Aeronautics Industry

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 10, 9:27 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On May 10, 9:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 9, 11:37 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
:> :> :> :Turner <l...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:> :> :> :way as to indicate that:
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :>And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
:> :> :> :>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
:> :> :> :>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
:> :> :> :>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
:> :> :> :>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
:> :> :> :>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
:> :> :> :>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
:> :> :> :sanctions.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
:> :> :> where the US gets its oil.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
:> :> :> oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
:> :> :> women are probably friendlier.
:> :> :
:> :> :The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> So it isn't "all about oil" even for the loony. Thank you very much.
:> :
:> :More to do with dollars for oil. Reading comprehension. Get some!
:> :
:>
:> Preposterous notion. Writing sensibly. Try it! You might like it.
:
:Why don't you debate why what I wrote is preposterous?
:

For the same reason I don't argue with people about why the Earth
isn't flat or how the Moon landings weren't a hoax.

:>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
:> :> :> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
:> :> :> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
:> :> :> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
:> :> :> OPEC).
:> :> :
:> :> :That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
:> :> :as the sale is in dollars.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
:> :> things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
:> :> because it doesn't really matter.
:> :>
:> :
:> :Sure it does. We rely on and need dollar hegemony, especially where
:> :oil is concerned.
:> :
:>
:> Why? Try and put forward a coherent case for why this matters.
:
:It forces other nations to hold dollar reserves where we have no need
:to hold those nations' currencies in reserve in a similar manner. That
:is dollar hegemony. We rule with an iron fist that notion and is
:probably the main reason we attacked Iraq.
:

Except that makes no sense, since they're going to spend those dollars
for oil and that puts them in the hands of nations that don't need to
hold them. Net effect is pretty much zero, other than perhaps a one
year lag.

So the idea that this is somehow "probably the main reason we attacked
Iraq" is merely silly.

:> :>
:> :> :> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
:> :> :> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
:> :> :
:> :> :Petrodollars not petroeuros.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Dumbass.
:> :>
:> :
:> :Poor Freddy. He uses the above standard line when he's wrong.
:> :
:>
:> Poor El Chimpko. He throws his feces ... well, pretty much all of the
:> time.
:
:Throws feces by telling the truth? Sorry if the truth hurts you so
:much. Your slanted take on world events makes you a useful idiot.
:

Throws feces by making up lies and then acting as if your fantasies
are true and your feces are valuable. Sorry if the truth eludes you
so much. Your stupid take on world events makes you an idiot Chimpko.

:>
:> :>
:> :> :> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
:> :> :> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
:> :> :
:> :> :No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> What planet are you living on, Eric?
:> :>
:> :
:> :Have you ever read the PNAC agenda dated in 1998 and submitted to then
:> :President Clinton? No? Then don't comment.
:> :
:>
:> You're confused. Go read the sequence above. Show me where I said
:> *ANYTHING* about anyone but President Clinton.
:
:Clinton did not invent the damn Iraq Liberation Act. No doubt his
:answer to the PNAC agenda was to implement the ILA. Too bad Bush took
:it to another level and here we are in th mess we have today of which
:you cannot blame on Clinton.
:

Unlike you, I'm not 'blaming' anyone. I'm merely pointing out that
Bush didn't invent the US policy of active regime change with regard
to Iraq.

I'm merely pointing out that you're a lying fool.

:> You responded with
:> 'No'. Showing that someone else may have also said something similar
:> does *NOT* prove that Clinton didn't say it.
:>
:> Logic - get some!
:
:The ILA is mild compared to the PNAC agenda and what Bush did in Iraq.
:UN sanctions and all that.
:

The ILA doesn't say anything about sanctions, you stupid bastard. Go
read the thing.

