PDA

View Full Version : Ausssie PM: Hassan's Body Found in Fallujah



SecaucusFats
11-18-2004, 01:30 AM
Australian PM: Aid Worker Hassan's Body Found in Iraq
Reuters ^ | 18 Nov 04


Posted on 11/17/2004 10:27:43 PM PST by ganeshpuri89


CANBERRA, Australia (Reuters) - A body found in the Iraqi city of Falluja appears to be that of kidnapped British aid worker Margaret Hassan, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said on Thursday. "The body found in Falluja appears to have been Margaret's and the video of the execution of a Western woman appears on all the available information to have been genuine," Howard told parliament Thursday. Howard did not elaborate and a spokesman for his office also said he had nothing to add.

Hassan, 59, was kidnapped on Oct. 19 as she was being driven to work in Baghdad, where she worked as director of the Australian operation of aid organization Care International. It has never been clear who seized Hassan or where she was held.

A video released to Arabic news channel Al Jazeera last week showed a hooded figure shooting a blindfolded woman in the head. Hassan's family, who said Tuesday she was probably dead, have appealed to the kidnappers to reveal the location of her body.

The Times newspaper in Britain reported on its Web Site (www.timesonline.co.uk) Thursday that a mutilated corpse of a Western woman found by U.S. marines in Falluja was being DNA tested to see if it was the remains of Hassan.

The Times reported that the disemboweled body, with its hands and lower legs cut off, had been found in west Falluja on Sunday. It said a female marine who photographed the body said her unit was "80 percent" convinced it was Hassan

SF

nhp
11-18-2004, 04:53 AM
Sick.....[censored] the geneva convention. If we capture any of these guys I would pay money to see them tortured.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-18-2004, 06:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr>

...the disemboweled body, with its hands and lower legs cut off,... <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> And no, I don't think our Christian boys over there do "occupy a higher moral ground" than their combatants. <hr /></blockquote>

SecaucusFats
11-18-2004, 03:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr>

...the disemboweled body, with its hands and lower legs cut off,... <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> And no, I don't think our Christian boys over there do "occupy a higher moral ground" than their combatants. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Where is the outrage from the "Blame America First" crowd? How about it Q, Gayle, Crawdaddio, et al? Oh I know! Silly me, they only get outraged when terrorists get whacked.

SF

crawdaddio
11-18-2004, 05:31 PM
Wally-
That is classic "Fox news spin".
Go ahead, take it out of context and apply it wherever you see fit if it helps you twist people's perception of me into some kind of torture loving freak, enjoy yourself.

SF-
Of course I am outraged at this horrible display of hatred. "War is hell" is such a bullsh$# excuse for any of this crap coming from either side. I don't discriminate. As I have posted in the past, violence is no way to live or to solve anything. Hatred begets hatred. I will never defend an aggressor-or-torturer of any kind, affiliation, religion, political party.....etc.

On this board, I merely try to show that the U.S. is not innocent in the world of terrorism. In fact, our governments have committed some of the worst heinus attrocities of the "industrialized era". Naturally, I am going to take a thrashing from people like Wally for saying these things because he doesn't believe it, and is so set to that "America is always right" belief that he won't even search out the truth.

Peace
~DC

Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 05:49 AM
Hello friend,
Ya know, this guy, SF, is so far out there, I wouldn't even respond to his BS.
This was a wonderful woman, one more innocent victim of Little Bushy's poor judgment, and irrational policy.
Gayle in Md.

eg8r
11-19-2004, 06:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ya know, this guy, SF, is so far out there, I wouldn't even respond to his BS.
This was a wonderful woman, one more innocent victim of Little Bushy's poor judgment, and irrational policy.
<hr /></blockquote> Gayle, I think you are going overboard. Don't blind yourself with hatred of Bush so much that you cannot even see that the woman was a victim of the insurgents/terrorists.

eg8r

eg8r
11-19-2004, 06:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As I have posted in the past, violence is no way to live or to solve anything. <hr /></blockquote> I don't think this is a true statement, but maybe you can enlighten me. People who make these types of statements generally have no suggestions, it is just the idea that sounds good. Maybe you are different.

So, since this war seems to have most people all worked up, can you offer some suggestions of non-violent ways to handle Hitler, starting with the time we got involved in the war?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
11-19-2004, 06:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>
...Of course I am outraged at this horrible display of hatred. "War is hell" is such a bullsh$# excuse for any of this crap coming from either side. I don't discriminate. As I have posted in the past, violence is no way to live or to solve anything. Hatred begets hatred. I will never defend an aggressor-or-torturer of any kind, affiliation, religion, political party.....etc...

