REPUBS should PAY if they kill Healthcare

On Mar 21, 10:32*am, Neolibertarian wrote:
In article
,
*Siobhan Medeiros wrote:

This isn't even a coherent straw man argument, dummy.

It's not an argument, it's a threat.

The Constitution reads "We the People..."

Right. President Bush/Cheney became obsessed with Iraq
and forgot about the American people.

The Khobar Towers attack was in response to the sanctions against Iraq.

Surrreeeee....

It's pretty easy to look up.

"On 25 June 1996, a terrorist truck bomb exploded outside the northern
perimeter of the US portion of the Khobar Towers housing complex,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The US controlled portion of Khobar Towers was a
facility housing US Air Force, US Army and British and French allied
forces supporting the coalition air operation over Iraq, Operation
SOUTHERN WATCH. The explosion killed 19 Air Force service members and
injured hundreds more. It also injured many Saudi Arabian citizens and
third country nationals."

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/khobar_af/part1.htm

The dead were all serving in the US Air Force 4404th Air Wing.

The target wasn't chosen at random.



The personnel attacked were in Saudi Arabia enforcing the No-Fly zones
in Iraq.

I see, let Saddam massacre from the air all the Kurds and Shiites he
wants.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1991 were, perhaps, the most severe in
history, especially given their length.

In 1995, the Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN released a study
claiming as many as 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a direct result
of the sanctions.

In 1998 three UN officials responsible for coordinating the sanctions
resigned in as many months, claiming that the sanctions were a "totally
bankrupt concept."

Enforcement of the "no-fly zones" didn't really stop Saddam's actions
against the Kurds. His security police, along with elements of HAMAS,
were active in the Kurdish territories throughout the sanctions period,
only ending with the 2003 invasion.

Sanctions are not an alternative to war. Sometimes they can be a
deliberate march to war.

This was the case when they were first tried by Athens in 432 BC, this
was true with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and it was still
painfully evident with UN Security Council Resolution 687 in 1991.



Bin Laden explained that the 1998 African Embassy bombings were in
response to the intractable situation in Iraq. He compared the sanctions
in Iraq to the terrible, intractable situation in the Occupied
Territories.

I call bull****. *Cite?

This is even easier to look up--how is it you haven't done so?

Your nation has been at war for 9 years, you've lost almost 8,000
citizens to it, spent nearly $1 trillion, yet you've never looked into
it? Shame on you.

"Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by
the Crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those
killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans
are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they
are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious
war or the fragmentation and devastation.

"So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to
humiliate their Muslim neighbors. Third, if the Americans' aims behind
these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the
Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem
and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness
to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their
endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq..."

* * * * * * * ---Osama bin Laden
* * * * * * * * *Fatwa of War, 1998



In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked. She was in the Gulf as part of the
task force charged with enforcing the sanctions against Iraq.

Uh huh.

"On August 8, 2000 the USS Cole departed the Norfolk Naval Station for a
five-month deployment to the Persian Gulf to participate in the US-led
operation enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq. It was scheduled to
return to the United States on December 21, 2000."

* *http://www.answers.com/topic/uss-cole

The target wasn't chosen at random.



When America was attacked on 9/11, Osama bin Laden made it clear the
jihadis had attacked America in response to the suffering of the Iraqis.

I call bull**** on you. *OBL despised Saddam Hussein.

Salafist jihadis despise all rulers who claim to be secular. While the
pall of secularism continued for a time to surround Saddam's regime, the
last time the Iraqi Revolutionary Council would declare itself secular
was way back in 1990. In 1991, as he faced down the west over his
invasion of Kuwait, he would assume the mantle of Islamic King. This was
viewed with suspicion at the time, of course. Many observers believed
his change only cosmetic.

By 1993, Saddam had fully converted to Salafism. He instituted the
famous "Return to Faith Campaign" inside Iraq, which required all
Ba'athist party members to pass periodic exams on the Qu'ran. Meetings
were begun and ended with prayers. From that point on, it is well known
(to everyone but Americans) that Iraq was no longer secular.

"Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation
with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an
Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the
faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin
Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi
Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.

"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an
agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against
Saddam."

No coincidence that all this occurred in 1993. Saddam also used his new
"born-again" credentials to broker rapprochement with Syria. Iraq and
Syria would reopen their borders to each other in 1997, and they
reopened an old oil pipeline that they used to circumvent the UN "Oil
for Food" restrictions.

No coincidence that by 1998, Saddam felt secure enough to end all
cooperation with the UN inspectors.



Sooooooo....let me get this straight...sanctions are bad, but invading
for nonexistent reasons is just ducky.

The statement being responded to is this:

"President Bush/Cheney became obsessed with Iraq and forgot about the
American people."

I was merely pointing out that the American people were only mystified
by the "obsession" with Iraq, because they mostly let "experts" do all
their thinking for them.

Sooner or later, the "experts" understand this all too well.

--
Neolibertarian

"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
* * * * * * * * * ---Ronald Reagan



Sooner or later, the "experts" understand this all too well.

Picture former president Bush holding hands with Sheik Abdullah, and
anyone can come to understand why the "U.N. "food for oil" program
seemed to bleed itself through to the states - we seemed to have had
our oil market upset a bit in the world oil scene, in contrast to
being a perpetual world supplier.

To admit that oil (particularly gasoline, derivatives) and oil
producing technology is still under the sole proprietorship of western
"technocracy" is patently absurd.

The whole world now wants to duplicate it and mass produce it for
their own use - price controls and markets seem to fluctuate with day-
to-day, international and diplomatic maneuvering, with a little
geopolitics mixed in.

What we need are revolutionary technologies that self-destruct upon
examination - if no one's interested in how the thing works, then
don't give either the image-maker or duplicator an opportunity to
mechanically or electronically copy the patent-protected idea!

Protect the inventor and you protect the nation - smear the inventor's
idea to the four winds of transnationalism, "meter" the technology,
and you ruin the whole nation in the process.


American

"We the People"

It's bad enough that George Bush left Pres Obama a twice a century
recession...it's bad enough that republican mismanagement clipped
our standard of living some 20%...it's bad enough republican
cronyism cost millions of Americans their homes and life savings
...it's bad enough they left a half finished war.....it's bad enough they
took the largest budget surplus in decades, and turned it into the
largest deficits ever...but if the republicans now kill this healthcare
legislation, they should run out of town on a rail with prejuduce.

If the democrats need to stoop to republican tactics to force
this through, so be it. They had their shot at eight years in power
and did noting more than ruin lives, ruin the economy, ruin our
life savings and ruin the reputation of the United States of
America.

Enough is enough, even civil disobedience will soon become
justified to make sure its a long long time before the republican
party regains power in DC.

Nothing is more dangerous than millions of people that have
nothing left to lose, thanks to the Republican party.


Jonathan

s




"American" wrote in message
...
! The vote will be in less than 72 hours!





! California flipped vote to yes when bribed with 25% more WATER for
their districts!

! Earmarks are piling mountain high for those with undecided votes!

! Backroom deals using bribery and extortion are swindling voters out
of the future of our country!

! If this bill is passed, there will be a decision on immigration
reform next week!

! Call your representative today! The count is on and will expire
Sunday!

! The key undecided states are Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana!

! Find your representative today before it is too late :

http://www.house.gov/

! Here is a model letter to send to your representative :

[Sen./Rep.] [FIRST NAME] [LAST NAME]
Washington, DC

Please REJECT Socialized Health Care!

Dear [Sen./Rep.] [LAST NAME]:

I'm writing to ask you to please reject ANY attempt to force
socialized health care or government-mandated health insurance on
Americans.

The plans currently being pushed by the Democratic leadership would
create a government takeover of healthcare, with a price tag of $2.5
trillion over 10 years, giant slashes to the already under-funded
Medicare, expansion of Medicaid, huge tax increases that would cost an
estimated five million American jobs and stifle medical innovation,
and individual mandates to purchase government-approved insurance
plans -- just to name a few. Polls show that the majority of Americans
are OPPOSED to ANY such attempts at imposing government-controlled
healthcare. And to add insult to injury, the press is reporting that
Democratic leaders plan to pass their plans using a so-called
reconciliation bill, a seldom-used procedure that only requires a
simple majority of votes for Senate passage -- which would be
unprecedented for social legislation of this cost and scale.

This whole thing is OUTRAGEOUS, and YOU must stop it. Please, do the
RIGHT thing -- reject ANY attempt to force socialized health care or
government-mandated health insurance on Americans, no matter WHAT form
it may take. Thank you.

Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], [STATE] [ZIP]


! Join the League of American Voters and donate to keep the anti-
propoganda campaign alive!

https://www.newsmaxstore.com/contrib...mo_code=99D5-1


! Congress should amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate
competition in health insurance

"We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress
eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance
companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish
insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make
insurers compete"

- A. Coulter

! This is America's last stand!

Show your support by contacting your legislator today!