:> :> Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.
:> :
:> :Yes, and its states:
:> :
:> :"through active application of all relevant United Nations Security
:> :Council resolutions"
:> :
:>
:> Try reading the whole thing. In fact, just try reading Section 3.
:> It's quite short and even you should be able to understand it:
:>
:> "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
:> remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
:> promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
:> regime."
:>
:> That's it. No conditions about means.
:
:So do you think Clinton just said "through active application of all
:relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions" to appease
:liberals, but was really suggesting a more hawkish approach like W
:actually did?
:

You're the only one (now) claiming that that's what Bill Clinton said.
Given that you earlier claimed that's what the ILA said, why the hell
should anyone believe anything at all that you say?

:>
:> In point of fact, the Iraq Liberation Act does not contain the phrase
:> YOU quote above at all. In fact, it doesn't contain the world
:> "through" at all, much less the rest.
:>
:
:I cut and pasted from here: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
:
:"My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
:objectives *through* active application of all relevant United Nations
:Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such
:changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
:

Which is not, oddly enough, the Iraq Liberation Act. Try reading the
actual Act.

:> Liar.
:
:Take it back, unless you can prove my link is wrong. And if so, then
:blame the Cornell website.
:

Note that it says that the text is "STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT".
That's not the text of the Iraq Liberation Act and it is correctly
labeled as not being the text of the Iraq Liberation Act but rather a
Statement by the White House with regard to the Iraq Liberation Act.

I am right.

The Cornell website is right.

You are a lying idiot.

That seems to sum it up.

:
:(Will Freddy be man enough to admit he was wrong?)
:

Sure, but first I would have to BE wrong. I'm not. You are. And
again it's a product of your own stupidity.

Go read the actual text of that Act. Go study the things that were
done under it (including providing arms and training to Iraqi
resistance groups, which isn't precisely what the UN Resolutions were
calling for).

Then you can admit that you've been stupidly lying again.

Not that I expect you'll ever be man enough to admit that.

:>
:> :
:> :Bush ignored that part.
:> :
:>
:> Because it wasn't there.
:
:Sure it is.

No it isn't.

:Will you admit your fault is the real question? Don't
:avoid this Freddy, your credibility is at stake.

I don't need to avoid it. You're lying again. There is nothing in
the Iraq Liberation Act that mentions UN resolutions. In fact, the
word "through" doesn't appear in the Act at all. Means are not
discussed.

Once again your claims about someone else's credibility are pure
bullshit and you are wrong, as usual.

:
:>
:> :
:> :No where does Clinton mention war. So in 2001
:> :we get attacked by Al Qeada operating out of Afghanistan and Bush
:> :attacks Iraq
:> :
:>
:> Gee, El Chimpko seems to have missed an entire war in Afghanistan
:> there.
:
:"Entire" is way to big a word when describing that skirmish that did
:not net as bin Laden the actual culprit of 9-11.
:

And lots of folks escaped to Argentina during WWII. Gee, I guess WWII
never happened, according to Eric's thinking.

:> :
:> :... and useful idiots like you claim that Bush was
:> :implementing Clinton's desire to oust Saddam Hussein because of the
:> :above cited document?
:> :
:>
:> Cite where I made such a claim.
:
:What did you claim?
:

Try reading what I actually say and having your brain engaged. You
might like the change.

:Why did you post the ILA at all?

I didn't post the ILA. I did mention it in passing, to demonstrate to
you that Bush didn't invent the idea of regime change in Iraq, despite
what you useful idiots of the Left keep trying to claim.

:
:To have me show
:you for the fool that you are?
:

Do us all a favor. Try holding your breath until you manage that.

:>
:> Liar.
:>
:
:Is this where I'm supposed to get mad?! LOL!
:

No, this is where you're supposed to go actually read the Iraq
Liberation Act. But you won't, because if you did you'd have to admit
you've been lying all this time.

:
:Cheat!
:

Yeah, how dare I actually point to facts and think! Thinking in a
discussion with you is 'cheating', since it involves something that
you're not capable of doing in return.

:> :
:> :No one ever stated that Saddam was a good guy. Well no one but
:> :Rumsfeld and others in the Reagan administartion back in the 80s, but
:> :that is another story.
:> :
:>
:> Yes, it is - 'story' in the sense of 'lie'.
:
:Are you claiming that we did not look at Saddam as a good guy and
:actually provide him with arms at one time? 1980s during the Iraq/Iran
:War, Ronald Regan presidency?
:

Again, go look it up. Please list the arms we provided him.

Hint: Iraq bought its arms largely from France and Russia. Total US
arms sales to Iraq amount to something like 0.005 of Iraq's foreign
arms purchases.

Hint: The US sells weapons to lots of folks we don't consider "a good
guy", particularly in the minor quantities we're talking about here.

:> Liar.
:
:You're an idiot Freddy and seemingly becoming mental as well.
:Correction: more mental.
:

Poor El Chimpko. Now he thinks his fantasies are true again.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On May 10, 9:27 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
:> :> :wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
:> :> :> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
:> :
:> :I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
:> :
:>
:> Eric: "What about rationally hating George Bush based upon results?"
:>
:> Make up your mind.
:
:I pity the poor SOB...
:

Oh? Why? Because he's wealthy and the President of the United States
and you are neither?

:>
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
:> :>
:> :
:> :The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
:> :when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
:> :less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
:> :react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
:> :
:>
:> Poor Eric. Too stupid to understand what's said to him, so all he can
:> do is bleat idiocy like the preceding.
:
:Yes, make it about me and ignore the post.
:

I covered the post. I said "bleat idiocy". That seems all the
discussion of the post that is required.

:> :
:> :Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
:> :Maybe you should to catch up.
:> :
:>
:> Have ever even looked into the interaction of your head, your ass, and
:> your mouth? Maybe you should to heal up.
:
:Ad hominem at it's worst. Poor Freddy. You would have made a good
:Soviet in the USSR.
:

Look at what it's in response to, El Chimpko, with your "Maybe you
should to catch up".

You get what you give. Talk sense and you get sensible discussion.
Talk idiocy and it gets pointed out you're talking idiocy. Lie and
you get called a liar. Start making ad hominem remarks and you get
them back.

That seems to cover it.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 11, 11:15 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 11, 11:15 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On May 11, 11:15 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 10, 9:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On May 9, 11:37 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> :> simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
:> :> :> :> :Turner <l...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:> :> :> :> :way as to indicate that:
:> :> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :>And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
:> :> :> :> :>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
:> :> :> :> :>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
:> :> :> :> :>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
:> :> :> :> :>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
:> :> :> :> :>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
:> :> :> :> :>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
:> :> :> :> :sanctions.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
:> :> :> :> where the US gets its oil.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
:> :> :> :> oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
:> :> :> :> women are probably friendlier.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> So it isn't "all about oil" even for the loony. Thank you very much.
:> :> :
:> :> :More to do with dollars for oil. Reading comprehension. Get some!
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Preposterous notion. Writing sensibly. Try it! You might like it.
:> :
:> :Why don't you debate why what I wrote is preposterous?
:> :
:>
:> For the same reason I don't argue with people about why the Earth
:> isn't flat or how the Moon landings weren't a hoax.
:
:Nice try. Why not just admit you're lazy instead? Just lump all
:theories you don't like under the same umbrella and debunk the easy
:ones. Typical of the way JFK assassination lone nutters work as well.
:

Nice try. Why not just admit you're loony instead? Just spew all the
theories that loons emit under your personal umbrella and squeal like
a pig when people point out your looniness. Typical of the way all
loony toons work as well.

:
:Are you a paid government stooge or an unpaid one?
:

Do you rape young boys too, or just little girls?

:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
:> :> :> :> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
:> :> :> :> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
:> :> :> :> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
:> :> :> :> OPEC).
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
:> :> :> :as the sale is in dollars.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
:> :> :> things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
:> :> :> because it doesn't really matter.
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Sure it does. We rely on and need dollar hegemony, especially where
:> :> :oil is concerned.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Why? Try and put forward a coherent case for why this matters.
:> :
:> :It forces other nations to hold dollar reserves where we have no need
:> :to hold those nations' currencies in reserve in a similar manner. That
:> :is dollar hegemony. We rule with an iron fist that notion and is
:> :probably the main reason we attacked Iraq.
:> :
:>
:> Except that makes no sense, since they're going to spend those dollars
:> for oil and that puts them in the hands of nations that don't need to
:> hold them.
:
:So? The dollar is also the de facto currency for criminal
:transactions as well (i.e. black market, drugs, etc.). Those nations
:will find a way to use the dollars.
:

You say this as if it means something.

It doesn't.

:> Net effect is pretty much zero, other than perhaps a one
:> year lag.
:
:Is there where you pretend not to know about the time/value of money?
:Freddy, you have already admitted to having a degree in economics.
:

Is this where you spew non sequiturs and irrelevancies?

It seems so.

:>
:> So the idea that this is somehow "probably the main reason we attacked
:> Iraq" is merely silly.
:
:No it isn't. It's sends a clear message that we won't fool around when
:dollar hegemony is concerned.
:

Loony toon.

:> :> :>
:> :> :> :> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
:> :> :> :> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Petrodollars not petroeuros.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Dumbass.
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Poor Freddy. He uses the above standard line when he's wrong.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Poor El Chimpko. He throws his feces ... well, pretty much all of the
:> :> time.
:> :
:> :Throws feces by telling the truth? Sorry if the truth hurts you so
:> :much. Your slanted take on world events makes you a useful idiot.
:> :
:>
:> Throws feces by making up lies and then acting as if your fantasies
:> are true and your feces are valuable. Sorry if the truth eludes you
:> so much. Your stupid take on world events makes you an idiot Chimpko.
:
:Yes let me agree with your worl view instead. We are pure and can do
:no wrong. Gee, I feel better already. LOL!
:

You mean let you make something up and then pretend the other person
espoused it. Jesus, do you get kickbacks on straw, or what?

:> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
:> :> :> :> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> What planet are you living on, Eric?
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Have you ever read the PNAC agenda dated in 1998 and submitted to then
:> :> :President Clinton? No? Then don't comment.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> You're confused. Go read the sequence above. Show me where I said
:> :> *ANYTHING* about anyone but President Clinton.
:> :
:> :Clinton did not invent the damn Iraq Liberation Act. No doubt his
:> :answer to the PNAC agenda was to implement the ILA. Too bad Bush took
:> :it to another level and here we are in th mess we have today of which
:> :you cannot blame on Clinton.
:> :
:>
:> Unlike you, I'm not 'blaming' anyone. I'm merely pointing out that
:> Bush didn't invent the US policy of active regime change with regard
:> to Iraq.
:
:He invented the manner in which he handled it. He, Cheney and other
:like-mineded oil industrialists.
:

Wrong.

:>
:> I'm merely pointing out that you're a lying fool.
:>
:
:You spout your opinion. Nothing more.
:

The difference being, of course, that my opinion happens to accord
with the facts while yours is just loony toon spew.

:> :> You responded with
:> :> 'No'. Showing that someone else may have also said something similar
:> :> does *NOT* prove that Clinton didn't say it.
:> :>
:> :> Logic - get some!
:> :
:> :The ILA is mild compared to the PNAC agenda and what Bush did in Iraq.
:> :UN sanctions and all that.
:> :
:>
:> The ILA doesn't say anything about sanctions, you stupid bastard. Go
:> read the thing.
:
:You trying to twist the fact that the ILA states "resolutions" rather
:than "sanctions" in an attempt to avoid the language about the UN.
:

The ILA doesn't say anything at all about "resolutions", you dumb
shit.

One more time - what YOU pointed to is a White House statement. The
Iraq Liberation Act is a LAW. You know, passed by Congress, signed by
the President, all that stuff?

