The Abramoff scandal investigation

The Kurds and many of the Shia's seemed awful happy to see us.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

NO,THEY DO NOT DESERVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is that clear enough for you???

But,it happens and while regetable,is unavoidable.
If you dont want women and children to get killed,then persuade all the insurgents in Iraq to meet us in the open instead of hiding behind womens skirts.

Were Japanese soldiers hiding behind women's skirts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That's how this discussion started, remember, and you said they deserved it for attacking us.

0 Replies

It is only unavoidable because this administration went into Iraq with both guns drawn and shooting without understanding any of the conseqences.

0 Replies

There would have been no American dead in Europe "if we had not invaded for the venal motives of a greedy and criminal regime--in the White House . .

Or Korea "if we had not invaded for the venal motives of a greedy and criminal regime--in the White House . .

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
NO,THEY DO NOT DESERVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is that clear enough for you???

But,it happens and while regetable,is unavoidable.
If you dont want women and children to get killed,then persuade all the insurgents in Iraq to meet us in the open instead of hiding behind womens skirts.

Were Japanese soldiers hiding behind women's skirts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That's how this discussion started, remember, and you said they deserved it for attacking us.

Both of those bombs were neccessary.
While Hiroshima was a port city and therefore a valid military target,Nagasaki was not a valid military target,but an attempt to drive Japan to surrender.

After Hiroshima,we were still planning to invade Japan,so hitting an industrial city such as Hiroshima was a valid decision.

I look at it this way,all the casualties from those two bomb attacks were still less the the predicted casualties if we had invaded.
So,as hoeeific as those 2 bombs were,they still saved lives,both Japanese ans American.

0 Replies

That's a far cry from "they deserve what they get".

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

There would have been no American dead in Europe "if we had not invaded for the venal motives of a greedy and criminal regime--in the White House . .

Or Korea "if we had not invaded for the venal motives of a greedy and criminal regime--in the White House . .

Sottises, sottises, sottises . . .

We invaded Europe after Germany had declared war on us. We landed troops in South Korea, an allied nation, after the invasion of the In-min-gun from North Korea. However, it doesn't surprise me to see this evidence of the extent to which you are historically clueless, and unable to understand the difference between those wars and this one.

0 Replies

Satana, you never answered my query. Do you know who the man in that picture is? Do you know why I chose it as an avatar?

Your comments were ridiculous.

0 Replies

mm, I'm going to agree with you, but not for the reasons you articulate. We dropped the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Japan for several reasons that include the simple fact that Japan was not ready to surrender unconditionally. Yes, we were still planning to attack Japan with the understanding that our casualty rate would be very high; a lesson we learned from our invasion of Okinawa. The US wanted to break their will to continue this war, and it worked. They agreed to the unconditional surrender after Nagasaki.

MacArthur was a smart general. He allowed the Emperor to remain as the titular head of Japan, a very important strategy to win the Japanese to the occupation.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
There would have been no American dead in Europe "if we had not invaded for the venal motives of a greedy and criminal regime--in the White House . .

Or Korea "if we had not invaded for the venal motives of a greedy and criminal regime--in the White House . .

Sottises, sottises, sottises . . .

We invaded Europe after Germany had declared war on us. We landed troops in South Korea, an allied nation, after the invasion of the In-min-gun from North Korea. However, it doesn't surprise me to see this evidence of the extent to which you are historically clueless, and unable to understand the difference between those wars and this one.

We didnt have to declare war on Germany.
They were no threat to us at all.They could not reach us militarily,except with submarines.
Those subs could not hurt us or our way of life.

So,we went to war with Germany because FDR wanted to,nothing more.

South Korea had its own military,and the UN was there to "protect" it.
Why did we have to waste so many American troops when the UN was there?
I thought the UN was the end-all,be-all for the world.

0 Replies

mysteryman, ask them if the women and children at Waco deserved being burned in the inferno at Waco while Janet Reno's tanks watched?