<hr /></blockquote>

Sometimes, actually quite often, violence is the only way to solve a problem.

Do you believe the US or the UN should have gone into Rwanda to stop the slaughter there? Do you think that could have been done without some type of violence being involved?

That's just an example. Pick any situation like that and think about it.

crawdaddio
11-19-2004, 06:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>
...Of course I am outraged at this horrible display of hatred. "War is hell" is such a bullsh$# excuse for any of this crap coming from either side. I don't discriminate. As I have posted in the past, violence is no way to live or to solve anything. Hatred begets hatred. I will never defend an aggressor-or-torturer of any kind, affiliation, religion, political party.....etc...

<hr /></blockquote>

Sometimes, actually quite often, violence is the only way to solve a problem.

Do you believe the US or the UN should have gone into Rwanda to stop the slaughter there? Do you think that could have been done without some type of violence being involved?

That's just an example. Pick any situation like that and think about it. <hr /></blockquote>

True. And a good point. On the contrary, Ghandi repelled the british empire non-violently. Look at Tibet. I admire these people who use their brains, their humanity, and their people to solve these situations without bloodshed. They are on an entirely different level than leaders who simply carpet bomb. It's like chopping off your arm to remove a tick.

Peace
~DC

Wally_in_Cincy
11-19-2004, 07:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>
...Ghandi repelled the british empire non-violently. ... <hr /></blockquote>

Because the British had a degree of civility and humanity to them. Hitler or the Rwandans or Saddam or Al-Quaida do not have that streak of humanitarianism that prevented the British from slaughterings the Indians.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>
.... Look at Tibet. I admire these people who use their brains, their humanity, and their people to solve these situations without bloodshed. <hr /></blockquote>

What about Tibet? They are still under the commie Chinese thumb the last I heard.

Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 07:42 AM
Again, "Hate" is not par of my universe, pahleeeeeze try to get that through your head. I am against all hate, hate of any kind, anywhere.

Most informed people agree that the insurgents and terrorists have flocked to Iraq since Bush decided to invade against the warnings of many of his advisers. The insurgents, and the terrorists are heathens, he was warned that this would happen, and that invasions was the wrong way, unfortunately, our boys and the innocent Iraqis are paying the price for his poor judgment.

This guy, SF, just makes up whatever he can think of to discredit others here. IIRC, no one here ever posted anything in support of these heathens. In fact, he made the only post that seemed to support such behaviour, sarcastic or not, this is no time to joke about beheadings.
Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 07:49 AM
BTW Ed, don't blind yourself so much with unfounded republican admiration and loyalty for Bush that you fail to admit how much worse everything is since he invaded iraq.

Gayle in Md.

SnakebyteXX
11-19-2004, 07:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The insurgents, and the terrorists are heathens <hr /></blockquote>

Are you sure? I've been under the impression that they were Islamic fanatics.

..................................

Heathen:

One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 08:11 AM
Heathen,.... barbarous, uncivilized,...
Yes, I'm quite sure thank you.
Gayle In Md.

eg8r
11-19-2004, 09:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Again, "Hate" is not par of my universe, pahleeeeeze try to get that through your head. I am against all hate, hate of any kind, anywhere. <hr /></blockquote> Your posts make this impossible to believe.
[ QUOTE ]
Most informed people agree that the insurgents and terrorists have flocked to Iraq since Bush decided to invade against the warnings of many of his advisers. <hr /></blockquote> No one has denied this. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
[ QUOTE ]
The insurgents, and the terrorists are heathens, <hr /></blockquote> Who cares about this? Added fluff that means nothing. If you would like to include religion then call it like it is, they are muslims.

I am not replying to SF I was replying to your post that the woman was a victim of Bush. This is insanity to not give full credit to the terrorists. Bush was not responsible for the woman's death.

eg8r

eg8r
11-19-2004, 09:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Heathen,.... barbarous, uncivilized,...
Yes, I'm quite sure thank you.
<hr /></blockquote> What did you cut out of the defintion? What part are you replacing when you use "...". Every definition I have seen of this word involves lack of religion of some sort.

eg8r

SnakebyteXX
11-19-2004, 10:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Heathen,.... barbarous, uncivilized,... <hr /></blockquote>

I lived in a Muslim country for a couple of years when I was growing up. Even as children we learned very quickly that the locals took their beliefs VERY seriously. For example it was customary to use the left hand for matters of personal hygiene - including all toilet functions (toilet paper was not a part of the process). Hence the left hand was considered 'unclean'. Waiving at someone with your left hand was equivalent to flipping them off. Heaven forbid that you should TOUCH anyone with your left hand.

In that country if you were caught stealing it was common practice to amputate your left hand. This was done with a sword in the public square so that everyone could see. After that the thief would be forced to suffer the indignity of using his right 'clean' hand to do 'unclean' things for the remainder of his life. It was a unique form of justice to say the least but it had its own special motivational aspects. So motivational in fact that thievery was an uncommon occurrence in that society.

The irony here is that while we Americans might consider the chopping off of hands to be uncivilized many fundamentalist Muslims believe just the opposite. I'm sharing this with you by way of suggesting that it might be useful for you to apply some caution in forming your opinions of Muslim people. Particularly those you may think of as 'heathens'. The fact that they're religious beliefs and practices are considerably different than those of the average Christian does NOT make them any less sincere - or any less deadly. In other words, a fundamentalist Muslim might happily see you put to death because your way of life is considered an uncivilized affront to his religious beliefs. Ironically, there are some fundamentalist Christians in this country who are just as pleased to rain down death and destruction on the heads of those whose peculiar choice of Muslim religion is an affront to their own cherished beliefs.

Unfortunately, when you use the term 'heathens' you are incorrectly labeling those Muslims as 'non-believers' when nothing could be further from the truth. If anything the problem is that they believe too much and are ready to kill others or die if need be - in defense of their beliefs.

Snake

SecaucusFats
11-19-2004, 12:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hello friend,
Ya know, this guy, SF, is so far out there, I wouldn't even respond to his BS.
This was a wonderful woman, one more innocent victim of Little Bushy's poor judgment, and irrational policy.
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

That's Mr. Fats to you, thank you. And if anyone is spreading BS here it is you. Your inability to accept the results of the election, and your hatred of Republicans, has turned you into a bitter old shrew and blinded you to any viewpoint which does not accord perfectly with yours. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the psychological services being offered in many parts of this country to all the poor traumatized democrats.

I've got news for you Gayle, in America we have this thing called the 1st Amendment to the Constitution which protects your right to spew forth whatever you want, but by the same token it also assures my right to likewise say what I want, and to counter your distortions.

The only ones responsible for the death of Margaret Hassan are Zarqawi and his filthy, murderous band of terrorists, the very same people for whom you serve as an apologist. Margaret Hassan was an Iraqui citizen, married to an Iraqui and she had dedicated 30 years of her life to providing humanitarian aid, and health care to the poorest of the poor in Iraq. Nothing, not US policy, not religious hatred, not politics, not moral relativism, NOTHING can be used as an excuse for her murder.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and if you don't like my saying so, well that's just tough noogies isn't it.

Mr. Fats

BTW have you applied for this yet?:
http://hometown.aol.com/raveloman/images/whiners_express.gif

Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 02:06 PM
Oh for heavens sake, this is getting rediculous.
Heathen/adj,/ 1. Of or relating to heathens, their religeons, or their customs 2.: strange. uncivilized.

heathenish resenbling or characteristic of heathens: barbarous
This is from Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, I trush you've hear of it?

Gayle in Md.

crawdaddio
11-19-2004, 02:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr>

Margaret Hassan was an Iraqui citizen, married to an Iraqui and she had dedicated 30 years of her life to providing humanitarian aid, and health care to the poorest of the poor in Iraq. <hr /></blockquote>

Isn't it ironic that the major reason she needed to be there, and the people were in this situation, was the sanctions imposed by the U.S.? You do know this, right?

Peace
~DC

Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 02:27 PM
Ed, I think we all know who killed that poor woman. I think we all know also whose decisions put so many of them there, incited an already bad situation, drew more and more insurgents and terrorists into the area. It get's a bit old the way you pick meanings apart. One would think it would be a given that we all dispise the actions of the insurgents and terrorists. One would also think that since we do, we should strive not to become like them.

I am sure there are others on this board who think as I do regarding Bush and his decisions. When I do not agree with someone's opinions with whom I am debating, I do try to be civil towards them.

When people persist in sarcastic attacks against me as an individual, call me an uninformed liar, eltitist wannabe, hypocrite, such as you, Deeman, Walley, and whoever this other individual is who made a post about bombs, and cutting off heads, I think I have a right to defend myself, and to speak against such behaviour.