:
:You are in no position to call anyone a liar when you yourself are
:intellectually dishonest.
:

You're a liar. Your lie has been pointed out. Sorry that noting that
you are a liar and pointing out the lie somehow in Chimpko world
equates to "intellectually dishonest"

:> :> :> Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.
:> :> :
:> :> :Yes, and its states:
:> :> :
:> :> :"through active application of all relevant United Nations Security
:> :> :Council resolutions"
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Try reading the whole thing. In fact, just try reading Section 3.
:> :> It's quite short and even you should be able to understand it:
:> :>
:> :> "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
:> :> remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
:> :> promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
:> :> regime."
:> :>
:> :> That's it. No conditions about means.
:> :
:> :So do you think Clinton just said "through active application of all
:> :relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions" to appease
:> :liberals, but was really suggesting a more hawkish approach like W
:> :actually did?
:> :
:>
:> You're the only one (now) claiming that that's what Bill Clinton said.
:> Given that you earlier claimed that's what the ILA said, why the hell
:> should anyone believe anything at all that you say?
:
:McClod, I quoting the ILA.

No, you not. You quoting a White House statement. You not quoting
ILA.

:
:Actual quotes!
:

Yes, "actual quotes" OF THE WRONG THING.

:
:They should believe me
:because I am quoting the actual text.
:

False. You are *NOT* quoting from the Iraq Liberation Act. It says
nothing remotely resembling what you 'quote'.

:
:Too bad that you erred and are
:too little of a person to admit it.
:

Try again. Go find the actual Iraq Liberation Act. It's not that
difficult. Then read it. That may be too difficult for you.

Then admit you're wrong, as usual.

:> :>
:> :> In point of fact, the Iraq Liberation Act does not contain the phrase
:> :> YOU quote above at all. In fact, it doesn't contain the world
:> :> "through" at all, much less the rest.
:> :>
:> :
:> :I cut and pasted from here:http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
:> :
:> :"My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
:> :objectives *through* active application of all relevant United Nations
:> :Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such
:> :changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
:> :
:>
:> Which is not, oddly enough, the Iraq Liberation Act. Try reading the
:> actual Act.
:
:So the statement from the White House out of Clinton's mouth himself
:is not enough for you?
:

The statement from the White House is ***NOT*** the Iraq Liberation
Act. Go read the actual law.

:
:Where is the link you want me to read?
:
:>
:> :> Liar.
:> :
:> :Take it back, unless you can prove my link is wrong. And if so, then
:> :blame the Cornell website.
:> :
:>
:> Note that it says that the text is "STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT".
:> That's not the text of the Iraq Liberation Act and it is correctly
:> labeled as not being the text of the Iraq Liberation Act but rather a
:> Statement by the White House with regard to the Iraq Liberation Act.
:>
:> I am right.
:>
:
:Where is the link?
:

All over the place. Try searching for the Bill referred to in the
White House statement you found, for a start.

:
:Who drafted the act?
:

Congress. You know, the same people who draft all laws.

:>
:> The Cornell website is right.
:>
:
:That is where I am quoting.
:

Yes, but it doesn't say that what is there is the actual Iraq
Liberation Act. It is labeled as a White House statement ABOUT that
act, not as the Act itself. It is, in fact, one of those 'signing
statements' that you liberals suddenly hate so much.

Learn to read.

Speaking of which, isn't it odd that you skipped practically the
entire of the White House statement you mistakenly think is the Iraq
Liberation Act?

"This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the
United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition
that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality
of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime
in Baghdad now offers."

"The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all
sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly
supported government."

"The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary
authorities under which my Administration can act to further the
objectives I outlined above."

None of those refer to "UN resolutions". In point of fact, the last
one refers to "additional, discretionary authority" OVER AND ABOVE
such resolutions.

You can't even read the incorrect thing you did find.

:
:>
:> You are a lying idiot.
:>
:
:Poor Freddy...
:

And yet El Chimpko is the one who apparently cannot read.

:
:>
:> That seems to sum it up.
:>
:
:You are wrong about Clinton and Bush WRT Iraq. Bush attacked Iraq
:giving no deference to the UN. Clinton stated that we wanted to work
:within UN guidelines. You conveniently ignore that part. I cut right
:to it and the truth drives you nuts.
:

You can't even read the incorrect thing you found. Let's quote that
bit of the White House statement, shall we?

"My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions. "

Note that Clinton says that this is what he was doing BEFORE the Iraq
Liberation Act was passed. And what does he say about his path
forward now that the Act has passed?

"The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary
authorities under which my Administration can act to further the
objectives I outlined above."

In other words, the Act authorizes him to take steps OUTSIDE those
"relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions" that he had
already been using to try to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.

I'll simply note that those steps included millions of dollars in
MILITARY AID to anti-Saddam forces inside Iraq.

:> :
:> :(Will Freddy be man enough to admit he was wrong?)
:> :
:>
:> Sure, but first I would have to BE wrong. I'm not. You are. And
:> again it's a product of your own stupidity.
:
:Still a punk, aren't you?
:

Still a liar, aren't you?

:
:>
:> Go read the actual text of that Act. Go study the things that were
:> done under it (including providing arms and training to Iraqi
:> resistance groups, which isn't precisely what the UN Resolutions were
:> calling for).
:>
:
:The Act began in 1980 according to the subtitle. That was way before
:Clinton.
:

What nonsense are you gibbering about now? What 'subtitle' are you
talking about? The Iraq Liberation Act was introduced in Congress
September 29, 1998, when it was initially referred to the House
Committee on International Relations.

:
:>
:> Then you can admit that you've been stupidly lying again.
:>
:> Not that I expect you'll ever be man enough to admit that.
:>
:
:The Act was used by PNAC. Clinton tempered the Act with his statement
:regarding the UN. Bush had his own agenda.
:

You can't even read the stuff you find. See above.

:
:You're an idiot if you think that the mess in Iraq is Clinton or
:anybody but Bush's fault.
:

You're an idiot because you apparently cannot read. No 'if' about it.

:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Bush ignored that part.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Because it wasn't there.
:> :
:> :Sure it is.
:>
:> No it isn't.
:>
:> :Will you admit your fault is the real question? Don't
:> :avoid this Freddy, your credibility is at stake.
:>
:> I don't need to avoid it. You're lying again. There is nothing in
:> the Iraq Liberation Act that mentions UN resolutions.
:
:UNSOM - United Nations Special Commission on Iraq - the weapons
:inspectors of which Bush all but forced out.
:

The Iraq Liberation Act doesn't mention UNSOM.

:> In fact, the
:> word "through" doesn't appear in the Act at all. Means are not
:> discussed.
:
:No, "through" was Clinton's words. Why do you avoid Clinton's
:statement?
:

Because Clinton's statement is not the Iraq Liberation Act.

Why do you deliberately lie about what Clinton said? See above. The
whole UN resolutions thing was what he WAS doing before the Iraq
Liberation Act authorized him to do more.

Go read his statement again.

:
:The Act's words themselves is actual fodder for PNAC. By going around
:and around about the "Act" you merely underpin my original claim about
:Bush implementing PNAC's agenad WRT Iraq. No doubt they and other
:hawkish industrialists' minions help draft the Act's wording as a
:justification for their own business interests. Clinton attempted to
:clarify his stance on the Act through the statement you like to
:ignore.
:

Poor El Chimpko, making up things out of the whole cloth again.

:
:>
:> Once again your claims about someone else's credibility are pure
:> bullshit and you are wrong, as usual.
:>
:
:No Freddy. You're a government stooge that slants the truth through
:filtered glasses.
:

Try reading Clinton's statement with your brain engaged. Try reading
the actual Iraq Liberation Act as it was signed into law. Try
explaining away millions of dollars in military aid to Iraqi dissident
groups. Try explaining how various types of interference in Iraq's
internal politics by the Clinton Administration under the Iraq
Liberation Act are somehow consistent with 'enforcing UN resolutions'.

:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :No where does Clinton mention war. So in 2001
:> :> :we get attacked by Al Qeada operating out of Afghanistan and Bush
:> :> :attacks Iraq
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Gee, El Chimpko seems to have missed an entire war in Afghanistan
:> :> there.
:> :
:> :"Entire" is way to big a word when describing that skirmish that did
:> :not net as bin Laden the actual culprit of 9-11.
:> :
:>
:> And lots of folks escaped to Argentina during WWII. Gee, I guess WWII
:> never happened, according to Eric's thinking.
:
:But not Hitler! We got Hitler but not bin Laden. Your analogy fails,
:like Bush, miserably.
:

Did we? How do you know? Show me the body.

:
:>
:> :> :
:> :> :... and useful idiots like you claim that Bush was
:> :> :implementing Clinton's desire to oust Saddam Hussein because of the
:> :> :above cited document?
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Cite where I made such a claim.
:> :
:> :What did you claim?
:> :
:>
:> Try reading what I actually say and having your brain engaged. You
:> might like the change.
:>
:> :Why did you post the ILA at all?
:>
:> I didn't post the ILA. I did mention it in passing,
:>
:
:You mention a lot in passing. Perhaps you pass words like the rest of
:us pass...
:

Well, that explains YOUR emissions, at any rate, shit for brains...

:
:>
:> to demonstrate to
:> you that Bush didn't invent the idea of regime change in Iraq, despite
:> what you useful idiots of the Left keep trying to claim.
:>
:
:Bush invented the means and the ends were not for the American people.
:It was for the oil people and their cousins in the MIC.
:

Again El Chimpko makes up some deluded, ideologically driven fantasy
and acts as if it's fact.

:
:>
:> :
:> :To have me show
:> :you for the fool that you are?
:> :
:>
:> Do us all a favor. Try holding your breath until you manage that.
:>
:
:Poor Freddy...
:

Poor El Chimpko...

:> :>
:> :> Liar.
:> :>
:> :
:> :Is this where I'm supposed to get ...
:>
:> read more »
:

Try reading the actual Iraq Liberation Act....

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 11, 11:18 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Eric Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote:

:On May 11, 11:18 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 10, 9:27 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
:> :> :> :wrote:
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
:> :> :> :> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
:> :> :
:> :> :I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Eric: "What about rationally hating George Bush based upon results?"
:> :>
:> :> Make up your mind.
:> :
:> :I pity the poor SOB...
:> :
:>
:> Oh? Why? Because he's wealthy and the President of the United States
:> and you are neither?
:
:We dropped out of the right womb. Born on third base and all that. I
:don't envy people based upon birth. It is just un-American to do so!
:

And yet you evince all the symptoms.

:
:I am more impressed with Clinton rather than Bush given their two
:backgrounds.
:

Yeah, Clinton being a Democrat and all...

You 'think' with your politics, Eric (and I use the word 'think' as
loosely as possible).

:>
:> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
:> :> :when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
:> :> :less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
:> :> :react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Poor Eric. Too stupid to understand what's said to him, so all he can
:> :> do is bleat idiocy like the preceding.
:> :
:> :Yes, make it about me and ignore the post.
:> :
:>
:> I covered the post. I said "bleat idiocy". That seems all the
:> discussion of the post that is required.
:
:The the word "said" in the second sentence is redundant.
:

The person Eric Chimpko is redundant.

:> :> :
:> :> :Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
:> :> :Maybe you should to catch up.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Have ever even looked into the interaction of your head, your ass, and
:> :> your mouth? Maybe you should to heal up.
:> :
:> :Ad hominem at it's worst. Poor Freddy. You would have made a good
:> :Soviet in the USSR.
:> :
:>
:> Look at what it's in response to, El Chimpko, with your "Maybe you
:> should to catch up".
:>
:> You get what you give. Talk sense and you get sensible discussion.
:> Talk idiocy and it gets pointed out you're talking idiocy. Lie and
:> you get called a liar. Start making ad hominem remarks and you get
:> them back.
:>
:> That seems to cover it.
:
:How totally uninspiring...
:

And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
write.

Poor, sad, Eric.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Eric Chomko · Guest

On May 23, 8:01 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote: