Ping ATB.

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:38:29 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:"Mr. Travel" wrote:
:
: Greg Procter wrote:
:
:
: No, sending him military advisors and WMD materials would be supporting
: him.
:
: So, sending the dictatorship money to buy WMD materials, via trading,
: isn't supporting?
:
:
:No, that's what is called "trading".
:Sending him WMD materials and advisors on how to use them, as the US
:did,

No we didn't.

Sarah Czepiel wrote:

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:38:29 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:"Mr. Travel" wrote:
:
: Greg Procter wrote:
:
:
: No, sending him military advisors and WMD materials would be supporting
: him.
:
: So, sending the dictatorship money to buy WMD materials, via trading,
: isn't supporting?
:
:
:No, that's what is called "trading".
:Sending him WMD materials and advisors on how to use them, as the US
:did,

No we didn't.


Your official US rewrites of history haven't reached us here in NZ yet.

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:54:01 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

Ken Ehrett wrote:

Killing 3000 innocent civilians in New York City and claiming
responsibility for it is not an act of war to Groggy. Osama Bin Laden
himself has stated that the forces he controls are in a state of war
with the United States but that's not good enough for Groggy either.
Apparently Groggy thinks Osama is a big fat liar from Liarsville.
Before Osama set his sites on the United States he was busy carrying
out a war against all the Christians in Sudan and has essentially
turned that country into a lawless quagmire. You have to wonder how
Groggy determines how many people a person has to torture and kill
before it can be labeled as carrying out an act of war.

There has been no published information linking Saddam and Iraq to the
attacks of 9/11. Since the stated onjective was WMD, and no WMD were
found, why are we still there?

We are there because Saddam had to go. Eventually that million man
army was going to invade Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait and beyond
because Saddam was determined to control most of the oil out of the
middle east. 9/11 was a convenient excuse to do it now rather than
later, and yes we would have had to do it later at a greater cost in
lives and treasure. Eventually we are going to have to do the same
thing in Iran if they keep pursuing nuclear weapons. Get used to
conflict in that region as long as they have oil or the ability to
block the flow of same. The entire world is an oil based economy and
anyone who ****s up the works is going to have to go because we are
not going to allow a bunch of 7th century troglodytes to force us to
live in the same backward grinding poverty they seem to enjoy. Osama
Bin Laden is the only multimillionaire I know of who likes to live in
a ****ing cave. People like that do not tend to be reasonable.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....4e24d9718d8971

"Bugger the happy buying experience thing, just make as much money as you can
with the least amount of effort... The world is full of customers."

Euromerc on business ethics.

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:38:07 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

Larry in AZ wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, "Mr. Travel" said:


Ken Ehrett wrote:

Killing 3000 innocent civilians in New York City and claiming
responsibility for it is not an act of war to Groggy. Osama Bin Laden
himself has stated that the forces he controls are in a state of war
with the United States but that's not good enough for Groggy either.
Apparently Groggy thinks Osama is a big fat liar from Liarsville.
Before Osama set his sites on the United States he was busy carrying
out a war against all the Christians in Sudan and has essentially
turned that country into a lawless quagmire. You have to wonder how
Groggy determines how many people a person has to torture and kill
before it can be labeled as carrying out an act of war.

There has been no published information linking Saddam and Iraq to the
attacks of 9/11. Since the stated onjective was WMD, and no WMD were
found, why are we still there?


Because it isn't finished..? Okay, on that score it looks as if we were
wrong. Should we scram like scared little girls..? "Oh, sorry.."


What does it have to do with "being like scared little girls"?
It's about wasting hundreds of billions of dollars that could be better
used.

Keeping power mad idiots like Saddam from conquering the middle east
is not wasting hundreds of billions of dollars. See what happens to
your 401K when some towel head manages to block the flow of oil out of
the middle east. Try and make a living when you have to pay 10 bucks
for a gallon of gas or pay more per month to heat your home than a
mortgage payment. What is really amusing is the fact that Western
Europeons are even more dependant on oil from the middle east than we
are in the United States. Should that region fall into chaos it will
effect their bottom line even worse than ours. The flow of oil is
vital to the bottom line of every country on the planet and no amount
of silly solar panels or windmill farms is going to offset our need
for energy. If you want to live in a cave and ride a bicycle to work
feel free to do so but I'm not about to downgrade my standard of
living by a hundred years just to placate the sensibilities of some
idiot who thinks everyone should sit on a dirt floor and meditate over
the quotes of a self proclaimed prophet who molested little girls.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....4e24d9718d8971

"Bugger the happy buying experience thing, just make as much money as you can
with the least amount of effort... The world is full of customers."

Euromerc on business ethics.

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:56:13 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, "Mr. Travel" said:


Greg Procter wrote:


That's why you yanks supported Saddam Hussein!

Not recently.

The French and Germans were the last to actively support him.


You obviously don't know the difference between "support a dictator" and
"discuss terms of trade".

Isn't trading with a dictator supporting him?

Ask the Europeons, they were making secret oil trades with Saddam
under the table while we were trying to enforce the UN sanctions
against him.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....4e24d9718d8971

"Bugger the happy buying experience thing, just make as much money as you can
with the least amount of effort... The world is full of customers."

Euromerc on business ethics.

Ken Ehrett wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:54:01 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:


Ken Ehrett wrote:

Killing 3000 innocent civilians in New York City and claiming
responsibility for it is not an act of war to Groggy. Osama Bin Laden
himself has stated that the forces he controls are in a state of war
with the United States but that's not good enough for Groggy either.
Apparently Groggy thinks Osama is a big fat liar from Liarsville.
Before Osama set his sites on the United States he was busy carrying
out a war against all the Christians in Sudan and has essentially
turned that country into a lawless quagmire. You have to wonder how
Groggy determines how many people a person has to torture and kill
before it can be labeled as carrying out an act of war.

There has been no published information linking Saddam and Iraq to the
attacks of 9/11. Since the stated onjective was WMD, and no WMD were
found, why are we still there?


We are there because Saddam had to go.

He's been gone for awhile. Why are we still there?


Eventually that million man
army was going to invade Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait and beyond
because Saddam was determined to control most of the oil out of the
middle east.

Really? Saddam couln't beat Iran, how would he defeat a UN backed
Kuwait/Saudia Arabia. He didn't do so well the last time he invaded Kuwait.

9/11 was a convenient excuse to do it now rather than
later, and yes we would have had to do it later at a greater cost in
lives and treasure. Eventually we are going to have to do the same
thing in Iran if they keep pursuing nuclear weapons. Get used to
conflict in that region as long as they have oil or the ability to
block the flow of same.

They weren't blocking the flow.

Ken Ehrett wrote:


Keeping power mad idiots like Saddam from conquering the middle east
is not wasting hundreds of billions of dollars. See what happens to
your 401K when some towel head manages to block the flow of oil out of
the middle east.

Great, maybe it will force better alternative energy choice in the US,
like nuclear power. Electric cars would be great, if we didn't use
fossil fuels to get it.

Try and make a living when you have to pay 10 bucks
for a gallon of gas or pay more per month to heat your home than a
mortgage payment.

What is really amusing is the fact that Western
Europeons are even more dependant on oil from the middle east than we
are in the United States.

Exactly. You didn't see them attack Saddam. Perhaps you view of Saddam
conquering the mideasst is a bit wrong? After all, he couldn't beat
Iran, and it wasn't difficult removing him from Kuwait.
The world wouldn't stand for him doing something OUTSIDE his country.

Ken Ehrett wrote:


Ask the Europeons, they were making secret oil trades with Saddam
under the table while we were trying to enforce the UN sanctions
against him.


I thought you said Saddam wanted to restrict the flow of oil, and the US
invaded so the oil would keep flowing? If Saddam wanted to restrict
the flow of oil, why was he trying to increase sales by trading with Europe?

Ken Ehrett wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:54:01 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

Ken Ehrett wrote:

Killing 3000 innocent civilians in New York City and claiming
responsibility for it is not an act of war to Groggy. Osama Bin Laden
himself has stated that the forces he controls are in a state of war
with the United States but that's not good enough for Groggy either.
Apparently Groggy thinks Osama is a big fat liar from Liarsville.
Before Osama set his sites on the United States he was busy carrying
out a war against all the Christians in Sudan and has essentially
turned that country into a lawless quagmire. You have to wonder how
Groggy determines how many people a person has to torture and kill
before it can be labeled as carrying out an act of war.

There has been no published information linking Saddam and Iraq to the
attacks of 9/11. Since the stated onjective was WMD, and no WMD were
found, why are we still there?

We are there because Saddam had to go.


Ken-scum, old ****wit, Saddam went four years ago. The reason you are
still there slaughtering innocent Iraqis (151,000 since Saddam lost
power) is something else.


Eventually that million man
army was going to invade Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait and beyond
because Saddam was determined to control most of the oil out of the
middle east.

Exactly how do you know this crap???


9/11 was a convenient excuse to do it now rather than
later,


At least you admit that your 11/9 was a convenient and totally unrelated
excuse to invade Iraq.


and yes we would have had to do it later at a greater cost in
lives and treasure.

"... and treasure"???

Eventually we are going to have to do the same
thing in Iran

.... going to invade Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait and beyond
because GWB/USa is determined to control most of the oil out of the
middle east.


if they keep pursuing nuclear weapons.


It's well demonstrated that Iran is not, has not been and has no
current intentions to pursue nuclear weapons.


Get used to
conflict in that region as long as they have oil or the ability to
block the flow of same.

.... going to invade Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait and beyond
because GWB/USa is determined to control most of the oil out of the
middle east.


The entire world is an oil based economy and
anyone who ****s up the works is going to have to go because we are
not going to allow a bunch of 7th century troglodytes to force us to
live in the same backward grinding poverty they seem to enjoy.


.... going to invade Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait and beyond
because GWB/USa is determined to control most of the oil out of the
middle east.

The US is rich on the back of ME oil, but the people of the ME live in
grinding poverty - for just once in your life, Ken-scum, THINK.
sheesh

Osama
Bin Laden is the only multimillionaire I know of who likes to live in
a ****ing cave. People like that do not tend to be reasonable.

As opposed to nations that support Saddam Hussein into power, assist him
to slaughter a million of his people, assist him to fight a decade long
war invading Iran (guilty of discarding a feuadal monarchy imposed on
them by the US)
provide him with WMD materials and advisors on how to use them ...


Your brain is ****ed, Ken-scum.

Ken Ehrett wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:56:13 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, "Mr. Travel" said:


Greg Procter wrote:


That's why you yanks supported Saddam Hussein!

Not recently.

The French and Germans were the last to actively support him.


You obviously don't know the difference between "support a dictator" and
"discuss terms of trade".

Isn't trading with a dictator supporting him?

Ask the Europeons, they were making secret oil trades with Saddam
under the table while we were trying to enforce the UN sanctions
against him.


Facts never were your strong point, were they Ken-scum.