On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 01:11:29 GMT, "Bryan" <m.usercat.at@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>Depends on your definition of 'is' is. We cannot respond because there
are
>some that want to tie our hands behind our backs. Look at France and the
>Ivory Coast, they must be fighting(defending themselves) for nothing. I
>know 'give peace a chance', for how long, till the streets are populated
by
>you enemy?
France like many UN countries saw no need for military action, when
Iraq was in no position to be a threat to anyone.
This War was sold to the voters as being due to Saddam having WMDs and
thus a threat. It is clear enough to see now that this was one of
Bush's fabrication from beginning to end.
Bush promised us WMD. So where are they?
>> >but since you're not, we have to do it ourselves. I think
>> >we'll do a better job of it too, we already are.
>>
>> Then why has the number of bombings around the World increased?
>
>Where there's a will, there is a way. If you want to do something bad
>enough, you wait until nobody is looking your direction.
WTC 9/11 highlights that they were not looking well enough to start
with. They were in with his organization, where this one thing took
years of planning.
They were blind enough to not see this coming, when it happened there
once before, only highlights that they are virtually helpless
concerning things that happen in other countries.
Therefore, these public bombings have increased directly due to Bush's
Warmongering ways.
Since both Iran and North Korea are on Bush's "axis of evil"
(countries who don't like us) invasion list, then that is why both are
now working on nuclear technology. And if you remove Bush's threat,
then the reason to make nuclear bombs is now greatly reduced.
So all he is doing is stirring up more trouble for himself.
>> When 9/11 #2 comes around, then you will see how current US policy is
>> protecting you. Violence only begets more violence.
>
>Like I said before, some want to tie our hands behind our backs and we
just
>sit there and get attacked.
The only people that have been attacked include the US due to their
extremely biased and hostile view in the Middle East. No doubt the
others are caused by local unrest.
It would be extremely hard to believe that the likes would happen in
places like France and Germany simply because they have not been going
around peeing people off.
>It gets old and the instigators continue to murder the innocent.
What is going on in Iraq is insurgence. The US are the invaders and
occupiers, where an increasing number of the population are now
fighting for their freedom.
I would have to seek out some latest figures, where last I heard over
1000 US troops had been killed. Iraqi civilian deaths would be
anything between 17,000 and 100,000.
One reason for that unknown figure is that the Pentagon refuses to
keep a figure concerning the number of Iraqi civilians that they have
killed, which is hardly respectful.
So this number of men, women and children is a biased estimate based
on who you ask.
Kind of a lot of deaths just to protect Saddam from being a threat to
anyone, which he was not even in the first place.
Let me put it this way, when what now is a good reason for all these
deaths? No WMDs. No Al-Qaeda. Not even an Iraqi took part in WTC 9/11.
I cannot see one.
>> Nice ideas. Just a problem in the implementation.
>
>It's not perfect.
Not even close.
Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk
|
