🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2007-07-01 01:44:01 -0400, "ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> said:

> In news:468719a8$0$8913$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,
> Slim <slim@pickins.com>spewed forth:
>> On 2007-06-30 13:58:53 -0400, "ChairMan" <why4@fu.com> said:
>> 
>>> In news:1183224532.446187.198580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
>>> LarryG@Yahuu.com <larryg_uu@yahoo.com>spewed forth:
>>>> On Jun 30, 6:52 am, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:58:34 -0700, "Lar...@Yahuu.com"
>>>>> 
>>>>> <larryg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 29, 11:23 pm, Zeno <Z...@home.kom> wrote:
>>>>>>> (2:20 in) Proponents of radical Islam (islamofasicsts) believe
>>>>>>> that the west is engaged in a *conspiracy* to subjugate Islam.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6331994107023396223&q=obsess...
>>>>> 
>>>>>> [Yawn]  Kind of lame for a conspiracy theory.  This is the same
>>>>>> old fear mongering perpetuated by the real masters of public
>>>>>> opinion manipulation.  Consider their other greatest hits:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Saddaam has Weapons of Mass Destruction
>>>>> 
>>>>> You meant "had" WMDs. Everyone and their dog knew that.
>>>> 
>>>> No evidence (outside of administration propaganda) was ever
>>>> presented to show WMD's existed.  Perhaps Santa and the Easter
>>>> Bunny conspired with Saddaam to hide them in Never-Never Land.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, folks.  Mike Smith is really that gullible.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> BULLSHIT
>>> 
>>> http://editors.sipri.se/pubs/Factsheet/unscom.html
>> 
>> From YOUR cite:
>> 
>> 1988    16 Mar.    Saddam attacks Halabja with CW
>> 
>> ------------------------------------
>> 
>> RAYGUN AND RUMMSEY GAVE SADDAM THE CW!!!
>> 
>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg
>> 
> 
> 
> So you openly admit he *did* have them then.
> Doesn't matter where he got them, it just matters that he still had 
> them and was willing to use them. All the while, you and your ilk 
> continually thump your chests and scream he didn't have them. No matter 
> how many times you tell a lie, it doesn't make it truth.
> Did we give 'em to him? Damn right we did, doesn't make it right, but 
> it does give us the right to take the fuckers back or him out. After 
> all, if it was our fault, which makes it was our responsibility to make 
> it right

So 'taking him out" means invading the country, destroying the 
infrastructure and
killing tens of thousnads of innocent people in the process?

Sure...Halliburton and KBR can build it all right back up! ;-)

-- 
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in 
England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after 
all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it 
is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a 
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist 
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to 
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL 
THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of 
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY 
COUNTRY."
�
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials