Wednesday, May 11, 2005

ARE YOU A RETHUGLIKKKAN???

I came out with -26% Republican. How progressive are you?


I am:
-26%
Republican.
"The Marxists are too reactionary for you. With people like you around, America collectively thanks God for John Ashcroft."

Are You A Republican?

77 Vignettes:

At 1:06 PM, May 11, 2005, Blogger Slade vignetted...

couldn't get your link to come up, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say I was 0%

 
At 6:47 PM, May 11, 2005, Blogger hooey vignetted...

The link should be up + running now

 
At 9:54 PM, May 11, 2005, Blogger camojack vignetted...

OK, I didn't really like the way they worded their choices, but opting for the closest to a reasonable set of responses, I got the following result:
"You are: 69% Republican."

Almost a passing grade, but the deck was obviously stacked...

 
At 12:28 AM, May 12, 2005, Blogger Josh Fahrni vignetted...

You are:
100%

Republican. You're the perfect sycophant of the Republican elite. Tom DeLay and Karl Rove would be utterly proud of you.


I agree, the questions were stupid, the way they were put, but I kind of, put my own questions in place of the radical one. For instance, I do think media is blatantly biased against bush, but not necessarily anti American. So, I just put it, instead of having to figure out another one.

 
At 6:56 AM, May 12, 2005, Blogger camojack vignetted...

Josh:
Isn't it gratifying being one of the elite, though?

 
At 8:34 AM, May 12, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

Gratifying?

Maybe it's the herd mentality. Sheeple. Follow the leader.

 
At 9:58 AM, May 12, 2005, Blogger camojack vignetted...

Mack said...
Gratifying?
Maybe it's the herd mentality. Sheeple. Follow the leader.


Uh-huh. Whatever.

Anyway, moron, you never answered the question; I'll repeat it, since I know idiots like you have a limited attention span:

Since you're not American, and you live in the "real world", why waste your erudite (asinine, more like) commentary on we poor, delusional unfortunates?

 
At 10:13 AM, May 12, 2005, Blogger Jon Whitelaw vignetted...

53% Republican.
1) in an office, hopefully a corner office.
2) Everybody should pay the same percentage.
3) just lucky.
4) A brilliant but sadly deranged leader. (i disagree, but he isn't the ultimate republican)
5) sadly in need of increased flexibility, such as allowing individuals to opt out, or to privatize their share.
6) Twist a few Israeli arms and make them understand they need to allow a Palestinian state. (is this not scanctions?)
7) It does seem reluctant to challenge the established power structure.
8) There's a simple answer to ending dependence on oil: plutonium breeder reactors. (Allow nuclear...France is 80% nuclear, great technology, but will not change dependence on oil...most power is coal generated, this is more a global warming/CO2 solution)
9) a visionary leader who left an indelible stamp on history.

 
At 10:13 AM, May 12, 2005, Blogger Lone Ranger vignetted...

Republicans must be stopped! I refer you to my blog.

http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/

 
At 10:49 AM, May 12, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

"Since you're not American, and you live in the "real world", why waste your erudite (asinine, more like) commentary on we poor, delusional unfortunates?"

Because we need to educate you people. But it's tough going with the sub-normal.

I think I'll have a tea-break.
:)

 
At 11:41 AM, May 12, 2005, Blogger hooey vignetted...

Mack vignetted...

Ā«Because we need to educate you peopleĀ».

That is the purpose of this blog.

 
At 12:04 PM, May 12, 2005, Blogger camojack vignetted...

Mack said...need to educate you people. But it's tough going when you're sub-normal.

I guess it is tough going for you sub-normal types. Bloody good, carry on. Pip, pip, cheerio...you ruddy blighter.

 
At 1:09 PM, May 12, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

Naughty Camojack. Don't misquote me please.

I said, "But it's tough going with the sub-normal."

"Bloody good, carry on. Pip, pip, cheerio...you ruddy blighter".

You're very easy to fool, camojack. I'm not a Brit either, thank god.

Maybe if you calmed down you'd come across a little more intelligently. Didn't momto10 write at one stage that you were "one of our great republican brains"?? Whew! Is that the best you can do?

 
At 1:27 PM, May 12, 2005, Blogger Josh Fahrni vignetted...

French? Probably not, but you seem bitchy and smug enough to be French. Personally, I don't care. If you're Canadian, you have no right to speak on world affairs, and be taken seriously. If you're from the Netherlands, the country (WHILE VERY PROGRESSIVE) is a drug hub, giving us insight into why you feel the way you do about Bush...let's see...oh wait. I don't care. Unless you're in Iraq, or Afghanistan, to tell us how horrible it is, I don't want to hear your opinions, as they don't have any thing to do with you. That said, if you did live in Iraq or Afghanistan, you'd appreciate what we were doing. You'd know, this wasn't an oil war (given the fact that if we wanted to invade for oil, there are much better oil producing countries, ready for regime change, that we could hit). I see you talk all of your liberal shit, as all of you do, without any real reason. I have two cousins in Iraq, one is in a place, a lot like a suburb, and they love Americans. Another is in the Sunni Triangle, where they LOVE Americans. I have another cousins STATIONED in Afghanistan, who brings medicine to villages, guess what? They love Americans. For all that they have done, for the freedom they have been brought. So, really, I don't care. You enjoy the kool-aid, enjoy the shit your leftist newspaper reports, because, you have no say as far as im concerned.

 
At 7:32 PM, May 12, 2005, Blogger Josh Fahrni vignetted...

RethugliKKKan....that's stupid even for you. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzales. Umm...who blocked that one black judge? YEAH. Robert Byrd ring a bell? Tried to block the Civil rights act, keep segregation? I remember. Howard Dean, who makes quite the number of racist statements. Thugs? Remember the Kennedy's and the mob? Who else....a lot else. Serious, Howie! Come on!

 
At 4:34 AM, May 13, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

The person who first posted the expression "RethugliKKKan" was African Moonbat, to my knowledge.

Go check.

 
At 4:57 PM, May 13, 2005, Blogger Slade vignetted...

well I was pretty close to my guess...3%
"You're a complete liberal, utterly without a trace of Republicanism. Your strength is as the strength of ten because your heart is pure."

 
At 9:43 PM, May 13, 2005, Blogger Josh Fahrni vignetted...

Wow, SHIT African Moonbat. You're a trendsetter! To be the first to EVER post that on the internet!

[/sarcasm]

I doubt it was him, thanks.

 
At 12:36 PM, May 14, 2005, Anonymous African Moonbat vignetted...

Thanks Josh, but I cannot claim credit for someone elses brilliance. I think I stole it from someone at Liberal Larry's site, Janny Mae or Bubblehead possibly. This was while Howie was making a nuisance of himself at Scott Ott's site and was unaware of Larry's existance.

BTW Howie thanks for letting me be a nuisance at your site.

I scored 52% Republican, to my surprise. I was the only person in my pub with a big smile on my face that wonderful Wednesday early in November. Being the only person there who was a Bush supporter meant that I was a stupid "sheeple" would could not think independantly of the herd. I would have thought that my score would have been higher.

Anyway, a question for Mack.

I detect from your posts a visceral dislike of the USA. What must the USA do to win your love and admiration? What would a USA that Mack loves and admires look like?

Howie, perhaps you could supply an anti American, American perspective. By anti American American I mean an American who does not like the USA. I am not accusing you of being unpatriotic because you seem to be typical of the inmates of tertiary educational institutions.

 
At 4:21 PM, May 14, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

African Moonbat said:"I detect from your posts a visceral dislike of the USA. What must the USA do to win your love and admiration? What would a USA that Mack loves and admires look like?"

You detect wrongly. I have no dislike of America. Our two countries have historic ties. I have a visceral dislike of the Bush Administration.

Period.

 
At 4:37 PM, May 14, 2005, Anonymous African Moonbat vignetted...

Mack,
The Bush administration has only got three and a half years to go so I dare say you will survive.

To those Republican trolls-get working on Jeb's campaign now!

 
At 4:45 PM, May 14, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

America can do better.
If Jeb does follow GW, you will alienate even more of the world.

And don't kid yourselves that you can manage on your own.

 
At 5:00 PM, May 14, 2005, Anonymous African Moonbat vignetted...

Mack,
exactly what has GWB done wrong that he should inspire such loathing? He liberated Afghanistani women from the most vile and sexist regime in the world. Is that bad? He liberated the Shias and the Kurds from a vile tribalistic dictator. Is that bad? He bypasses the United Nations, a corrupt and useless body. Is that bad? He is an infinitely more substantial stateman than his buffoon of a predecessor. Is that bad?

Even Gordon Brown, Tony Blair's left wing successor is a fan of GWB.

Now please explain to this stupid, non American sheeple what is it about GWB that inspires such visceral loathing among the chattering classes in the coastal states of the US and beyond, because sure as nuts I can't work it out.

 
At 6:09 PM, May 14, 2005, Blogger ReasonInRevolt vignetted...

There are a lot of fairly interesting tests like this out there, as I'm sure you are all aware of.

I need to respond to josh's jinoistic comments, sic:
French? Probably not, but you seem bitchy and smug enough to be French. Personally, I don't care. If you're Canadian, you have no right to speak on world affairs, and be taken seriously. If you're from the Netherlands, the country (WHILE VERY PROGRESSIVE) is a drug hub, giving us insight into why you feel the way you do about Bush...let's see...oh wait. I don't care.

I may feel the way you do about other countries, I am from Texas after all, which is the greatest place on Earth. However, I've also lived overseas for over 6 years and have visited both Canada and Mexico, and I'm not talking Cancun but real Mexico including the maquilladoras and shantytowns, as well as some of the resort areas, cities and peasant areas. My sister-in-law is from Mexico city. I have friends from all over Europe. One of my great-grandfathers is from Saskatchewan. So what does all this mean? It means that I cannot stand to read xenophobic, narrow-minded, unreflective words like what you wrote above without the bile rising in my throat. I strongly encourage you to open your eyes, ears and mind and understand that all people on this Earth are interconnected and created equal under Gods eyes, and that attitudes like yours lead only to hate and war.

Cheers, RiR

 
At 7:06 PM, May 14, 2005, Blogger hooey vignetted...

RiR, thanks for your vignette. Ironically there was quite a guessing game about Mack's natoinality - as if that matters! If people would read what he wrote, they would have figured out he was from Ireland. As far as Josh goes, there is hope for him after all. He is an avid reader of this blog, so he may pick up some progressive views. He is young (15), and has a lot of living to do. He is home schooled; when he gets into college he will see that there are othre views out there, and will probably grow.

 
At 7:23 PM, May 15, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

African Moonbat says:
He liberated Afghanistani women from the most vile and sexist regime in the world. Is that bad?

He didn't. Afghan women are being abused every single day, and Afghanistan is in total chaos.

Amnesty International, 12 May 2005:

"The Afghan government has an obligation to demonstrate its intention to uphold the rule of law and end the culture of violence through which women continue to be targeted and victimised ..."

Karzai is known to control nothing outside of Kabul itself.

Opium production (which the Taliban had cracked down on) has soared. In the past two years, the UN reports that poppy cultivation increased by two-thirds in 2004 to 51.7 million acres. The US estimate was even higher - at 87.5 million acres.

"He liberated the Shias and the Kurds from a vile tribalistic dictator. Is that bad?"

Depends on how you do it. If you bomb and slaughter up to 100,000 innocent civilians, it's bad. And if you plaster the survivors in DU it's ten times worse. You call that liberation??

Malnutrition among Iraqi children has doubled since the invasion. That's bad to me.

Ordinary Iraqis cannot go about their business without being stopped by US troops at roadblocks yelling "stop" (or holding up "stop" signs) in a language they don't understand, and then sometimes having their entire family shot in the car - although they themselves are unarmed - because they didn't get out quickly enough. I reckon that's bad too. Apparently somebody in the US military recently (in April 2005) had the bright idea that maybe they should hold up signs in Arabic instead ...

"He bypasses the United Nations, a corrupt and useless body. Is that bad?"

Absolutely. The UN needs reform, I know that. But the world needs the UN. The United Nations Charter forbids the use of force, unless carried out in self-defense or with the approval of the Security Council. If we don't have this, for example, any country can invade anywhere it likes - without provocation. In fact, it would make Saddam's attack on Kuwait just as 'lawful' as the US invasion of Iraq. (Blair was looking for a second resolution - or so he claimed - but the US had decided unilaterally in 2002 that it would attack anyway.) Bush thinks he is above and beyond anybody's laws. That's highly dangerous.

"He is an infinitely more substantial stateman than his buffoon of a predecessor. Is that bad?"

I regret to say that I deem that absolute rubbish. Clinton was no saint, but he was/is a very articulate man and a Rhodes scholar. I watched him answer questions from the press, in lengthy sessions, on numerous foreign policy subjects, with no notes, and no 'learned by rote' mantra-responses. He spoke off-the-cuff on everywhere from Ghana to Indonesia and beyond.

We all know about Bushisms. The man can't speak English for heaven's sake. He called Africa a "nation". What more can I say?

Clinton's sexual fling should have remained the business of himself and his wife. To make a fuss about that and ignore Bush's war crimes is unbelievable to me. Now it's Michael Jackson et al, while very important secret memos about "fixing the intelligence around the policy" (by Bush and Blair, to attack Iraq) reported in the UK, have been virtually ignored in the US media. They're only now beginning to pick up on it.

"Even Gordon Brown, Tony Blair's left wing successor is a fan of GWB."

New Labour are not left-wing. They are the "New Tories", as an Australian friend of mine calls them.

"visceral loathing"??

If you check out my latest comment on another post, it'll give you some idea why I detest the Bush administration. I can provide a lot more if you wish.

 
At 8:35 PM, May 15, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

PS

"Torture and inhuman treatment, which have been documented in Iraqi prisons, are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes under the US War Crimes Statute.

The United States has ratified both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, making them part of the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution." -- Marjorie Cohn, (a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.)

 
At 2:47 AM, May 16, 2005, Blogger Josh Fahrni vignetted...

howie said...
RiR, thanks for your vignette. Ironically there was quite a guessing game about Mack's natoinality - as if that matters! If people would read what he wrote, they would have figured out he was from Ireland. As far as Josh goes, there is hope for him after all. He is an avid reader of this blog, so he may pick up some progressive views. He is young (15), and has a lot of living to do. He is home schooled; when he gets into college he will see that there are othre views out there, and will probably grow.

Avid reader? I usually only look on this thing when im bored. Sorry howie, but most of your readers have gone, it appears. I actually plan on going and working on becoming a welder...I doubt I'll find a lot of liberal ideals in the working class. So don't worry about that. I did go to public school, I actually come from a set of parents that don't care either way in the political world. Sorry, you can't chalk this up to me being uneducated, uninformed, or anything else...I'm a Republican, always will be.

PS ReasonInRevolt, I was kidding, because, I think mack should but the fuck out of America's business. And was just blabbing my bullshit. Thanks for your great sense of humor though.

 
At 3:11 AM, May 16, 2005, Anonymous African Moonbat vignetted...

Mack,
So Afghanistan was better off under the Taliban? How the women there must have been happy knowing that they need not stretch the work load of educators and medical practitioners.

Saddam had it coming. All GWB did was what his father should have done in the first Gulf War, (oh yes, the UN said leave the job undone), and what Clinton should have done when Saddam expelled the weapons inspectors. GWB had the guts to do what had to be done, while the human toll has been tragic, it had to happen sooner or later. I note that the Kurdish areas of Iraq which have been free of the Baathist regime have the some of the lowest incidence of malnutrition in the Middle East and indeed is, after Israel, probably the most prosperous area in the region.

Clinton was articulate and persuasive, I grant you that. How very sad that a man of such potential should be remembered for his peccadilos, and his attempts to cover them up. I have heard that the two US presidents with the highest IQ were Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

Bush might be semi articulate, (something he is aware of and jokes about), yet he has delivered some of the finest oratory since John F Kennedy.

Finally where does this figure of 100 000 Iraqis killed by US forces come from? The UN, Amnesty International or Newsweek? Or does it come from a source with some credibility.

 
At 4:19 AM, May 16, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

"So Afghanistan was better off under the Taliban?"

I don't believe I said that? I was pointing out that it's no better since Bush invaded. Plus, opium production has soared. And where's Osama??

"Saddam had it coming"

Sure. And did the ordinary Iraqi people "have it coming" too?

"while the human toll has been tragic, it had to happen sooner or later"

Why?

"I note that the Kurdish areas of Iraq which have been free of the Baathist regime have the some of the lowest incidence of malnutrition in the Middle East"

So what, exactly? Malnutrition in Iraq as a whole has still doubled since the invasion.

"yet he has delivered some of the finest oratory since John F Kennedy"

Excuse me, but are you completely insane?

"Finally where does this figure of 100 000 Iraqis killed by US forces come from?"

From the medical journal the Lancet. A survey carried out, I believe, by British and Americans. And why should Amnesty have any ax to grind? It critices human rights violations everywhere, including Ireland, the UK, Russia, etc. etc.

You failed to answer the following at all:

**And if you plaster the survivors in DU it's ten times worse. You call that liberation?

**(Re the lack of a UN) In fact, it would make Saddam's attack on Kuwait just as 'lawful' as the US invasion of Iraq.

**Very important secret memos about "fixing the intelligence around the policy" (by Bush and Blair, to attack Iraq) reported in the UK, have been virtually ignored in the US media.

**If you check out my latest comment on another post, it'll give you some idea why I detest the Bush administration (re Guantanamo, Egypt and Uzbekistan.)

"Clinton was articulate and persuasive, I grant you that. How very sad that a man of such potential should be remembered for his peccadilos, and his attempts to cover them up"

Precisely! And it would never have happened (that he be remembered as such) if the Republicans hadn't been so determined to slit his throat (politically speaking.)

 
At 4:36 AM, May 16, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

Oops, I think you ignored this too:

"Torture and inhuman treatment, which have been documented in Iraqi prisons, are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes under the US War Crimes Statute.

The United States has ratified both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, making them part of the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution."

 
At 6:01 AM, May 16, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

Mack,
Bush did not invade Afghanistan without a spot of provocation. After six weeks of very politely asking the taliban if they could hand over Osama Bin Laden, who they believed could help with their enquiries into a series of minor incidents, including certain events in New York, Washington DC and other places on the 11th of September 2001, the Americans went in and assisted the anti taliban forces remove a regime so vile that even the Iranians would have nothing to do with it. If the Taliban had handed Mr. bin Laden over for questioning they would still be opressing women and destroying world heritage sites to their hearts content. Where is Osama? Either dead or in a cave reminiscing about better days. Who cares? Opium production has soared. Yes sadly it has.

Did the ordinary Iraqi people have it coming too? No, but from my understanding it is not the coalition forces letting off suicide bombs amongst ordinary Iraqis. Perhaps you should be just a little cross at the people letting off the bombs and destroying what remains of what was once the most prosperous economy in Arab world. (That was before Saddam took power).

It had to come sooner or later because Saddam was hated by the broad mass of the Iraqi people who eventually would have overthrown him and history relates when an oppressor is overthrown carnage on a dreadfull scale erupts. Remember during the "peaceful" independence of India between seven and fifteen million people were killed in a few months. More people were killed in South Africa in the two years following De Klerks abolition of Apartheid than all the Apartheid years put together. See what is happening in the Congo right now following the demise of Mobuto. The Cote de Ivoire is another example. Houphuet Boigny, (Spelling?), drops dead and the most prosperous and stable nation in West Africa is torn asunder by a vicious civil war.

What makes you think Iraq would have been different? You already have a very volatile ethnic mix. Imagine how much worse it would have been without the presence of coalition forces who gave been reasonably successful in containing those who are attacking other Iraqis to the central areas. Considering the ethnic groups live in areas that transcend national boundaries the potential post Saddam carnage could have included Turkey, Iran, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. Who knows how far it would have spread beyond that.

Saddam also had to go because he had invaded two neighbours starting two wars that killed over a million people. He further used mustard gas on those who complied with UN requests and rose up against him. Mustard gas kills all those who get in breathing distance of it be they fighters, civilians or infants. Thats what happened.

Saddam had to go because he sought WMDs in the past and would have tried to get them in the future. If they did exist and the region erupted in potential ethnic carnage then OMG.

Malnutition since the invasion has doubled since the invasion. Are'nt you a just a little cross with the suicide bombers who spend more time targeting fellow Iraqis, (if the "insurgents" are indeed Iraqi)and hindering their economic recovery thus allowing this situation to continue.

Why don't you listen to Bush's speech to the US congress after 9/11. When have you heard better oratory from a statesman anywhere in recent years?

The UN spoilt its copy book re Iraq with the oil for food scam.

The Iraqi people are now free of Saddam's 13 secret police forces. They no longer are mustard gassed. Their ecosystems which were destroyed to derive them of a sustainable base, (why don't you google "marsh arabs"), are being rehabilitated. The fact that Saddams forces are now letting off suicide bombs in an effort to stir up a civil war so they can regain their lost privelige does not hide the fact that they can vote. All that sounds like liberation to me.

With regards the secret memos that came to light. What if Saddam actually did have WMD's? We know he tried to get them in the past, and had the Israelis not destroyed his reactor he would probably have had them. He would have tried in the future had he not been toppled. He had already started two wars, (see above).

Had there been no 9/11 there would have been no Guantanamo. Are you not going to get a little bit cross with Osama? What has the Bush administration with Uzbekistan? Surely the Putin influence is far stronger there? What has he done to Egypt that is so wicked?

Clinton, as a lawyer should have known better that to appear to influence a court case. In doing so he left himself wide open. Politics is rough and he forgot Richard Nixon's warning.."I gave my enemies a sword and they stuck it in and twisted it. And if I had been in their postion I would have done the same thing". Clinton not only gave his enemies a sword he sent it gift wrapped. When a person is accused of a crime it has to be investigated. The fact that Clinton prevailed in the end does not hide the fact that a person of his intelligence and in his position should have kept his pecker in his pants and not land himself in that situation in the first place.

The Lancet is a specialist medical journal, one of very high repute, produced to assist the medical profession in diagnosing and treating various maladies. Why would they publish a report of this nature which belongs in a journal like Newsweek? That fact alone makes the figures suspect.

 
At 6:10 AM, May 16, 2005, Anonymous African Moonbat vignetted...

Sorry mack,
Anonymous was meant to be African Moonbat.

If I was going to be degraded and tortured by anyone I would prefer to be degraded and tortured by the Americans. Why? Because the United States of America only country where the laws permit me to sue to a degree where a life of idle, luxurious leisure is my lot for the remainder of my days.

I've often wondered, why have none of the Abu Graihb inmates sent the United States of America a stongly worded letter from their lawyers?

 
At 8:19 AM, May 16, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

"Bush did not invade Afghanistan without a spot of provocation. After six weeks of very politely asking the taliban if they could hand over Osama Bin Laden .."

That's a myth. The Taliban, far from refusing extradition, agreed in principle to hand over bin Laden for trial.

They would have guaranteed extradition to Pakistan, but given Pakistan's role as a US ally in the 'war on terror', a hand-over to Pakistan should have been a welcome step that could have avoided war.

Google it. It's all there on the net, in detail. Many sources given here:

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing005.htm

which is from:

http://www.j-n-v.org/JNVprinciples.htm

"not the coalition forces letting off suicide bombs amongst ordinary Iraqis ..."

I see. Nothing at all to do with "Shock and Awe" or firing shells and automatic weapons in civilian areas?

"Mustard gas kills all those who get in breathing distance of it be they fighters, civilians or infants."

Do you know what DU is? It's being used by the US military in Iraq. The effects last for generations.

"(Saddam) used mustard gas on those who complied with UN requests and rose up against him"

Even that is questionable. (There is "spin" everywhere.) A former CIA political analyst, Dr Stephen C Pelletiere, examined those bodies and said that Saddam did not have the gas in question at that time - but the Iranians did.

Pelletiere wrote on January 31, 2003 in the NY Times:

"And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

"The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

"These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned."


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482

"Saddam had to go because he sought WMDs in the past and would have tried to get them in the future"

But it's not lawful to use force or bomb and invade another country unless it has attacked you. And it's not the reason Bush or Blair gave. They lied to everyone that he HAD WMD. It was an illegal invasion. Period.

"When have you heard better oratory from a statesman anywhere in recent years?"

Please spare my ears! He's a puppet. A stupid man being used by Cheney and others. And Halliburton is up to its neck in corruption in Iraq.

I'm not a fan of Chirac. But if you want "oratory" you'll get it there.

"What has the Bush administration with Uzbekistan? Surely the Putin influence is far stronger there? What has he done to Egypt that is so wicked?"

He hasn't done anything to either of them. He flies suspects there for interrogation - two places known for torture. The US State Department condemned Uzbekistan for torture. Now it's a wonderful place to send people for interrogation.

"If I was going to be degraded and tortured by anyone I would prefer to be degraded and tortured by the Americans"

Careful. They might decide to send you to Uzbekistan, where people are boiled alive ...

"The Lancet is a specialist medical journal, one of very high repute ...

Exactly.

"Why would they publish a report of this nature which belongs in a journal like Newsweek?"

They did. Please Google and check.

"why have none of the Abu Graihb inmates sent the United States of America a stongly worded letter from their lawyers?

How on earth could they have done that without risk in an occupied country? And you think they have money for lawyers?

There are lawsuits pending regarding Guantanamo, including from the Britons released without charge - and again released without charge when they returned to Britain.

I need coffee badly. And a break!

Hang on -- re Clinton:

"When a person is accused of a crime it has to be investigated"

I'd love to know how many top Republicans had 'a bit on the side', and then lied bald-faced about it. Wouldn't you?

 
At 4:47 PM, May 16, 2005, Blogger Gothamimage vignetted...

You actually have a communist link set up? You must be joking.

 
At 5:39 PM, May 16, 2005, Blogger hooey vignetted...

Joking? No. Simply attempting to educate the benighted. Read my links. You mihgt learn something

 
At 2:57 AM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous African Moonbat vignetted...

Mack,
Its been a good debate but niether of us is willing to change our positions. A few parting shots:

9/11 changed everything. All the previous niceties were suddenly redundant, as Osama and his supporters and sympathisers should have realised. You cannot be nice to people who wish you dead and your country destroyed, and you cannot make peace on people who wish to make war.

Bush, when he took office made it very clear that he was going to withdraw the US commitments to the Middle East and the "Old World" and concentrate on on the US relations with other American nations. And, to horror of European nations, he followed that policy. He was warned on CNN that if you don't go to the Middle East, the Middle East would come to you.

Well, the Middle East came to the USA and the USA responded in kind. Everybody expected the stupid Halliburton puppet to look up from his book of goats and order a few extra bomb craters in the desert. They did not expect the reaction they got. I cannot see, in hindsight, what other reaction was possible. That reaction is going to make Bush a major historical figure. If anybody has a problem with that reaction, quit yer bitchin'. What did you expect?

The Bush administration made it quite clear that they would do some robust things and they would deal with some unsavoury characters. No objected at the time, but then everybody was filled with sympathy for the US. Oh dear there was an administration that wanted Justice, not sympathy. It was obvious at the time that Afghanistan and Iraq, the two nations that had the most vile regimes in a region of vile regimes would be first on the list. Nice to see Ghadaffi fall in line. How about it you guys in Theran? An apology for the hostage incident in 1980 would be a good start.

Clinton was not hounded because he had a bit on the side. He was hounded because his bit on the side led to suspicion that he tried to influence a court case. There is no country on Earth where that is not a crime. Clinton's stupidity was that he chose a love sick airhead for his bit on the side, and not a person of discretion like everyone else.

There was no need for the Lancet to publish anything on the death toll in Iraq. What has that to do with medical science? The grossly inflated statistics on the result of a government's reaction belongs in a reputable and credible journal like Newsweek. (sarcasm off).

 
At 5:08 AM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

"Well, the Middle East came to the USA and the USA responded in kind

Crap. Osama bin Laden came to you - and you've slaughtered thousands and thousands of innocent people in return - without having caught the man who attacked you.

"and concentrate on on the US relations with other American nations"

Which means what? There are several USAs now? Or you're going to deal exclusively with the North American country of Canada? You're talking rubbish.

"That reaction is going to make Bush a major historical figure"

Then why was an American diplomat (retired) on our national radio in the past week saying that Iraq was going so terribly for the US that Bush is casting around for some other issue with which he can "make his mark" in the history books? Why is Paul Krugman writing in the NYT that there's no point in making threats against North Korea when the US military is so over-stretched that they can do nothing at all unless they bring in a draft?


Why didn't you address these issues??

1) The Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden and this has conveniently been obscured and forgotton. [Because the USA needs Afghanistan and awful regimes like Uzbekistan for geopolitical reasons. Look at the recent signing of a deal to build a pipeline from Afghanistan to the Arabian sea.]

2) The US is using depleted uranium in Iraq - and you're prattling about mustard gas? And I've even given you an American source to show that it was likely the Iranians killed those Kurds? There is no comparison between that gas and DU, in terms of damage to future generations. Including to the US troops in the region.

3) Chirac is a far better orator than Bush could ever be. Bush can't put two words together without being coached.
Quote of the day: "Do you have blacks, too?" (To Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Nov 8, 2001.)

4) What about blatant corruption by Halliburton? it's known about everywhere, including in the US.

5) The US condemned Uzbekistan as as a totalitarian regime, every bit as bad as Saddam's. But they're giving Uzbekistan money for military aid and making NO calls for democracy there. Instead they're sending people there for torture. It suits you to ignore that, doesn't it?

"The grossly inflated statistics ... belongs in a reputable and credible journal like Newsweek. (sarcasm off).

VERY impressive, African Moonbat! I assume you've been in Iraq and counted them yourself. You've changed your tune about the Lancet being of "very high repute" I assume. How very convenient.

Those are my 'parting shots'.

You've ignored every important issue that I've raised, and for which I've given good sources, and meanwhile you've blathered on about what Bush did or didn't "make clear". I don't give a fiddler's fart about what Bush "makes clear".

I care about the truth.

bye bye

 
At 10:43 AM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous - 100% Rethug & Proud of it vignetted...

I care about the truth.

I'm glad to see Mack and I are on the same page

Good show, chap!

 
At 11:21 AM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous hankmeister vignetted...

faux mack makes a great parodist. Really good material, better than most. The only problem is he actually believes this stuff! He must have missed some lithium dosages the last few days.

Now Ted Kennedy, there's a true progressive. He not only has the blood-stains of forty-five million unborn Americans bravely aborted in the name of "choice" - he doesn't run away from that legacy, you have to give him that much - but he has the ability to turn his Oldsmobile into a deadly assault weapon AND STILL GET ELECTED YEAR AFTER YEAR SINCE THEN.

And John Kerry, the guy even admits he's a war criminal and progressives line up to vote for the guy. What chutzpah! My kind of liberals there.

 
At 12:24 PM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

- 100% Rethug & Proud of it says:
Good show, chap!

(he's minus 100% Rethug? what's that?)

Another knowledgeable type who thinks I'm English. But doesn't bother to reply to my points.

Why is no Republican here prepared to answer me about:

1) torture in Guantanamo?

2) rendition for torture, to Egypt?

3) Uzbekistan and torture?

4) depeleted uranium?

5) a pipeline through Afghanistan to the Arabian sea?

6) the US supporting a totalitarian regime in Uzbekistan while saying it's vital to bring down Saddam Hussein?

7) the UK memo from 2002 (regarding talks in Washington) which stated clearly that the intelligence had to be "fixed" around the policy (to invade Iraq)?

8) The Taliban's offer to extradite bin Laden?

9) Halliburton and corruption?

---

hankmeister talks about Ted Kennedy and Kerry. Did I mention either of them? Anywhere on this blog?

I'm still getting no sensible answers. Writing crap like "he actually believes this stuff" is utterly puerile.

NOT AN ANSWER.

---

Howie, I'll be back later sometime.

---

Meanwhile, for those who love to rubbish the UN:

Tuesday May 17, 2005:

"The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.

A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil -- more than the rest of the world put together."

 
At 12:55 PM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

Another knowledgeable type who thinks I'm English.

Oh Mack! When you assume--you make an ASS of U (but not) ME.
You ASS-U-med you know a persons thoughts. I know you're Irish..DUH! ( I actually read other peoples comments, without thinking mine are the all important ones!) I also know you're arrogant as all get out.

Have you hugged your terrorist today?

I've responded to *your points* in a million other places. I don't respond to echoes...especially from conspiracy theorist puppets!
You're just another misinformed arm chair harpie, who needs to concern himself with his own damn country.

You know as much about the USA, factually, as you know about insult, ad hominem free dialogue.
You really could use an enema. You're much too full of yourself.

 
At 1:04 PM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

And yeah, Mack. I dished up, what you'd call, some ad hominems. You've handed out your own in such generous abundance, I thought you deserved to have a taste.
Hypocrisy---tastes like chicken (merde')

 
At 1:48 PM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous Hankmeister vignetted...

Of course you didn't mention Kennedy or Kerry, I DID YOU IDIOT. You think that you get to set the agenda? That's typical of those who worship at the feet of BusHitler and KKKarl RoveHimmler

Are you sure you aren't a Repugliscam because you're as dense as one, but your paradoxical wit is far too sharp. Maybe you're suffering from a multiple personality disorder...or at the very least you might have a problem with projecting your foibles on others? Maybe your hairdresser knows for sure.

Do you want me to ask permission before I change the subject again, you secret fascist Bushie worshipper?

 
At 1:48 PM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

[applause]

[more applause]

 
At 1:54 PM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous Hankmeister vignetted...

...and besides Mr. Mack, as a true progressive what in Gaia's name are you doing employing moral absolutes to form your worldview?

You see, you slipped up again and employed Shrubya's and the evil kkkonservative KKKhristians tactic of judging everything with a strict set of moralistic value judgments. How do you know that your personal set of morals are even valid in a post-9/11 world? How closed-minded of you....you fraud!

 
At 2:06 PM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

"How do you know that your personal set of morals are even valid in a post-9/11 world?"

For us, there IS no "post-9/11 world". It's exactly the same world. We've been dealing with terrorism in Europe for decades. American says 'nothing is the same' now. For us, nothing has changed.
Why on earth should I change my morals?

The truth is the truth. It doesn't change. And BushCo don't even know what the word means. (Apart from when they bend it.)

 
At 2:29 PM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

mack,
you are MORE than mildly amusing. You actually take Howie seriously and expect us to take you seriously? BWHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Perhaps pacifistic Europe, who's been snoozing while islamofacists gain more and more ground should have done something with the "terrorism" you claim to have been...ahem...*dealing with* for so long now. Burying ones head in the sand and appeasing should never be called "dealing with".

You've been "dealing with" it the same way Clinton did when, after the bombing of the WTC garage, etc., he had bin Laden's head handed to him on a platter, but Slick dealt with it in his own, self-serving, anti-military, appeasing, head in the sand way!

Pacifists don't have the stomach to call their enemies bluff. Eventually they become their enemies captive...OR victim. Get a grip on reality, Mack. Your perception is NOT always truth...obviously in your case.

 
At 4:25 PM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous Hankmeister vignetted...

What the hell is all this talk about "moral absolutes" and "nothing changing"? How progressive is that anachronistic neanderthal talk?

Facts mean nothing because they can always be twisted to mean whatever a person wants. What's important is how one FEELS about something. That creates our own reality and that's where progressives excel!

Also, I've done a good bit of research myself on this so-called "international law" gambit that my comrades have tried to use to trip up Bu$Hitler and the Rum$feld/Haliburton junta. However, I frankly don't believe it can actually be proven any "international law" has been violated, at least not any international law to which all nations are signatory.

And to prove my point I want faux mack to cite the article, chapter and verse of whatever international law to which America is a signatory that it is now violating?

And anticipating his failure in that regard which will only serve to further my following point, the progressives' strength is not in "facts" or "laws" or "morality" than can easily change from one generation to the next, but rather about how we FEEL about things. And I and millions of peace-loving, compassionate, respectful, diverse thinking people believe Bu$Hitler to be a warmongering chimp who cheated his way to a degree from Havard because we anti-war heros believe it to be true. So there! Disprove that!

 
At 6:58 PM, May 17, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

Anonymous:

So now you're an expert on the UFF, IRA, ETA, UVF, LVF, FP-25, ASALA, and BR? Good for you.

---

Hankmeister says:

"Facts mean nothing because they can always be twisted to mean whatever a person wants."

Who won WWII? Hitler?

Goodnight.

 
At 1:37 AM, May 18, 2005, Blogger Josh Fahrni vignetted...

Hey, any idiot could argue he did win right? Exterminated millions of jews, fought a war in which his army killed alot of ours, and committed suicide, not giving us the satisfaction of making him stand trial.

 
At 5:38 AM, May 18, 2005, Anonymous African Moonbat vignetted...

Mack,

1, Torture in Guantanamo. No 9/11 no Gauntanamo. The islamofascists were not playing games on 9/11 nor were they making a statement. They were making war. The Americans responded in kind. The last people to infuriate the Americans in such a fashion were the Japanese in 1941. Look what happened to them and see how well they were treated by their victors after the war. For those who are interested in "root causes" as an acceptable excuse for atrocities, what was the "root cause" for GITMO? Besides, torture there has not been proven, no doubt the civil action will shed greater light on this subject.

2. Rendition of torture to Egypt? I'm not sure what you mean, but if suspects are also accused of having committed atrocities in Egypt, another country that has suffered greatly at the hands of these peoples, why should they not be handed over to the Egyptians?

3.A pipeline through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. A pipeline from where to the Arabian sea? The Russian oil fields? What is wrong with that? I would not invest in such a scheme, such things are too easily sabotaged by idiots with chips on their shoulder and the area is not geologically stable and the terrain is some of the most rugged on earth. It would be better to extend it to Vladivostok which is closer to the main markets of China, Japan and the United States.

3 Uzbekistan and torture.The US has one base in Uzbekistan which they share with the Russians. If there is torture there who is doing the torturing?

4. Depleted Uranium? Proof, not allegations please. The US is opening itself to massive law suits if proof can be supplied. You know damned well that mustard gas is bloody awful and illegal so pray do not shift the goal posts by saying "but DU is worse". That is a tuquoque and not germaine to this debate. I agree that the Iranians probably also used it on their Kurds but that is another terrible regime who would do well to follow the Ghaddafi example and swallow their pride. An apology for the hostage crisis in 1980 would be a good start. I get the impression that you feel that the Saddam regime was perfectly acceptable and not a threat to the region despite its history.

5. The "fixed" Memos. Nothing could hide the fact that saddam sought WMDs in the past, and would have tried in the future. He had a track record of war mongering. His eventual fall could well have resulted in ethnic carnage which could easily have spread throughout that volatile region and beyond. What if WMDs actually did exist and that scenario happened?

6 The Taliban's offer to extradite Osama to Pakistan. Platitudes my dear fellow, platitudes. Osamas men, including that spaced out California boy were helping the Taliban fight the free Afghanistanis in the north of the country. The hell they were going to hand him over.

7. Halliburton and corruption. oh yes the meal scam. I believe that the wheels of Justice in the US are turning in this regard.

8. So the US Senate finds that Bush's corporate masters are making a lot of cheap and easy money out of the oil for food scam. I did not know that and thank you for bringing it to my attention. However it does raise a new question namely, "Why would Bush defy his masters and jeopodise this tidy illicit income"?

The only answers I can come to are as follows:

8.1 Bush is his own man
8.2 He is a man of principle.
8.3 he is a man of courage.

Ciao

 
At 7:01 AM, May 18, 2005, Blogger camojack vignetted...

african moonbat:
You're my newest hero; personally, I stopped wasting my time on "mack", who seems to think progressivism consists of being progressively more childish and offensive...but that's about par for the course with people like that.

mack:
Your turn. Go ahead and prove me right, I know you can't resist...

 
At 7:37 AM, May 18, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

African Moonbat says:

"Torture in Guantanamo. No 9/11 no Gauntanamo"

So you're effectively saying that two wrongs make a right? Torture is illegal under US law. You would justify torture?

"Rendition of torture to Egypt? I'm not sure what you mean, but if suspects are also accused of having committed atrocities in Egypt"

Nope. They're accused of being terrorists by the US. So they fly them there in secret for interrogation "the Egyptian way". And to Uzbekistan, which has an atrocious torture record. It's a way of trying to get around US and international law - as is Guantanamo, where the US liked to pretend the prisoners were not in US jurisdiction.

"The Russian oil fields?"

No. The Caspian sea, which does not belong to Russia.

"Having a relatively minor share in Caspian oil, Russia has started to implement alternative oil projects in effort to protect itself from possible losses to be caused by the future arrival of Caspian oil in markets. Besides, Russia's positions in the region have weakened, for obvious reasons."

"Uzbekistan and torture.The US has one base in Uzbekistan which they share with the Russians. If there is torture there who is doing the torturing?"

Karimov. Who runs a totalitarian regime that rivals Saddam. Condemned by the US State Dept before 9/11, but recruited afterwards for geopolitical reasons. The US is now flying suspects there for "interrogation".

"Depleted Uranium? Proof, not allegations please.

Who would you like me to quote?

The Lone Star Iconoclast in Texas?

Or maybe Dr Chris Busby, the British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine and UK representative on the European Committee on Radiation Risk, who said: "the fact that, by illegally using hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) against Iraq, Britain and America have gravely endangered not only the Iraqis but the whole world."

The The Lone Star Iconoclast is here:

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/19news02.htm

And Dr Chris Busby is here:

http://www.caduceus.info/articles/denver.htm

"I get the impression that you feel that the Saddam regime was perfectly acceptable and not a threat to the region despite its history."

That's a crazy allegation, given what I've written here already. Where did I say that Saddam's regime was fine and dandy?
(It's about the same level as Mrs. 'Anonymous' asking "Have you hugged your terrorist today?"
You can do better.

"The "fixed" Memos. Nothing could hide the fact that saddam sought WMDs in the past"

So why the posturing? Why send Colin Powell to the UN with rubbish documents? Why pretend you're letting the inspectors do their work? Why bother with the Security Council? Why bother going to the UK parliament for a vote, or to the US congress, when all the intelligence was "fixed around the policy" and the people who were voting did not know that this "fixing" was going on? I suppose you call that democracy in action? The Republicans like to trumpet that the Democrats voted to invade Iraq. But they didn't have the facts, did they. "Intelligence to be fixed around the policy."

"His eventual fall could well have resulted in ethnic carnage which could easily have spread throughout that volatile region and beyond"

And there is no carnage there now? There is no threat of civil war? There is no threat of destabilising the entire Middle East? And Bush didn't turn out to be the best recruiting agent al Quaeda could ever have wished for??

The US didn't even bother to secure the borders after "Mission Accomplished", and every terrorist within hundreds of miles headed to Iraq.

PLUS Iraqi nationalists are fighting occupation forces in their own country - forces whose government has laid aside money to build the biggest emabassy they will have in the world. Like Americans wouldn't fight if their country was occupied?? If Frenchmen were putting up road blocks and shooting them dead if they didn't respond to orders in French? Jesus. The arrogance of it.

"were helping the Taliban fight the free Afghanistanis in the north of the country"

The Northern Alliance were Russian-backed. And previously the US were arming and backing the Taliban. It gets kinda muddy, doesn't it.

"The hell they were going to hand him over"

But nobody bothered to find out. Hell no, lets just go in and bomb the whole country. That's called 'Bush cojones' apparently. Such rubbish.

"Why would Bush defy his masters and jeopodise this tidy illicit income"?"

You left out "while throwing mud at Kofi Annan and the UN".

We disagree, African Moonbat.
Let's leave it at that.

It's nice to have a debate that's at a higher level than 'Bwahahahaha'. (Or calling anything one can't answer a "conspiracy theory" -- even though the sources I quoted were the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, the London Times, the UK government, a CIA political analyst, and a Senate committee.)

But we're never going to see eye to eye if you consider Bush a man of courage and principle.

---

Camojack, fuck off. You're providing very selective material for your readers on your own blog.

You're not worth my time.

 
At 11:31 AM, May 18, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

mack,
poor guy. just one more Bush hater that spends his time digging around for any "very selective material" that *justifies* his hatred, truthful or not. it would be so unprogressive of him to simply admit his blanket hatred of Bush, so he has to have *reasons* to hide behind.

mack TKO'd by african moonbat in the first round. truth always has a way of knocking down falsehoods.

camojack, did you get that? you're not worthy of macks time! now bow down and worship him...NOW!

 
At 1:01 AM, May 19, 2005, Blogger camojack vignetted...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1:03 AM, May 19, 2005, Blogger camojack vignetted...

(At 7:01 AM, May 18, 2005)
mack...seems to think progressivism consists of being progressively more childish and offensive...but that's about par for the course with people like that.
mack:
Your turn. Go ahead and prove me right, I know you can't resist...

To which, Mack responded:

Camojack, fuck off.

I rest my case...

 
At 5:53 AM, May 19, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

Camojack said:
"Your turn. Go ahead and prove me right, I know you can't resist...

Mack said:
"Camojack, fuck off"

Camojack said:
"I rest my case..."

Camojack, do you have the faintest shred of a sense of humour? Do you ever even smile?

I do.

 
At 6:01 AM, May 19, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

Camojack said:

"mack...seems to think progressivism consists of being progressively more childish and offensive...but that's about par for the course with people like that"

Camojack, since you're "one of our great Repulican brains" why don't you even attempt to answer the information I posted above? I doubt if 'anonymous' has the faintest idea what I'm talking about - but you probably do. So why not answer my points?

It's public information. It's what causes me to feel sick when I see Bush's face. Now would you like to read my sources and then answer me about DU - for example?

 
At 12:37 PM, May 19, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

Anyone want to place bets on whether or not mack dare to read this. A risky bet considering the likelihood he "feels" himself above reading such.

Let's so how your stomach "feels" afterward, mack. Your response will go a long way toward diagnosing the actual root cause of your *stomach problems*, including your true colors.

 
At 12:39 PM, May 19, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

correction: "let's see" not 'so'.

 
At 2:00 PM, May 19, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

Answer my points first, ANONYMOUS.

 
At 3:49 PM, May 19, 2005, Anonymous anonymously another anonymous vignetted...

For anyone sincerely interested in truth, here's a place of "Sanctuary".

 
At 12:16 AM, May 20, 2005, Blogger camojack vignetted...

Mack asked:
Camojack, do you have the faintest shred of a sense of humour? Do you ever even smile?


If you looked at my profile, as you said you did, you will see that I'm smiling in the picture.

 
At 12:21 AM, May 20, 2005, Blogger camojack vignetted...

Anyway Mack, at 7:37 AM on May 18, 2005 you said to me:
"You're not worth my time."

Having said that, can you reasonably expect me to consider you worth my time?

 
At 5:19 AM, May 20, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

Camojack, since you're "one of our great Republican brains" why don't you even attempt to answer the information I posted above? I doubt if 'anonymous' has the faintest idea what I'm talking about - but you probably do. So why not answer my points?

It's public information. It's what causes me to feel sick when I see Bush's face. Now would you like to read my sources and then answer me about DU -- for example?


----

Many people are spending their time here sitting on the sidelines waiting for a chance to make a smart-alec remark or two. But never answering the facts that I posted above - or even attempting to.

Anything will do to distract, but never a reply of substance -- except from African Moonbat, who agreed to disagree.

I have posted information about the devastating use of DU, and about the tyrannical dictator in Uzbekistan, an ally of GW Bush.
I have posted information from the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, from the London Times, from Downing Street, etc and nobody here is interested enough in their own "democracy" or the horrific suffering caused by the US admin -- not enough to bother reading the relevant links and then attempting to answer me.

How were Democrats supposed to vote for or against attacking Iraq when "the intelligence was fixed around the policy" by Bush and Co - according to a memo which Blair was grilled about in the UK media, and the existence of which was acknowleded by Blair?

What about the recently released information that showed that the major sanctions-busters were not UN staff, or George Galloway, or any Frenchman, but US companies with the connivance of the Bush administration?

Now I'm gone. Make your silly comments and ignore the facts. I won't be here.

 
At 7:58 AM, May 20, 2005, Blogger camojack vignetted...

I'm feeling magnanimous at the moment.
Here's information about depleted uranium

 
At 1:36 PM, May 20, 2005, Anonymous Nora vignetted...

Hello Mr. Camojack. I see you posted a link about depleted uranium. But it seems that information came from the Dept of Defense?
I believe that this would be less biased. And it includes three interesting links at the bottom.

 
At 2:13 PM, May 20, 2005, Blogger camojack vignetted...

Nora said:
Hello Mr. Camojack. I see you posted a link about depleted uranium. But it seems that information came from the Dept of Defense?
I believe that this would be less biased.


You think that the Lone Star Iconoclast isn't biased? Quite the reverse, I'm afraid. It's more along the lines of that Commie Italian rag, Il Manifesto. But thank you for being decent in your presentation; there's not enough of that around here.

 
At 7:31 AM, May 21, 2005, Anonymous Nora vignetted...

"You think that the Lone Star Iconoclast isn't biased?"

:)

At least you're implicitly agreeing that the DoD is biased.

Not quite straight of you to post that, Camojack, and call it "information about depleted uranium". There are other sources, many of them, that are not obliged to defend DU.

Have a nice weekend.

 
At 5:47 AM, June 06, 2005, Blogger Red A vignetted...

Howie, maybe when the revolution comes and you legislate division by zero, then you can be a -% of something, but until that happens the lowest percent you could be would be 0% Republican.

Which would also mean you disapprove of the abolition of slavery in the United States.

And, of course the questions were crazy, especially the woman's place one...if I choose Senator then she can't be at home or in an office?

and can't a female senator also be into S&M? Cuz I'm hoping Hillary causes Bill lots of physical pain.

 
At 5:53 AM, June 06, 2005, Blogger Red A vignetted...

Depleted Uranium - UN research showed that DU used in Kosovo has no detrimental effect unless the round hits the tank you are in...then little particles could become airborne and you could breathe them in and get cancer.

Oh, BTW, when the round hits your tank you're dead anyway and don't worry about cancer.

People who go on and on about DU rounds should try to also convince themselves that non-alcoholic beer, with 0.1% alcohol could in theory if you drank enough, get you drunk. OH MY GOD!

 
At 9:11 AM, June 07, 2005, Anonymous Not A Bot vignetted...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 6:12 PM, June 07, 2005, Blogger hooey vignetted...

See Beerme about beer questions.
http://beerandfirkins.blogspot.com/

 
At 1:09 AM, June 08, 2005, Anonymous Not A Bot vignetted...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 3:20 AM, June 08, 2005, Blogger Not A Bot vignetted...

IN HONOUR OF HOWIE,

I've started BOTBLOGGING.BLOGSPOT.COM

send in your ideas and experiences on how we can make BLOGWORLD a sincere and meaningful place to interact!

 
At 9:09 PM, June 08, 2005, Anonymous Not A Bot vignetted...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

<< Home