12 years. This was a scientist who should
>> have been taken (with his family) out of the country for questioning
>> about weapons programs, but who wasn't due to Iraqi government
>> threats. No point going to all that trouble, and incurring all those
>> years of sanctions, unless you intended to dig up the documentation
>> and carry on with the programs once the inspectors had gone.
>
>They were buried for 12 years. For most of the last 5 years there have
>been no inspections, and still they were not exhumed. It is quite
>reasonable to assume that they might have been forgotten, or that having
>denied them originally Saddam might have been afraid to declare them for
>fear that they would indicate non-compliance. IN any case they provide an
>indication that Saddam was NOT actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons
>in the last 12 years.
If the Iraqis forgot about them (and frankly, having a person forget
about having a cache of stuff they were supposed to turn over to the
UN is buried in their garden is a little far fetched), or didn't want
to hand them over because of embarrassement, then they miscalculated.
Full disclosure, as they were required to do for 12 years *might* just
have saved their government. Ooops... bit of a miscalculation there.
about having a cache of stuff they were supposed to turn over to the
UN is buried in their garden is a little far fetched), or didn't want
to hand them over because of embarrassement, then they miscalculated.
Full disclosure, as they were required to do for 12 years *might* just
have saved their government. Ooops... bit of a miscalculation there.
Even if they had declared and shut down all their programs, I would
still have been rooting for an invasion. Saddam's rule had led to the
deaths of 2.5 million people, would have led to the deaths of hundreds
of thousands or millions more, and I'm not a heartless bastard.
still have been rooting for an invasion. Saddam's rule had led to the
deaths of 2.5 million people, would have led to the deaths of hundreds
of thousands or millions more, and I'm not a heartless bastard.
>There is no point in arguing about them. If you are desperate enough tye
>might be used to show that Saddam still had an interest in nuclear
>weapons, but even the Americans admit that they are not the "smoking gun".
>might be used to show that Saddam still had an interest in nuclear
>weapons, but even the Americans admit that they are not the "smoking gun".
And here we go back to where we started. "Smoking gun" is a soundbite
concept. You don't need a coherent case against Iraq, you need a
"smoking gun". Something that sums things up in 5-10 seconds and
sounds good on the evening news. People looking for a "smoking gun"
are the reason George Bush had to simplify the case against Iraq to a
level that any uninformed dullard could understand.
concept. You don't need a coherent case against Iraq, you need a
"smoking gun". Something that sums things up in 5-10 seconds and
sounds good on the evening news. People looking for a "smoking gun"
are the reason George Bush had to simplify the case against Iraq to a
level that any uninformed dullard could understand.
>Whatever evidence the Americans had before the invasion it was WRONG. The
>CIA made reports before last year saying that Iraq was no threat. Many people
>assumed that Iraq had some gas/biological weapons; but nobody had proof.
>Bush/Rumsfeld said that they had proof. Presumably they assumed that after
>the invasion they would find proof.
>
>They were wrong. Time to own up and accept the consequences of a bad
>gamble.
>CIA made reports before last year saying that Iraq was no threat. Many people
>assumed that Iraq had some gas/biological weapons; but nobody had proof.
>Bush/Rumsfeld said that they had proof. Presumably they assumed that after
>the invasion they would find proof.
>
>They were wrong. Time to own up and accept the consequences of a bad
>gamble.
And what are the consequences? The saving of hundreds of thousands of
lives, and the potential for Iraq to develop in to a rich and
civilised country? I'm sure George Bush would be quite happy to 'fess
up to that one.
lives, and the potential for Iraq to develop in to a rich and
civilised country? I'm sure George Bush would be quite happy to 'fess
up to that one.
David
|
Post of the Year Award (Entry 1: DAVID PEARS)
On 15 Jul 2003 03:07:29 -0700, morriss...@yahoo.com (Morrissey
Breen) wrote:
Breen) wrote:
- show quoted text -
What a pretentious bag of shit you are.