American

On Mar 21, 7:32*am, Neolibertarian wrote:
In article
,
*Siobhan Medeiros wrote:

This isn't even a coherent straw man argument, dummy.

It's not an argument, it's a threat.

The Constitution reads "We the People..."

Right. President Bush/Cheney became obsessed with Iraq
and forgot about the American people.

The Khobar Towers attack was in response to the sanctions against Iraq.

Surrreeeee....

It's pretty easy to look up.

"On 25 June 1996, a terrorist truck bomb exploded outside the northern
perimeter of the US portion of the Khobar Towers housing complex,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The US controlled portion of Khobar Towers was a
facility housing US Air Force, US Army and British and French allied
forces supporting the coalition air operation over Iraq, Operation
SOUTHERN WATCH. The explosion killed 19 Air Force service members and
injured hundreds more. It also injured many Saudi Arabian citizens and
third country nationals."

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/khobar_af/part1.htm

The dead were all serving in the US Air Force 4404th Air Wing.

The target wasn't chosen at random.

How the **** do you know how it was chosen? Maybe it was simply
chosen because it was the easiest target.

Don't see a thing about OBL claiming it was in response to Iraqi
sanctions.


The personnel attacked were in Saudi Arabia enforcing the No-Fly zones
in Iraq.

I see, let Saddam massacre from the air all the Kurds and Shiites he
wants.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1991 were, perhaps, the most severe in
history, especially given their length.

In 1995, the Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN released a study
claiming as many as 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a direct result
of the sanctions.

In 1998 three UN officials responsible for coordinating the sanctions
resigned in as many months, claiming that the sanctions were a "totally
bankrupt concept."

Enforcement of the "no-fly zones" didn't really stop Saddam's actions
against the Kurds. His security police, along with elements of HAMAS,
were active in the Kurdish territories throughout the sanctions period,
only ending with the 2003 invasion.

Sanctions are not an alternative to war. Sometimes they can be a
deliberate march to war.

This was the case when they were first tried by Athens in 432 BC, this
was true with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and it was still
painfully evident with UN Security Council Resolution 687 in 1991.


So sanctions are bad, invasions are good. Riiiiggghhhhttttt....



Bin Laden explained that the 1998 African Embassy bombings were in
response to the intractable situation in Iraq. He compared the sanctions
in Iraq to the terrible, intractable situation in the Occupied
Territories.

I call bull****. *Cite?

This is even easier to look up--how is it you haven't done so?

Your nation has been at war for 9 years, you've lost almost 8,000
citizens to it, spent nearly $1 trillion, yet you've never looked into
it? Shame on you.

"Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by
the Crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those
killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans
are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they
are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious
war or the fragmentation and devastation.

"So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to
humiliate their Muslim neighbors. Third, if the Americans' aims behind
these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the
Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem
and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness
to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their
endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq..."

* * * * * * * ---Osama bin Laden
* * * * * * * * *Fatwa of War, 1998



In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked. She was in the Gulf as part of the
task force charged with enforcing the sanctions against Iraq.

Uh huh.

"On August 8, 2000 the USS Cole departed the Norfolk Naval Station for a
five-month deployment to the Persian Gulf to participate in the US-led
operation enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq. It was scheduled to
return to the United States on December 21, 2000."

* *http://www.answers.com/topic/uss-cole

The target wasn't chosen at random.



And how do you know how it was chosen, retard?


When America was attacked on 9/11, Osama bin Laden made it clear the
jihadis had attacked America in response to the suffering of the Iraqis.

I call bull**** on you. *OBL despised Saddam Hussein.

Salafist jihadis despise all rulers who claim to be secular. While the
pall of secularism continued for a time to surround Saddam's regime, the
last time the Iraqi Revolutionary Council would declare itself secular
was way back in 1990. In 1991, as he faced down the west over his
invasion of Kuwait, he would assume the mantle of Islamic King. This was
viewed with suspicion at the time, of course. Many observers believed
his change only cosmetic.

By 1993, Saddam had fully converted to Salafism. He instituted the
famous "Return to Faith Campaign" inside Iraq, which required all
Ba'athist party members to pass periodic exams on the Qu'ran. Meetings
were begun and ended with prayers. From that point on, it is well known
(to everyone but Americans) that Iraq was no longer secular.

"Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation
with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an
Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the
faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin
Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi
Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.

"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an
agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against
Saddam."