0 Replies

Wow, MM got an own prompter.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

mysteryman, ask them if the women and children at Waco deserved being burned in the inferno at Waco while Janet Reno's tanks watched?

Why would he ask that? That was not a military assault.

But for the record, no, they didn't deserve it, and that was an excessive use of force, IMO. Save the Clinton-baiting for the times when you really have no other argument to make. Oh, yeah, that would be now. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Of course they didn't, Okie. But don't change the subject.

MM, surely you can see that the terrorists found it to be 'regrettable, but neccessary' when they attacked us on 9/11?

I'm trying to point out to you that you have the same mindset as the 'enemy'. You believe that since 'they' attacked us (noone in Iraq attacked us, that's for sure) whatever we do in retaliation is neccessary. They believe the same thing.

Our conflicts will never end while people who think the way you do run the country; which is why it is drastically neccessary to change leadership if we wish to win the War on Terror.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

okie wrote:
mysteryman, ask them if the women and children at Waco deserved being burned in the inferno at Waco while Janet Reno's tanks watched?

Why would he ask that? That was not a military assault.

But for the record, no, they didn't deserve it, and that was an excessive use of force, IMO. Save the Clinton-baiting for the times when you really have no other argument to make. Oh, yeah, that would be now.

In a way,it was a military assault.
Tanks from the Texas NG,under orders of our govt,attacked and set fire to that compound,killing all those people.

0 Replies

Doesn't change the conclusion or the recognition that okie was just trying to bait folks, and using faulty assumptions at that.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
okie wrote:
mysteryman, ask them if the women and children at Waco deserved being burned in the inferno at Waco while Janet Reno's tanks watched?

Why would he ask that? That was not a military assault.

But for the record, no, they didn't deserve it, and that was an excessive use of force, IMO. Save the Clinton-baiting for the times when you really have no other argument to make. Oh, yeah, that would be now.

In a way,it was a military assault.
Tanks from the Texas NG,under orders of our govt,attacked and set fire to that compound,killing all those people.

let's rewrite some more history.... geez. MM.. Don't you think you should wear your tin foil hat at least a few minutes of the day?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
okie wrote:
mysteryman, ask them if the women and children at Waco deserved being burned in the inferno at Waco while Janet Reno's tanks watched?

Why would he ask that? That was not a military assault.

But for the record, no, they didn't deserve it, and that was an excessive use of force, IMO. Save the Clinton-baiting for the times when you really have no other argument to make. Oh, yeah, that would be now.

In a way,it was a military assault.
Tanks from the Texas NG,under orders of our govt,attacked and set fire to that compound,killing all those people.

let's rewrite some more history.... geez. MM.. Don't you think you should wear your tin foil hat at least a few minutes of the day?

What history have I rewritten?
Are you saying that tanks were not used?
I hope you arent.
Read here...
http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco219.html

Then there is this...
http://www.waco93.com/counterpunch.htm

Notice this part...
"The tanks were from Fort Hood"

or this...
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/07/17/waco/print.html

or this...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/8/120305.shtml

notice this part...
"when government tanks began to break through the compound walls."

Are you really going to deny it happened,or do you want more proof?

0 Replies

I'm sure it's the 'we set fire to their compound' that most don't believe. Even though there is every evidence that it is true.

See, MM? We don't disagree on everything. I think Waco was handled terribly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The tanks didn't set fire to the buildings. There was a complete investigation. The fire started in multiple places and all evidence points to the fire was set by those in the buildings.

Quote:

TESTIMONY OF JOHN C. DANFORTH

BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

June 20, 2001
After 14 months of exhaustive investigation, costing the taxpayers $17 million, I am absolutely convinced that the FBI had nothing to hide about Waco. The FBI did not do the dark things some people suspected. Agents did not cause the fire that killed scores of Branch Davidians. Agents did not fire guns into the complex. The evidence exonerating the FBI is overwhelming on these points. Evidence implicating the FBI is non-existent.

Webpage Title

Waco may have been handled badly but that doesn't equate to the FBI started the fires.

0 Replies

The Abramoff scandal investigation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know