David
|
Paul Walker allegedly said:
> Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote in message
> news:<OKMPa.4458$9f7.4...@
>> LeftAintRight allegedly said:
>
>> > NZed wrote:
>
>> >> Now that we have Bush exposed as a liar will PM Clarke be retracting
>> >> her appology for the words she had said about Bush
>> >> ...this wouldnt of happened if Al Gore was in presidency. !
>
>> >> NZed
>
>> > I have this recurring dream where all around me there's these hippies
>> > and lefties and peaceniks and neo-commies and they're all chanting
>> > "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied". And I then I wake up and I can still
>> > hear their voices chanting "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied", over and
>> > over and over and over again. And then I realise it wasn't a dream -
>> > I'm in a goddamn living nightmare!!!!!!
>
>> The nightmare is the lies.....not their discovery.
>
>> Where IS the proof that leaves no doubt that Bush spoke of below?
>
> The proof would be the "intelligence gathered by this and other
> governments" as at the 17th of March. We don't know what all of this
> information is, so we can not say if Bush lied or not.
> news:<OKMPa.4458$9f7.4...@
>> LeftAintRight allegedly said:
>
>> > NZed wrote:
>
>> >> Now that we have Bush exposed as a liar will PM Clarke be retracting
>> >> her appology for the words she had said about Bush
>> >> ...this wouldnt of happened if Al Gore was in presidency. !
>
>> >> NZed
>
>> > I have this recurring dream where all around me there's these hippies
>> > and lefties and peaceniks and neo-commies and they're all chanting
>> > "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied". And I then I wake up and I can still
>> > hear their voices chanting "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied", over and
>> > over and over and over again. And then I realise it wasn't a dream -
>> > I'm in a goddamn living nightmare!!!!!!
>
>> The nightmare is the lies.....not their discovery.
>
>> Where IS the proof that leaves no doubt that Bush spoke of below?
>
> The proof would be the "intelligence gathered by this and other
> governments" as at the 17th of March. We don't know what all of this
> information is, so we can not say if Bush lied or not.
He has produced none of this information despite many requests that he do so
from every quarter - the public, Congress, the UN, his allies - his
enemies.
from every quarter - the public, Congress, the UN, his allies - his
enemies.
It's clear he hasn't got any of he would have provided it. I say this
because we have seen derelict trailers and aluminium tubes touted as
evidence...and later discredited. That's all they've got.
because we have seen derelict trailers and aluminium tubes touted as
evidence...and later discredited. That's all they've got.
If Bush had the proof he claims, there is no political or legal advantage in
being called a liar because he refuses to produce it. He took the US to
war and has provided no proof (though he claims to have it).
being called a liar because he refuses to produce it. He took the US to
war and has provided no proof (though he claims to have it).
He has lied. I see no other plausible explanation at this point - a year
after he began his campaign that would lead to war.
after he began his campaign that would lead to war.
You may give him more time - but we both must agree that as of today, he has
produced nothing to justify the invasion as a defense of the United States
against attack by Iraq.
produced nothing to justify the invasion as a defense of the United States
against attack by Iraq.
> It may be that
> this information turns out to be wrong, but this doesn't mean that
> Bush lied. It may be that he did, but you have yet to show that he
> did.
> this information turns out to be wrong, but this doesn't mean that
> Bush lied. It may be that he did, but you have yet to show that he
> did.
I have to show exactly nothing.
Bush started the war and claimed ot have the proof. It's Bush who has to
front. Not me. Sorry, Paul. There is no doubt that he started a war. Now he
must justify it.
front. Not me. Sorry, Paul. There is no doubt that he started a war. Now he
must justify it.
But he can't - becasue he lied, making claims he has not been able to prove.
The time for him to front up is long past.
The time for him to front up is long past.
You can make extravagant excuses for him if you wish. I don't know why you
would want to and I won't join you.
would want to and I won't join you.