No coincidence that all this occurred in 1993. Saddam also used his new
"born-again" credentials to broker rapprochement with Syria. Iraq and
Syria would reopen their borders to each other in 1997, and they
reopened an old oil pipeline that they used to circumvent the UN "Oil
for Food" restrictions.

No coincidence that by 1998, Saddam felt secure enough to end all
cooperation with the UN inspectors.



Sooooooo....let me get this straight...sanctions are bad, but invading
for nonexistent reasons is just ducky.

The statement being responded to is this:

"President Bush/Cheney became obsessed with Iraq and forgot about the
American people."

I was merely pointing out that the American people were only mystified
by the "obsession" with Iraq, because they mostly let "experts" do all
their thinking for them.


Oh. Is that what you were saying. It mostly sounded like rightard
gibberish.

Sooner or later, the "experts" understand this all too well.

Whatever.

This is OT for sci.space.policy AFAICT...
Does anyone note follow-ups anymore?

?

"carl" wrote in message
ng.com...

As it is. Obama is always blameless. Everything that happens on Obama's
watch is Bush's fault. Never Obama's. That's what dems belief.

Let's be fair about the blame game. I think the first two years, at most, an
administration can claim to be picking up the pieces. One year for most
things. But this recession is one of the worst since WW2, fixing it in
one year just isn't realistic. It took Reagan two years to dig his way out
of the Jimmy Carter recession.

"Chief" wrote in message
.. .

What a laugh.

So if events of the first year in office belong to the sitting president
then you repug twits must blame Bush for 911 - right?


I think that was with respect to the economy, it takes a year or two
for an administration to put their policies into place. But if you want
to nit-pick, I remember when Clinton tried to bomb Bin Laden
the repubicans vilified him, calling it 'Monica's war'...remember?

There's plenty of blame to go around for 9/11, in particular
Bin Laden. It's hard to blame people for failing to predict
the actions of the insane.



What a laugh you folks are - hippo's one and all.




Snicker.


Below lies the chart of the Dow for the last year of your side, and
the first year of mine. Notice your side is the one of the left.
The largest market crash since 1929.

And the line on the right is my side. Going from 8000 to 11,000.
A 35% rise in one short year.
http://bigcharts.marke****ch.com/qui...uickchart.asp?
symb=djia&s
id=1643&o_symb=djia&freq=1&time=9

But go ahead, try to blame Obama for the crash, and credit Bush for
the surge.
And continue 'snickering' at the length of the recession, if it makes
you feel
better.


Jonathan


s










--
"History is earmarked by the successes of liberals and the failures of
conservatives." - ETG

"Neolibertarian" wrote in message
news:e4458$4ba4c589$18f55223$1605@allthenewsgroups .com...


This isn't even a coherent straw man argument, dummy.


It's not an argument, it's a threat.



The Constitution reads "We the People..."


Right. President Bush/Cheney became obsessed with Iraq
and forgot about the American people.



If you're looking to blame someone for everything in your world that's
less than perfect, you need look no further than those words.

I gave several reasons for my statement. You have given
no reason at all for your conclusion. Is your opinion based
on...air or what?


--
Neolibertarian

"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan

"American" wrote in message
...

Government has no right taxing its citizens in order to provide free
programs for the needy -

The govt has an obligation to do what the American people want
it to do. Have you ever taken a look at who the 'needy' are?
The majority are children, and the rest are mostly physically
and mentally handicapped.

this should be handled by the churches at the
local level, and it should be accomplished in order to lift those in
need out of their despair, into something that they can believe in.

And holes that free market forces and private charities fail to fill
should just do what, let people die in the streets? When it
comes to having something to 'believe in' that's not the country
I want America to be. I want to 'believe in' a country that is
an example to the rest in all aspects. From our free markets
and political systems, to our military and social systems.


1
“The current government presently being offered to us under the U.S.
Constitution may have come to a certain “fullness of time”, with
regard to its very well rehearsed Republican/Democrat ideologies.”

IMO “fullness of time” means that every possible and conceivable angle
for interpreting the Constitution w.r.t. both Democrat and Republican
sides has been exercised up to this point ad nausium, mainly because
there is a Marxist/Leninist side being presented to us as an
“alternative” and therefore “disqualification” of any independent
representation or party that may offer itself as the better
alternative to interpreting our Constitution!

You fail to see that a two party system, where the people play judge
and decide between the two, is the most efficient form of democracy
possible. A system which takes the form of two competing branches
decided by an independent third branch, all with coequal power, produces
power law dynamics. Which is where stability, adaptability and sensitivity
to change are all at simultaneous maximums. The Euros with the
parliamentary systems did not stay awake during math class.
Our founding fathers did A property of this system form is
that the two competing parties will settle down to an unstable
equilibrium between the two. Unstable means the two sides are
so close in public opinion, that a minor issue can decide between
them. Or an exaggerated response to a small disturbance.
Yet never veering too far from the middle due to the nearly
equal strength betwwen the opposing parties.

The minute you eliminate any one of those three coequal branches
the whole thing coming smashing down. As does any dictatorship
whether military, religious or...economic dictatorships.

What you see as a wasteful and repetitive exercize in futility is exactly
what we wish to see if our belief is in democracy. And across all scales
and issues in society.



What is being played out with HR 3200 right before our very eyes is
the dismemberment of the U.S. Constitution via the “Slaughter” rule or
the ability to “deem” a bill as passed, even though the particulars of
the bill have not been voted on.

What is to stop this administration from “deeming” the wholesale
dismemberment of our society with things like immigration, which will
instantly naturalize millions of illegal aliens with the stroke of a
pen?

Nothing stopped Bush from building a wall between Mexico
with the stroke of a pen.

The facts America is the most diverse country in the world
and the most powerful are not coincidental. Our high level
of freedom at all levels is our great strength and source of
growth. We should get used to the idea that America will
continue to be flooded from abroad. Due to all the immigration
our population is growing twice as fast as China, and
half as fast as India.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...orld-factbook/


American

In article
,
American wrote:

On Mar 21, 10:32*am, Neolibertarian wrote:
In article
,
*Siobhan Medeiros wrote:

This isn't even a coherent straw man argument, dummy.

It's not an argument, it's a threat.

The Constitution reads "We the People..."

Right. President Bush/Cheney became obsessed with Iraq
and forgot about the American people.

The Khobar Towers attack was in response to the sanctions against Iraq.

Surrreeeee....

It's pretty easy to look up.

"On 25 June 1996, a terrorist truck bomb exploded outside the northern
perimeter of the US portion of the Khobar Towers housing complex,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The US controlled portion of Khobar Towers was a
facility housing US Air Force, US Army and British and French allied
forces supporting the coalition air operation over Iraq, Operation
SOUTHERN WATCH. The explosion killed 19 Air Force service members and
injured hundreds more. It also injured many Saudi Arabian citizens and
third country nationals."

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/khobar_af/part1.htm

The dead were all serving in the US Air Force 4404th Air Wing.

The target wasn't chosen at random.



The personnel attacked were in Saudi Arabia enforcing the No-Fly zones
in Iraq.

I see, let Saddam massacre from the air all the Kurds and Shiites he
wants.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1991 were, perhaps, the most severe in
history, especially given their length.

In 1995, the Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN released a study
claiming as many as 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a direct result
of the sanctions.

In 1998 three UN officials responsible for coordinating the sanctions
resigned in as many months, claiming that the sanctions were a "totally
bankrupt concept."

Enforcement of the "no-fly zones" didn't really stop Saddam's actions
against the Kurds. His security police, along with elements of HAMAS,
were active in the Kurdish territories throughout the sanctions period,
only ending with the 2003 invasion.

Sanctions are not an alternative to war. Sometimes they can be a
deliberate march to war.

This was the case when they were first tried by Athens in 432 BC, this
was true with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and it was still
painfully evident with UN Security Council Resolution 687 in 1991.



Bin Laden explained that the 1998 African Embassy bombings were in
response to the intractable situation in Iraq. He compared the sanctions
in Iraq to the terrible, intractable situation in the Occupied
Territories.

I call bull****. *Cite?

This is even easier to look up--how is it you haven't done so?

Your nation has been at war for 9 years, you've lost almost 8,000
citizens to it, spent nearly $1 trillion, yet you've never looked into
it? Shame on you.

"Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by
the Crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those
killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans
are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they
are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious
war or the fragmentation and devastation.

"So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to
humiliate their Muslim neighbors. Third, if the Americans' aims behind
these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the
Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem
and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness
to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their
endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq..."

* * * * * * * ---Osama bin Laden
* * * * * * * * *Fatwa of War, 1998



In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked. She was in the Gulf as part of the
task force charged with enforcing the sanctions against Iraq.

Uh huh.

"On August 8, 2000 the USS Cole departed the Norfolk Naval Station for a
five-month deployment to the Persian Gulf to participate in the US-led
operation enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq. It was scheduled to
return to the United States on December 21, 2000."

* *http://www.answers.com/topic/uss-cole

The target wasn't chosen at random.



When America was attacked on 9/11, Osama bin Laden made it clear the
jihadis had attacked America in response to the suffering of the Iraqis.

I call bull**** on you. *OBL despised Saddam Hussein.

Salafist jihadis despise all rulers who claim to be secular. While the
pall of secularism continued for a time to surround Saddam's regime, the
last time the Iraqi Revolutionary Council would declare itself secular
was way back in 1990. In 1991, as he faced down the west over his
invasion of Kuwait, he would assume the mantle of Islamic King. This was
viewed with suspicion at the time, of course. Many observers believed
his change only cosmetic.

By 1993, Saddam had fully converted to Salafism. He instituted the
famous "Return to Faith Campaign" inside Iraq, which required all
Ba'athist party members to pass periodic exams on the Qu'ran. Meetings
were begun and ended with prayers. From that point on, it is well known
(to everyone but Americans) that Iraq was no longer secular.

"Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation
with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an
Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the
faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin
Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi
Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.

"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an
agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against
Saddam."

No coincidence that all this occurred in 1993. Saddam also used his new
"born-again" credentials to broker rapprochement with Syria. Iraq and
Syria would reopen their borders to each other in 1997, and they
reopened an old oil pipeline that they used to circumvent the UN "Oil
for Food" restrictions.

No coincidence that by 1998, Saddam felt secure enough to end all
cooperation with the UN inspectors.



Sooooooo....let me get this straight...sanctions are bad, but invading
for nonexistent reasons is just ducky.

The statement being responded to is this:

"President Bush/Cheney became obsessed with Iraq and forgot about the
American people."

I was merely pointing out that the American people were only mystified
by the "obsession" with Iraq, because they mostly let "experts" do all
their thinking for them.

Sooner or later, the "experts" understand this all too well.

--
Neolibertarian

"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
* * * * * * * * * ---Ronald Reagan



Sooner or later, the "experts" understand this all too well.

Picture former president Bush holding hands with Sheik Abdullah,

Photographs are emotional things.

Some people think that US military forces skedaddled out of Vietnam
because they saw a picture of helicopters being pushed off the deck of
an Aircraft Carrier.

Because of a video, some people think the LA police were brutalizing a
black guy a couple of decades ago.

Some people think the US Marines were planting a flag on Sirubachi
because they'd just won the Island of Iwo Jima--just because of a silly
photograph.

Some people think the Exxon Valdez at Prince William must have been the
worst ecological disaster in the history of mankind because they saw a
picture of an oil drenched seal.

The point is, don't argue feelings. Don't let your feelings about a
photograph color your intellectual understanding.

That photograph of Abdullah and Dubya was placed before you because some
people anticipated how you would feel about it.

and
anyone can come to understand why the "U.N. "food for oil" program
seemed to bleed itself through to the states - we seemed to have had
our oil market upset a bit in the world oil scene, in contrast to
being a perpetual world supplier.

Oil for food.

"Our" oil market wasn't upset. By far, the US gets most of its imported
oil from Canada.

The US never really pretended to be a "perpetual world supplier." Now it
forbids itself to be anything but an importer.

Capitalism must die. It's just too damn embarrassing to keep around any
longer.

To admit that oil (particularly gasoline, derivatives) and oil
producing technology is still under the sole proprietorship of western
"technocracy" is patently absurd.

To admit to anything so patently false would be equally absurd.

The whole world now wants to duplicate it and mass produce it for
their own use - price controls and markets seem to fluctuate with day-
to-day, international and diplomatic maneuvering, with a little
geopolitics mixed in.

Best thing that could happen. Type One Markets.

What we need are revolutionary technologies that self-destruct upon
examination - if no one's interested in how the thing works, then
don't give either the image-maker or duplicator an opportunity to
mechanically or electronically copy the patent-protected idea!

Naw. Sorry. Capitalism must die. That's already been firmly established.

No personal property of any real value is acceptable any longer.
Certainly not INTELLECTUAL property, which is the most valuable of all.

If a personal property becomes valuable, it turns out that all of
society owns it. Hence, the Health Care Reform Act.

Protect the inventor and you protect the nation - smear the inventor's
idea to the four winds of transnationalism, "meter" the technology,
and you ruin the whole nation in the process.

Look chum, it's not "transnationalism" you're decrying. It's corporatism.

Get your terms straight.

--
Neolibertarian

"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan

In article
,
Siobhan Medeiros wrote:

Sooner or later, the "experts" understand this all too well.

Whatever.


http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sou...Backtarget.wav

--
Neolibertarian

"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan