Ping ATB.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

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.


Isn't it their oil?

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

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.


Many Iraqis consider Kuwait to be a part of their country - after all,
many of the borders of the ME are those imposed by occupying European
colonial powers in the 19th century.
Some of those boundaries are natural, such as mountain ranges, while
others are simply lines drawn across maps, agreed to by assorted foreign
administrations.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

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?


Don't confuse Ken-scum with facts - his head will explode again.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:


The right to the Geneva Conventions?


I'll say this for you Sarah, on a very good day you're quick!

Greg, perhaps you can explain what you meant?

Please identtify the specific Geneva Convention you are referring to and
the specific parts of the document that are being denied people in the US?



No, you ****wit, you are signatories of the Geneva Conventions and yet
you deny the citizens of nations you attack those rights. As the Geneva
Conventions are maintained by honour, trust and co-operation you have
removed the right of US citizens to be given the rights of those
conventions in any future war - as a nation you are without honour.


Let's pretend for a moment, you mean the 1949 Convention.
Given the description below, do you really believe the people captured
and held at Gitmo, for example had:

1. A fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance


That would only hold for people fighting a normal war, not for people
being attacked.
You could of course have sent the Taliban a complete set of ID signs,
enough for their entire membership. To whine that they weren't wearing
any when you didn't give them sufficient warning (to prepare) before
illegally invading their nation is somewhat churlish.


2. Conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of
war.


They weren't "at war" - you *******s invaded their country.


Again, please tell me what the hell any of the Geneva Convention issues
have anything to do with American rights that you claim are restricted
by the Constitution.

From the 1949 Geneva Convention:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons
belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the
power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Tick.


2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party
to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if
this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer
corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the
following conditions:

Tick.


(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

Tick.


(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

Tick.


(c) That of carrying arms openly;

Tick.


(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.


They are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions, you *******s are.

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:47:37 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

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.

Do you have a plan on how we manufacture anything without oil?
Telling us how the world should be is a waste of time. We have to
deal with how the world really is. Might makes right and in the end
the only language the assholes of the world understand is the sound of
tomahawks exploding in their palaces.

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.

We had to send aircraft carriers over there and keep them on station
for 12 years after the first war to throw him out of Kuwait in order
to force the ******* to maintain a no fly zone in southern Iraq. He
had to go, it's that simple. If Iran keeps insisting on developing
nukes they will have to go as well.

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:50:34 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

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?

What, are you a child? Saddam wanted to control all of the oil in the
middle east including all the oil in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and UAE.
Once he had control of all the oil then he could dictate who gets
what, how much and at what price. You don't build million man armies
to defend your border against countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
who have less than 5 million citizens between the two of them. Armies
like that are used to invade. Saddam had to go, it's that simple.
Most of Saddam's trade with Europe involved oil for a massive amount
of arms that the Europeons were all too happy to sell to the mad man.
Sheesh.

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:35:52 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

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?

Why do you think? Are you really this simple minded? If we left that
country tomorrow it would fall into total chaos and eventually be
turned into a puppet regime of Iran.


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.

UN backed? Don't be absurd. The UN is a useless paper tiger. In
fact, the whole time the UN was supposed to be enforcing sanctions
against Iraq they were secretly exploiting a loop hole that allowed
them to trade "food for oil" which gave Saddam hard cash payments to
continue his reign of terror. The UN moved an office into Baghdad for
all of a week and then took French leave the first time a truck bomb
killed their boss. Saddam didn't do so well in Kuwait because the US
military kicked him out with a mere token number of forces from the
other countries involved and the UN was doing everything it could to
prevent us from doing just that.

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.

Get your head out of the sand. Europe and the UN bury their heads
into the sand and ignore threats like Saddam every day of the week.
They ignore slaughters going on al over the world. Rwanda, Sudan, Dar
fur and don't forget the rape camps in Bosnia. The only thing the
Europeons did in Bosnia was to attempt to keep the Bosnians from
arming themselves to prevent the Serbians from slaughtering and raping
their people. That didn't stop until the US intervened as well. Now
that Saddam has been taken out of the picture Iran is going to be the
new bully on the block in the middle east and eventually we are going
to deal with them the same way. Bullets are all they understand or
respect.

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:23:23 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

: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.

You can't get what never existed.

Ken Ehrett wrote:

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:47:37 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

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.

Do you have a plan on how we manufacture anything without oil?


In what sense is that the ME's problem???


Telling us how the world should be is a waste of time. We have to
deal with how the world really is. Might makes right and in the end
the only language the assholes of the world understand is the sound of
tomahawks exploding in their palaces.

The ME basically doesn't care about their palaces exploding - those are
control setups put in place by the western empires to keep the ME
citizens poor while the West steals their oil.


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.

We had to send aircraft carriers over there


There's no _had_ about it - you _chose_ to send your forces their to
repress the ME populations.


and keep them on station
for 12 years after the first war to throw him out of Kuwait in order
to force the ******* to maintain a no fly zone in southern Iraq. He
had to go, it's that simple. If Iran keeps insisting on developing
nukes they will have to go as well.

Ken Ehrett wrote:

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:50:34 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

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?

What, are you a child? Saddam wanted to control all of the oil in the
middle east including all the oil in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and UAE.

Where do you get these silly stories from, Ken-scum?
Don't tell us that you're actually stupid enough to believe what you're
spouting.
What evidence - any evidence _- do you have that might support such a
viewpoint???


Once he had control of all the oil then he could dictate who gets
what, how much and at what price.


So he preceeded the US in that policy - what have you got against Saddam
that you don't have against the US?


You don't build million man armies
to defend your border against countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
who have less than 5 million citizens between the two of them. Armies
like that are used to invade.


Had you noticed Russia to the north, Iraq to the west?

Saddam had to go, it's that simple.

You put him there - you took him down. Other than the millions of dead
Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis, what's your problem?


Most of Saddam's trade with Europe involved oil for a massive amount
of arms that the Europeons were all too happy to sell to the mad man.


Selling armaments - isn't that utterly discusting!

The US produces more than 50% of the world's armaments!
Sheesh.