--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
Geoff McCaughan allegedly said:
> On this basis, you could come up with a very long list of countries that
> "possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised", and
> that list would include the US and UK.
>
> So, if they actually wanted to invade out of compassion for the poor Iraqi
> people, why didn't they say so?
> "possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised", and
> that list would include the US and UK.
>
> So, if they actually wanted to invade out of compassion for the poor Iraqi
> people, why didn't they say so?
The weapons david is referring to were perfectly legal under the UN
sanctions and could not and would not have been used to a justtify a
preemptive invasion in defnce of the United States.
sanctions and could not and would not have been used to a justtify a
preemptive invasion in defnce of the United States.
David is engaging in the dishonest sophistry for which he is well known.
Why he bothers is something he will have to explain.
--
Steve
Steve
|
Post of the Year Award (Entry 1: DAVID PEARS)
David Pears allegedly said:
>>LET YOUR CRETINISM WORK FOR YOU....
>
> What a pretentious bag of shit you are.
>
> David
>
> What a pretentious bag of shit you are.
>
> David
If you were honest about this, you wouldn't be ridiculed.
As it is, you're being ridiculous - trying to portray 30 year old T72 tanks
as weapons of mass destruction......sufficient to justify a preemptive
invasion in defence of the United States.
as weapons of mass destruction......sufficient to justify a preemptive
invasion in defence of the United States.
How much more dishonest can you get?.....you haven't left much room for
"improvement".
"improvement".
--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
David Pears allegedly said:
>
>>"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
>>the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
>>weapons ever devised."
>>
>>George W. Bush
>>March 17, 2003
>
> ...didn't mention weapons of mass destruction.
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 21:24:46 +1200, Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote:
>>Tanks and artillery are not WMDs and are were perfectly legal under the UN
>>disarmament resolutions.
>
> Of course this is true. I never said it wasn't. But your quote...
>>disarmament resolutions.
>
> Of course this is true. I never said it wasn't. But your quote...
>
>>"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
>>the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
>>weapons ever devised."
>>
>>George W. Bush
>>March 17, 2003
>
You're assuming Bush is talking about 30 year old tanks....and you have no
basis for making such a ridiculous assumption.
basis for making such a ridiculous assumption.
Given the context in which his words were spoken - barely 3 days prior to
the invasion - only one conclusion can be reasonably drawn as to hwat he is
referring to.
the invasion - only one conclusion can be reasonably drawn as to hwat he is
referring to.
You can be UNreasonable if you like....but it reflects badly on you.
--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
David Pears allegedly said:
> And, as I've said, finding that one of the reasons was invalid falls a
> long way from proving that anyone lied, which is what you've attempted
> to prove. So far without success.
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 21:29:11 +1200, Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote:
>
>>> Besides seeing several hundred posts with this theme, most of them
>>> from Steve Withers, I still haven't read or heard any convincing
>>> evidence that this accusation is true.
>>
>>That's because you don't want to see it.
>>
>>Bush did not invade Iraq because they had some 30 year old tanks that were
>>allowed under the UN sanctions. T72 tanks under camoflage isn't what Bush
>>is talking about.......and you know it.
>>
>
>>> Besides seeing several hundred posts with this theme, most of them
>>> from Steve Withers, I still haven't read or heard any convincing
>>> evidence that this accusation is true.
>>
>>That's because you don't want to see it.
>>
>>Bush did not invade Iraq because they had some 30 year old tanks that were
>>allowed under the UN sanctions. T72 tanks under camoflage isn't what Bush
>>is talking about.......and you know it.
>>
>>"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that
>>the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
>>weapons ever devised.:
>>
>>George W. Bush
>>March 17, 2003
>
>>the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
>>weapons ever devised.:
>>
>>George W. Bush
>>March 17, 2003
>
> What you continue not to see is there were dozens of reasons to invade
> Iraq, of which possession of weapons of mass destruction was only one.
This has been repeated many times...and I'm surprised you still haven't
grasped it even now.
grasped it even now.
It is the ONLY one that Bush has used to provide himself with a legal
justification for his invasion.
justification for his invasion.
He claimed that he would not ba bound by the UN Charter becasue he was
acting to defend the US against immiment danger from Iraq. That is the ONLY
escape hatch in the UN Charter for war. The UN Charter is part of US law as
it is a fully ratified treaty - and the US Constitution recognises fully
ratified treaties as part of the law of the United States.
acting to defend the US against immiment danger from Iraq. That is the ONLY
escape hatch in the UN Charter for war. The UN Charter is part of US law as
it is a fully ratified treaty - and the US Constitution recognises fully
ratified treaties as part of the law of the United States.
> Many of the reasons were humanitarian after the needless death of 2.5
> million people by Saddam Hussein. If one of these many reasons turns
> out not to have been valid then it changes nothing. Which is why no
> one, except the obsessed, can get excited about it.
> million people by Saddam Hussein. If one of these many reasons turns
> out not to have been valid then it changes nothing. Which is why no
> one, except the obsessed, can get excited about it.
Had he been up front, many might have agreed with you. But Bush was far
from up front about that. For 9 months he monstered the world fantasies of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
from up front about that. For 9 months he monstered the world fantasies of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
It was his agenda right form the start. No one else started this ball
rolling. Invading Iraq was Bush's project entirely....and he claimed for 9
months to justify it based on WMD.
rolling. Invading Iraq was Bush's project entirely....and he claimed for 9
months to justify it based on WMD.
> And, as I've said, finding that one of the reasons was invalid falls a
> long way from proving that anyone lied, which is what you've attempted
> to prove. So far without success.
I have proven it with considerable success. Read the other posts in this
newsgroup. You are one of a dwindling minority who disagree. You are also
being forced to resort to pedantic absurdities to maintain any wriggle room
at all.
newsgroup. You are one of a dwindling minority who disagree. You are also
being forced to resort to pedantic absurdities to maintain any wriggle room
at all.
Bush started a war and claimed he had proof to justify it.
He hasn't shared that proof - despite several failed attempts - and we can
only conclude he hasn't got any.
only conclude he hasn't got any.
Problem for him - and you - is that he said he did have it.
He lied. He hasn't got it.
--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
David Pears allegedly said:
- show quoted text -
Actually.....he resumed his nuclear programme after Bush cut his food and
oil off.
oil off.
Kim Jong Il is another example of Bush's incompetence. Bush's foreign policy
has made it clear to any tin-pot dicator that all he needs as an insurance
policy is a basket full of nukes....and the means to deliver them.
has made it clear to any tin-pot dicator that all he needs as an insurance
policy is a basket full of nukes....and the means to deliver them.
North Korea is practised at making navy boats into innocuous fishing
vessels.
vessels.
That's all you need. ICBMs are dramtic......but no more effective than a
ship sailed into a harbour.
ship sailed into a harbour.
--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
On 15 Jul 2003 03:22:08 -0700, Morrissey Breen wrote:
>w...@freenet.co.nz (WeeWillyWonka) wrote in message news...
>> Consider it a glimpse, Morrissey, of the real world where people have
>> a genuine stake in an agenda,
>What "genuine stake" does pears have? All he does by way of
>"argument" is defiantly re-state this canard that "Bush did not lie,
>it was the British intelligence". I can't see why the fellow has any
>"personal stake" in it.
>w...@freenet.co.nz (WeeWillyWonka) wrote in message news...
>> Consider it a glimpse, Morrissey, of the real world where people have
>> a genuine stake in an agenda,
>What "genuine stake" does pears have? All he does by way of
>"argument" is defiantly re-state this canard that "Bush did not lie,
>it was the British intelligence". I can't see why the fellow has any
>"personal stake" in it.
Pears' stake is in the Palestine issue. He knows that the "Bush lied"
tripe is pointless, and so adopts a scornful stance to it. This shows
realism and reserve. That he then posts so eloquently shows he has
purpose. I can only guess at the nature of the stake he has in it.
tripe is pointless, and so adopts a scornful stance to it. This shows
realism and reserve. That he then posts so eloquently shows he has
purpose. I can only guess at the nature of the stake he has in it.
>> instead of just being a dogmatic twit without a clue, as you are.
>Dogmatic? I react very strongly to corrupt, dishonest politicians and
>timid, cowed "reporters". How exactly does that make me "dogmatic"
>again?
>Dogmatic? I react very strongly to corrupt, dishonest politicians and
>timid, cowed "reporters". How exactly does that make me "dogmatic"
>again?
The left do not have a monopoly on the truth, Morrissey. There are
honestly-motivated real people in all parts of the political spectrum.
Until you understand this and draw on a larger pool of human
experience in your formulations, you will be dogmatic.
honestly-motivated real people in all parts of the political spectrum.
Until you understand this and draw on a larger pool of human
experience in your formulations, you will be dogmatic.
willy
|
Post of the Year Award (Entry 1: DAVID PEARS)
David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote in message news:<a3n7hv4ltfbc30m6amc59t65
- show quoted text -
Buwahahahahahahahahahahaha! La reponse parfait! Je suis tres, tres
'appy, mes amis!!!
'appy, mes amis!!!
La reponse parfait demander la riposte parfait. Voila....
"PRETENTIOUS? MOI??!?!?!?!?!?"
|
On 13 Jul 2003 08:09:34 -0700, p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz
(Paul Walker) wrote:
>Steve <st...@nospam4me.org> wrote in message news:<OKMPa.4458$9f7.4...@
>> LeftAintRight allegedly said:
>
>> > NZed wrote:
>
>> >> Now that we have Bush exposed as a liar will PM Clarke be retracting her
>> >> appology for the words she had said about Bush
>> >> ...this wouldnt of happened if Al Gore was in presidency. !
>
>> >> NZed
>
>> > I have this recurring dream where all around me there's these hippies
>> > and lefties and peaceniks and neo-commies and they're all chanting "Bush
>> > lied, Bush lied, Bush lied". And I then I wake up and I can still hear
>> > their voices chanting "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied", over and over
>> > and over and over again. And then I realise it wasn't a dream - I'm in a
>> > goddamn living nightmare!!!!!!
>
>> The nightmare is the lies.....not their discovery.
>
>> Where IS the proof that leaves no doubt that Bush spoke of below?
>
>The proof would be the "intelligence gathered by this and other
>governments" as at the 17th of March. We don't know what all of this
>information is, so we can not say if Bush lied or not. It may be that>> LeftAintRight allegedly said:
>
>> > NZed wrote:
>
>> >> Now that we have Bush exposed as a liar will PM Clarke be retracting her
>> >> appology for the words she had said about Bush
>> >> ...this wouldnt of happened if Al Gore was in presidency. !
>
>> >> NZed
>
>> > I have this recurring dream where all around me there's these hippies
>> > and lefties and peaceniks and neo-commies and they're all chanting "Bush
>> > lied, Bush lied, Bush lied". And I then I wake up and I can still hear
>> > their voices chanting "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied", over and over
>> > and over and over again. And then I realise it wasn't a dream - I'm in a
>> > goddamn living nightmare!!!!!!
>
>> The nightmare is the lies.....not their discovery.
>
>> Where IS the proof that leaves no doubt that Bush spoke of below?
>
>The proof would be the "intelligence gathered by this and other
>governments" as at the 17th of March. We don't know what all of this
>this information turns out to be wrong, but this doesn't mean that
>Bush lied. It may be that he did, but you have yet to show that he
>information was wrong. Its a case of "what did the President know and
>when did he know it?". Ex-post this intelligence may be wrong, but
>this fact alone does not mean that Bush lied since if, ex ante, this
>intelligence was believed to be correct then Bush's statement is not a
>lie. His statement is information and time dependant. If this
>intelligence is wrong then it does beg important questions about how
>the US and UK intelligence communities gather information and what
>information they pass on to the politicians but this fact alone does
>not "prove" that Bush lied.
But if true it proves that he wasn't telling the truth.
And he is reponsible for his troops.
Who else?
--
Brian Dooley
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
|
In nz.general David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote:
> Even if they had declared and shut down all their programs, I would
> still have been rooting for an invasion. Saddam's rule had led to the
> deaths of 2.5 million people, would have led to the deaths of hundreds
> of thousands or millions more, and I'm not a heartless bastard.
> still have been rooting for an invasion. Saddam's rule had led to the
> deaths of 2.5 million people, would have led to the deaths of hundreds
> of thousands or millions more, and I'm not a heartless bastard.
So you'll be equally keen to see an invasion of Russia to stop them
opressing Chechens, or Israel to stop them oppressing Palestinians?
opressing Chechens, or Israel to stop them oppressing Palestinians?
Oddly enough, Dubyas compassion for the oppressed masses doesn't extend that
far.
far.
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:34:10 +1200, Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>> But Iraq's army was no longer large nor threatening.
>
> A 400,000 strong army is large by any meaning of the word. And
> it is crippling for a struggling economy.
> A 400,000 strong army is large by any meaning of the word. And
> it is crippling for a struggling economy.
It was 400 000 soldiers in principle, but as they were poorly paid, fed
and equipped they had no offensive capability. It was a very different
beast than the one that invaded Kuwat.
and equipped they had no offensive capability. It was a very different
beast than the one that invaded Kuwat.
>
>> They were buried for 12 years. For most of the last 5 years there have
>> been no inspections, and still they were not exhumed. It is quite
>> reasonable to assume that they might have been forgotten, or that having
>> denied them originally Saddam might have been afraid to declare them for
>> fear that they would indicate non-compliance.
>
> But by concealing them, Saddam was in non-compliance just as he was
> by not declaring those trucks.
>> been no inspections, and still they were not exhumed. It is quite
>> reasonable to assume that they might have been forgotten, or that having
>> denied them originally Saddam might have been afraid to declare them for
>> fear that they would indicate non-compliance.
>
> But by concealing them, Saddam was in non-compliance just as he was
> by not declaring those trucks.
I agree that they should have been declared. The non-declaration,
however, cannot be accepted as proof that he was continuing his nuclear
program.
however, cannot be accepted as proof that he was continuing his nuclear
program.
[switch evidence deleted]
> It's incidences like these which led people to believe that Iraq was
> reactivating its program.
> reactivating its program.
It seems like evidence, but again where is the physical evidence now that
the Americans control Iraq?
the Americans control Iraq?
>Chicanery on Iraq's behalf (like concealing
> the literature on copper vapour laser enrichment at the home of a nuclear
> scientist whose existence was not declared in Iraq's full, final and
> complete declaration of WMD programs) only aggravated those fears.
> the literature on copper vapour laser enrichment at the home of a nuclear
> scientist whose existence was not declared in Iraq's full, final and
> complete declaration of WMD programs) only aggravated those fears.
If you are talking about Faleh Hassan's papers; they were accepted by
everybody as being his personal archive, related to a failed programme
which was declared a decade ago.
everybody as being his personal archive, related to a failed programme
which was declared a decade ago.
For a summary of Iraq's nuclear weapons programmes see
>
> But when I point out stuff like this in the past, you bleated meekly
> about interpreting the resolutions as they should be interpreted
> could lead to innocent people (Saddam? Chemical Ali?) being hanged.
> But when I point out stuff like this in the past, you bleated meekly
> about interpreting the resolutions as they should be interpreted
> could lead to innocent people (Saddam? Chemical Ali?) being hanged.
These are not material breaches. Technical breaches should not result in
war. War should only be the result of a "clear and present danger". As
has been proved conclusively this was not the case.
war. War should only be the result of a "clear and present danger". As
has been proved conclusively this was not the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment