Americans panicking again..................

Miguel Cruz wrote:


Some Bush speechwriter guy guesting on Dennis Miller's horrid new CNBC show
made the scariest argument yet - he basically said the justification for
attacking Saddam was to strike at terrorism by showing the world what
happens to people who thumb their noses at the USA.

Well, since that is the main intended effect .....

Doug McDonald

On 2 Feb 2004 21:04:04 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

(nobody) wrote in
:

Peter L wrote:
You would be too if someone flew a couple of planes into tall
buildings and killed 3000 people.

Sorry to be blunt but... GET OVER IT.

Bush has killed 3 times more Iraqis than were killed at WTC.

Hmmm... Since only about 2400 were killed in the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor, I guess that to you, WW-II was just a big mistake.

For Christ's sake, did yoy read and understand the message from
NOBODY.

Here's a couple of key paragraphs:


************************************************** *
You cannot let terrorists prevent you from living a normal life. And
that
means you must prevent your government from going overboard with 1984
style
measures which, in the end, will do far more damage to your economy
and
lifestyle than one very bad day in 2001.

Americans should wake up from this nightmare and realise that it has
been made
far worse by the Bush regime that it really was.

************************************************** *********



I would advise you to read and reflect on what he is saying.

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:38:30 GMT, (Kenny
McCormack) wrote:

In article ,
Bert Hyman wrote:
(nobody) wrote in
:

Peter L wrote:
You would be too if someone flew a couple of planes into tall
buildings and killed 3000 people.

Sorry to be blunt but... GET OVER IT.

Bush has killed 3 times more Iraqis than were killed at WTC.

Hmmm... Since only about 2400 were killed in the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor, I guess that to you, WW-II was just a big mistake.

Yeah, really. We should have just laughed it all off (accidents will
happen, you know...). Let Europe fall to the Germans; let the Japanese
take over the Pacific Rim. Really, not our problem.

What *were* we thinking?

Err, Kenny, in WW II we went after the people who bombed Pearl Harbor.
In the Gulf War II we stopped going after the people who masterminded
the 9/11 disaster and went after someone else instead. Going after
Iraq in response to 9/11 is about as sensible as going after China
after Pearl Harbor. Got a rotten government, some of the people share
the same relgion as the bad guys, let's go gettem.

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:38:30 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:


Yeah, really. We should have just laughed it all off (accidents will
happen, you know...). Let Europe fall to the Germans; let the Japanese
take over the Pacific Rim. Really, not our problem.

What *were* we thinking?

The Bush adminstration is trying very hard to make the world feel that
maybe that might have been better...

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:24:03 +0000, alohacyberian wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

no but attacking Mexico for Pearl Harbor would have been -- Irag had
nothing to do with 9/11 and we have abandoned the war on terror to
scratch Bush's Saddam Hussein itch

You obviously haven't been keeping up with the news:

Case for Iraq War Stronger Than Ever

Chief weapons of mass destruction hunter David Kay's pronouncement over the
weekend that he doesn't think the U.S. will ever find Iraq's WMD stockpiles
has all but demolished the Bush administration's central justification for
the Iraq war.

But as the WMD case grew increasingly weaker over the last year, the case for
war against Saddam Hussein actually became more and more compelling - based
on the growing dossier of evidence linking the Iraqi dictator to the 9/11
attacks.

Though the Bush administration has strenuously looked the other way on one
blockbuster development after another, the 9/11 file on Baghdad has grown to
include:

Sounds like the spinning machine has been busy full time.

Badly needed too. Now what will they invent when that crap is proven to
be more manufactured excuses?

DALing wrote:

you must be either ignorant or blind to ignore facts, too. The premise
may
have been in error, but the result is that one major dictator is defunct.



And a big majority of Iraqis are mighty glad we are there....

--
Best
Greg

"Sjoerd" wrote in message
...

"alohacyberian" schreef in bericht
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
...

no but attacking Mexico for Pearl Harbor would have been -- Irag had
nothing to do with 9/11 and we have abandoned the war on terror to
scratch Bush's Saddam Hussein itch

You obviously haven't been keeping up with the news:

Case for Iraq War Stronger Than Ever

delete fabricated lies

You must be quite desperate to post this crap, Aloha.

In rec.travel.usa-canada wrote:


Peter L wrote:
You would be too if someone flew a couple of planes into tall buildings and
killed 3000 people.

Here in the UK we've had 3000 killed over the past 30 years, some of
them financed by Noraid. We've had the centre of Manchester destroyed
by bombs, we've had soldiers and priests killed in Aldershot, we've
had Canary Wharf bombed with 100 wounded, 2 dead and ?85 million worth
of damage, we've had pub bombings in Guildford and Birmingham (I was
in there the night it happened), we've had the Queen's cousin killed
by an IRA bomb, we've had buses destroyed in London by IRA bombs, we
had 29 people killed by a 500lb car bomb in Omagh. Throughout all this
we managed to carry on without getting our panties in a twist.


30 years and 30 minutes. Think. Nex

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:24:03 GMT, "alohacyberian"
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

no but attacking Mexico for Pearl Harbor would have been -- Irag had
nothing to do with 9/11 and we have abandoned the war on terror to
scratch Bush's Saddam Hussein itch

You obviously haven't been keeping up with the news:

Case for Iraq War Stronger Than Ever

Chief weapons of mass destruction hunter David Kay's pronouncement over the
weekend that he doesn't think the U.S. will ever find Iraq's WMD stockpiles
has all but demolished the Bush administration's central justification for
the Iraq war.
[...snipped...]

And if you believe that, I have a nice Brooklyn Bridge going for sale
- nice and cheap, only about $US50,000 - when will you be sending the
cheque?

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

Sjoerd wrote:

"alohacyberian" schreef in bericht
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
...

no but attacking Mexico for Pearl Harbor would have been -- Irag had
nothing to do with 9/11 and we have abandoned the war on terror to
scratch Bush's Saddam Hussein itch

You obviously haven't been keeping up with the news:

Case for Iraq War Stronger Than Ever

delete fabricated lies

You must be quite desperate to post this crap, Aloha.

Notice that "Sjoerd" cannot refute one thing.

wrote:

Peter L wrote:

You would be too if someone flew a couple of planes into tall buildings and
killed 3000 people.


Here in the UK we've had 3000 killed over the past 30 years, some of
them financed by Noraid. We've had the centre of Manchester destroyed
by bombs, we've had soldiers and priests killed in Aldershot, we've
had Canary Wharf bombed with 100 wounded, 2 dead and £85 million worth
of damage, we've had pub bombings in Guildford and Birmingham (I was
in there the night it happened), we've had the Queen's cousin killed
by an IRA bomb, we've had buses destroyed in London by IRA bombs, we
had 29 people killed by a 500lb car bomb in Omagh. Throughout all this
we managed to carry on without getting our panties in a twist.

In all fairness.. That was 3000 killed over 30 years.. Not the same as
3000 killed the same day.

That said, what happened to the Morrocans was stupid.