I have read threads over the years in which all of you have used what ever adjectives you saw fit to describe those in the public eye whom you do not like (ie. Walley calling Hilliary Clinton a B**ch) that is fine, just let me call your man Little Bushy, LMAO, and you're all ready to string me up, LOL.

This is a public forum. Say and do whatever you want. But, if someone writes a post in these times making a joke about beheadings, bombs, and, well just read SF's post for yourself, I will speak up as long as I have breath in my body.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 02:36 PM
Anyone who tortures other's, beheads people, disembowels their remains, and strings them up in pride of what they have done, is certainly uncivilized in my opinion. I think the word heathen certainly expresses my feeling adequately.

One would think it is a given that when we discuss insurgents and terrorists, we are not addressing the entire muslim population, nor are we addressing the entire iraqi population.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

SecaucusFats
11-19-2004, 03:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr>

Margaret Hassan was an Iraqui citizen, married to an Iraqui and she had dedicated 30 years of her life to providing humanitarian aid, and health care to the poorest of the poor in Iraq. <hr /></blockquote>

Isn't it ironic that the major reason she needed to be there, and the people were in this situation, was the sanctions imposed by the U.S.? You do know this, right?

Peace
~DC <hr /></blockquote>

Revisionist nonsense:

1.) The sanctions were imposed by the United Nations not the US:

USE OF SANCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VII

OF THE UN CHARTER

(Updated January 2004)



IRAQ

Resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990 imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, including a full trade embargo barring all imports from and exports to Iraq, excepting only medical supplies, foodstuffs, and other items of humanitarian need, as determined by the Security Council sanctions committee, which was also established by Resolution 661. The sanctions committee was chaired at the beginning of 2004 by the Ambassador of Romania, with the delegations of the Philippines and Pakistan providing vice chairmen.

Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, the cease-fire resolution, declared that the full trade embargo against Iraq would remain in place, pending periodic reviews every 60 days (para. 21) and every 120 days (para. 28) of Iraqi compliance with the obligations imposed under Resolution 687.

Resolution 712 (1991) of 19 September 1991 allowed for a partial lifting of the embargo, which would have enabled Iraq to sell some oil to use the proceeds for humanitarian purposes. In return, Iraq would have been subject to strict UN monitoring of the contracts and distribution of humanitarian goods bought with the oil revenues.

Resolution 986 (1995)of 14 April 1995 enables Iraq to sell up to $1 billion of oil every 90 days and use the proceeds for humanitarian supplies to the country. On 20 May 1996, the UN and the Government of Iraq concluded the Memorandum of Understanding that codified the practical arrangements for the implementation of the oil-for-food agreement. The sanctions committee subsequently adopted on 8 August 1996 the Procedures for the implementation of Resolution 986. On 9 December 1996, the Secretary-General reported to the Security Council (S/1996/1015) that all the steps necessary to ensure the effective implementation of Resolution 986 had been concluded. As a result, Resolution 986 went into effect at 00.01 hours Eastern Standard Time on 10 December 1996. The first food shipment arrived in Iraq on 20 March 1997.

Resolution 1051 (1996) of 27 March 1996 established the export/import monitoring system for Iraq. Iraq and countries exporting to Iraq must notify UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) regarding the supply of "dual-use" items to Iraq. Such items are subject to inspection upon their arrival in Iraq as well as at the site where the items will be used.

Resolution 1111 (1997) of 4 June 1997 decided that the provisions of Resolution 986, except those contained in paragraphs 4,11 and 12, shall remain in force for another period of 180 days beginning at 00.01 hours, Eastern Daylight Time, on 8 June 1997; further decided to conduct a thorough review of all aspects of the implementation of this resolution 90 days after the entry into force of paragraph 1 and again prior to the end of the 180 day period, on receipt of the reports referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4, and expressed its intention, prior to the end of the 180 day period, to consider favourably renewal of the provisions of this resolution, provided that the reports referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 indicate that those provisions are being satisfactorily implemented.

Resolution 1115 (1997) of 21 June 1997 decided not to conduct the reviews provided for in paragraphs 21 and 28 of resolution 687 (1991) until after the Special Commission submits its next consolidated progress report due on 11 October 1997, after which time those reviews will resume in accordance with Resolution 687.

Resolution 1129 (1997) of 12 September 1997 decided that the provisions of Resolution 1111 should remain in force, except that States are authorized to permit the import of petroleum and petroleum products originating in Iraq, including financial and other essential transactions directly relating thereto, sufficient to produce a sum not exceeding a total of one billion United States dollars within a period of 120 days from 00.01 hours, Eastern Daylight Time, on 8 June 1997 and, thereafter, a sum not exceeding a total of one billion United States dollars within a period of 60 days from 00.01 hours, Eastern Daylight Time, on 4 October 1997; and decided further that the provisions of paragraph 1 shall apply only to the period of implementation of Resolution 1111.

Resolution 1134 (1997) dated 23 October 1997 expressed the firm intention, if Iraq does not comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 of Resolution 1115, to adopt measures which would oblige all States to prevent without delay the entry into or transit through their territories of all Iraqi officials and members of the Iraqi armed forces who are responsible for or participate in the instances of non-compliance of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Resolution 1115. It decided not to conduct the reviews provided for in paragraphs 21 and 28 of Resolution 687 until after the next consolidated progress report of the Special Commission, due on 11 April 1998, after which those reviews will resume in accordance with Resolution 687, beginning on 26 April 1998.

Resolution 1137 (1997) dated 12 November 1997 imposed travel restrictions on all Iraqi officials and members of the Iraqi armed forces who were responsible for or participated in the instances of non-compliance including the denial of entry to Iraq to Special Commission officials on the grounds of their nationality and the denial of entry to sites designated by the Special Commission for inspection to Special Commission inspectors on the grounds of their nationality. The resolution decided that the review provided in paragraphs 21 and 28 of Resolution 687 shall resume in April 1998 in accordance with paragraph 8 of Resolution 1134, provided that the Government of Iraq shall have rescinded its decision of 29 October 1997 to impose conditions on cooperation with the Special Commission.

By Resolution 1143 (1997) of 4 December 1997 the Security Council decided that the provisions of Resolution 986, except those contained in paragraphs 4, 11 and 12, shall remain in force for another period of 180 days beginning at 00.01 hours, Eastern Standard Time, on 5 December 1997.

By Resolution 1153 (1998) of 20 February 1998 the Security Council decided that the provisions of Resolution 986, except those contained in paragraphs 4, 11 and 12, shall remain in force for a new period of 180 days beginning at 00.01 hours, Eastern Standard Time, on the day after the President of the Council has informed the members of the Council that he has received the report of the Secretary-General requested in paragraph 5 of Resolution 1153, on which date the provisions of Resolution 1143, if still in force, shall terminate, except as regards sums already produced pursuant to that resolution prior to that date.

Also by Resolution 1153, the Security Council decided that the authorization given to States by paragraph 1 of Resolution 986 shall permit the import of petroleum and petroleum products originating in Iraq, including financial and other essential transactions directly relating thereto, sufficient to produce a sum, in the 180-day period referred to in paragraph 1 of Resolution 1153, not exceeding a total of 5.256 billion United States dollars, of which the amounts recommended by the Secretary-General for the food/nutrition and health sectors should be allocated on a priority basis, and of which between 682 million United States dollars and 788 million United States dollars shall be used for the purpose referred to in paragraph 8 (b) of Resolution 986, except that if less than 5.256 billion United States dollars worth of petroleum or petroleum products is sold during the 180 days period, particular attention will be paid to meeting the urgent humanitarian needs in the food/nutrition and health sectors and the Secretary-General may provide a proportionately smaller amount for the purpose referred to in paragraph 8 (b) of Resolution 986.

By Resolution 1158 (1998) of 25 March 1998 the Security Council decided that the provisions of Resolution 1143 shall remain in force, subject to the provisions of Resolution 1153, except that States are authorized to permit the import of petroleum and petroleum products originating in Iraq, including financial and other essential transactions directly relating thereto, sufficient to produce a sum not exceeding a total of 1.4 billion United States dollars within the period of 90 days from 00.01 hours, Eastern Standard Time, on 5 March 1998.

Resolution 1175 (1998) of 19 June 1998 authorized States, subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of the resolution, to permit, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 3 (c) of Resolution 661, the export to Iraq of the necessary parts and equipment to enable Iraq to increase the export of petroleum and petroleum products, in quantities sufficient to produce the sum established in paragraph 2 of Resolution 1153.

By the same resolution, the Committee established by Resolution 661, or a panel of experts appointed by that Committee may approve contracts for the parts and equipment and up to a total of 300 million United States dollars may be used for that purpose.

Resolution 1175 also noted that the distribution plan approved by the Secretary-General on 29 May 1998, or any new distribution plan agreed by the Government of Iraq and the Secretary-General, will remain in effect, as required, for each subsequent periodic renewal of the temporary humanitarian arrangements for Iraq and that, for this purpose, the plan will be kept under constant review and amended as necessary through the agreement of the Secretary-General and the Government of Iraq and in a manner consistent with Resolution 1153.

Resolution 1194 (1998) of 9 September 1998 decided not to conduct the review scheduled for October 1998 provided for in paragraphs 21 and 28 of Resolution 687, and not to conduct any further such reviews until Iraq rescinds its above-mentioned decision of 5 August 1998 and the Special Commission and the IAEA report to the Council that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise the full range of activities provided for in their mandates, including inspections.

By Resolution 1194, the Security Council also reaffirmed its intention to act in accordance with the relevant provisions of Resolution 687 on the duration of the prohibitions referred to in that resolution and notes that by its failure so far to comply with its relevant obligations Iraq has delayed the moment when the Council can do so.

By Resolution 1210 (1998) of 24 November 1998, the Security Council decided that the provisions of Resolution 986, except those contained in paragraphs 4, 11 and 12, shall remain in force for a new period of 180 days beginning at 00.01 hours, Eastern Standard Time, on 26 November 1998. The resolution also decided that paragraph 2 of Resolution 1153 shall remain in force and shall apply to the above-mentioned 180-day period.

In January 1999, the Security Council decided to establish three panels on disarmament, humanitarian issues and prisoners of war and Kuwaiti property to discuss options that would lead to the full implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq. Ambassador Amorim (Brazil) chaired all three panels. He submitted the panels' reports in the spring of 1999 (S/1999/356), and the Council considered the recommendations contained therein.

Resolution 1242 (1999) of 21 May 1999, extended the oil-for-food programme for a further 180 days starting on 25 May 1999.

Resolution 1266 (1999) of 4 October 1999 decided that paragraph 2 of Resolution 1153, as extended by Resolution 1242, shall be modified to the extent necessary to authorize States to permit the import of petroleum and petroleum products originating in Iraq, including financial and other essential transactions directly related thereto, sufficient to produce an additional sum, beyond that provided for by Resolution 1242, equivalent to the total shortfall of revenues authorized but not generated under Resolutions 1210 and 1153, 3.04 billion United States dollars, within the period of 180 days from 00.01 hours, eastern standard time, on 25 May 1999.

Resolution 1281 (1999) of 10 December 1999, extended the oil-for-food programme for a further 180 days starting on 12 December 1999 (phase VII).

On 17 December 1999, after several months of intensive consultations, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1284 (1999), stressing the need for a comprehensive approach to the full implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions and Iraq compliance with these resolutions. The resolution established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to undertake the responsibilities of the former UNSCOM, which was charged with monitoring the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The resolution also removed the ceiling on Iraqi oil exports and provided for additional specific arrangements for facilitating humanitarian supplies to Iraq, including the conditional suspension of the sanctions regime.

On 8 June 2000, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1302 (2000) by which it extended the "oil for food" programme for a further 180-day period beginning 9 June 2000. The Council repeatedly extended the programme for 180-day periods over the following years.

Then, on 14 May 2002, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1409 (2002), which adopted a revised Goods Review List of military-related goods or commodities, which was to enter into effect on 30 May 2002. From that date onward, States are authorised to sell or supply any commodities not included on the Goods Review List, while the Council would regularly conduct thorough reviews of the Goods Review List.

On 28 March 2003, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1472 (2003), making technical and temporary adjustments to the "oil-for-food" programme on an interim and exceptional basis, so as to ensure the implementation of approved contracts concluded by the Government of Iraq for the relief of the Iraqi people.

The resolution authorises the Secretary-General and representatives designated by him to establish alternative locations, inside and outside Iraq, for the delivery, inspection and authenticated confirmation of humanitarian supplies and equipment under the programme. It also authorises him, among other things, to review as a matter of urgency the approved funded and non-funded contracts concluded by the Iraqi Government and to contact suppliers of those contracts and, when necessary, to require them to delay, accelerate or divert shipments. It also allows him to negotiate and execute new contracts for essential medical items.

On 25 April 2003, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1476 (2003), extending the provisions of Resolution 1472 until 3 June 2003.

The Security Council formally ended all sanctions, except those related to the sale or supply to Iraq of arms and related materiel, other than those required by the occupying powers to serve the purposes of Security Council resolutions, in Resolution 1483 (2003), which was adopted on 22 May 2003 by a vote of 14-0 with one country not participating in the vote.

The resolution states that, with the exception of the arms prohibitions noted above, all other sanctions established by Resolution 661 and subsequent resolutions "shall no longer apply."

It also requests that the Secretary-General will continue the exercise of his responsibilities under Resolutions 1472 and 1476 for a period of six months, and will terminate within this time period, in the most cost effective manner, the ongoing operations of the "Oil-for-Food" Programme.

2.) Saddam Hussein pocketed $21 Billion of the "oil for food" funds to support his lavish lifestyle, his internal intelligence apparatus, and to provide cash awards for Palestinian homicide bombers. This was done with the aid of a corrupt UN leadership and money grubbing Jew-hating French bankers. :

From the Telegraph (UK):

Saddam diverted $21bn of UN aid
By Robin Gedye, Foreign Affairs Writer
(Filed: 17/11/2004)

Saddam Hussein diverted more than $21.3 billion (11.3 billion) out of a United Nations' aid programme - more than twice previous estimates - in what an American government investigation described as a staggering fraud.

Fresh evidence gathered by a US senate committee on the abuse of the UN's Oil For Food programme, indicates that vastly more oil was smuggled out of Iraq than previously estimated, according to a transcript of proceedings released yesterday.

"The magnitude of the fraud perpetrated by Saddam Hussein, in contravention of UN sanctions and the Oil For Food programme, is staggering," said Senator Norm Coleman, the Republican head of the committee.

The latest figures are based on fresh documents on Saddam's oil smuggling schemes, in which he sought to bribe politicians and companies by splitting profits on oil sold at below market price.

Sen Coleman was particularly critical of the UN's senior echelons, which appeared to deliberately hinder a full investigation. He said his officials were determined to discover "how this massive fraud was able to thrive for so long".

3.) The sanctions could and would have been lifted if Saddam had chosen to comply with the UN requirements.

But then again you knew all this, but chose to manipulate the facts to suit your own agenda, right.

SF

crawdaddio
11-19-2004, 03:33 PM
I wonder who pushed the U.N. the hardest for sanctions?

~DC

SecaucusFats
11-19-2004, 03:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> I wonder who pushed the U.N. the hardest for sanctions?

~DC <hr /></blockquote>

Wow what a snappy comeback Comrade!

Poor old Saddam was just misunderstood and the mean old US picked on him for throwing people in shredders, mass murder, using WMD's on his own people, beating, torturing and amputating limbs and on and on and on. Hell, the US forced practically every single member of the UN to vote for the sanctions. You sir are both a despicable prevaricator, and a consumate hypocrite!

SF

crawdaddio
11-19-2004, 04:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr> Hell, the US forced practically every single member of the UN to vote for the sanctions.<font color="blue">True indeed. </font color> You sir are both a despicable prevaricator, and a consumate hypocrite! <font color="blue">I appreciate that you did not sink to the level of name calling. Untill you can maturely debate, such as Highsea, I will ignore you. Good day. </font color>

SF <hr /></blockquote>

SecaucusFats
11-19-2004, 04:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr> Hell, the US forced practically every single member of the UN to vote for the sanctions.<font color="blue">True indeed. </font color> You sir are both a despicable prevaricator, and a consumate hypocrite! <font color="blue">I appreciate that you did not sink to the level of name calling. Untill you can maturely debate, such as Highsea, I will ignore you. Good day. </font color>

SF <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Fine by me commissar, pick up your toys and go home.

SF

eg8r
11-19-2004, 06:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder who pushed the U.N. the hardest for sanctions?
<hr /></blockquote> If you stood by this same logic, then we would have gone into Iraq this last time with full UN support, without threat of veto by France.

This is besides the point, SF stated she was there for 30 years, the sanctions came long after she moved there.

eg8r

eg8r
11-19-2004, 06:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, I think we all know who killed that poor woman. I think we all know also whose decisions put so many of them there, <hr /></blockquote> Do yourself a favor and don't speak for everyone. Whose decisions put who where?

[ QUOTE ]
incited an already bad situation, <hr /></blockquote> Which situation was incited by whom? [ QUOTE ]
drew more and more insurgents and terrorists into the area. <hr /></blockquote> Keep towing the line. [ QUOTE ]
I am sure there are others on this board who think as I do regarding Bush and his decisions. <hr /></blockquote> Does this need to be stated? So what. [ QUOTE ]
When I do not agree with someone's opinions with whom I am debating, I do try to be civil towards them.
<hr /></blockquote> I am confused, is it civil for you to call someone a "bushyite" if they don't share your views? [ QUOTE ]
When people persist in sarcastic attacks against me as an individual, call me an uninformed liar, eltitist wannabe, hypocrite, such as you, Deeman, Walley, and whoever this other individual is who made a post about bombs, and cutting off heads, I think I have a right to defend myself, and to speak against such behaviour.
<hr /></blockquote> Judging by this post, one would be lead to believe that all the individuals mentioned have said all the adjectives mentioned. This is untrue.

[ QUOTE ]
I have read threads over the years in which all of you have used what ever adjectives you saw fit to describe <hr /></blockquote> I am guessing the rest of your post will continue along in the same manner, blame others for something while casting a blind eye on your own actions. I refer to this as hypocrisy, you have agreed it was in the past, need we continue? [ QUOTE ]
This is a public forum. Say and do whatever you want. <hr /></blockquote> You are absolutely correct, however living in the US you should not feel the need to grant this right, as it has already been given. [ QUOTE ]
But, if someone writes a post in these times making a joke about beheadings, bombs, and, well just read SF's post for yourself, I will speak up as long as I have breath in my body.
<hr /></blockquote> As well as free speech works for me, you are afforded the same, no need to make a point of addressing it. Did someone ask you to quit posting when a joke about beheading is made?

eg8r

eg8r
11-19-2004, 06:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who tortures other's, beheads people, disembowels their remains, and strings them up in pride of what they have done, is certainly uncivilized in my opinion. I think the word heathen certainly expresses my feeling adequately.
<hr /></blockquote> This really does not matter, but no one is arguing the uncivilized portion of the definition. It is the meat of the definition that you are ignoring.

[ QUOTE ]
One would think it is a given that when we discuss insurgents and terrorists, we are not addressing the entire muslim population, nor are we addressing the entire iraqi population.
<hr /></blockquote> What does this have to do with anything. It still does not retract from the fact that you are misusing the word heathen. These people are absolutely not heathens given the accepted definition. Why not call them uncivilized killers, cold blooded killers, etc.

eg8r

eg8r
11-19-2004, 07:05 PM
You are correct, this is getting ridiculous. The main definition for the word has to do with religion. You are ignoring this for some unknown reason.

eg8r

nhp
11-19-2004, 08:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hello friend,
Ya know, this guy, SF, is so far out there, I wouldn't even respond to his BS.
This was a wonderful woman, one more innocent victim of Little Bushy's poor judgment, and irrational policy.
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

That's Mr. Fats to you, thank you. And if anyone is spreading BS here it is you. Your inability to accept the results of the election, and your hatred of Republicans, has turned you into a bitter old shrew and blinded you to any viewpoint which does not accord perfectly with yours. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the psychological services being offered in many parts of this country to all the poor traumatized democrats.

I've got news for you Gayle, in America we have this thing called the 1st Amendment to the Constitution which protects your right to spew forth whatever you want, but by the same token it also assures my right to likewise say what I want, and to counter your distortions.

The only ones responsible for the death of Margaret Hassan are Zarqawi and his filthy, murderous band of terrorists, the very same people for whom you serve as an apologist. Margaret Hassan was an Iraqui citizen, married to an Iraqui and she had dedicated 30 years of her life to providing humanitarian aid, and health care to the poorest of the poor in Iraq. Nothing, not US policy, not religious hatred, not politics, not moral relativism, NOTHING can be used as an excuse for her murder.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and if you don't like my saying so, well that's just tough noogies isn't it.

Mr. Fats

BTW have you applied for this yet?:
http://hometown.aol.com/raveloman/images/whiners_express.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Fats, I love how you came along and started posting all of these anti democratic messages and insults right AFTER Bush got re-elected. You had to wait and make sure before you started flinging insults right? This shows how much backbone you carry.

Elaine
11-19-2004, 09:20 PM
_-------------------------------------------
The only ones responsible for the death of Margaret Hassan are Zarqawi and his filthy, murderous band of terrorists, the very same people for whom you serve as an apologist. Margaret Hassan was an Iraqui citizen, married to an Iraqui and she had dedicated 30 years of her life to providing humanitarian aid, and health care to the poorest of the poor in Iraq. Nothing, not US policy, not religious hatred, not politics, not moral relativism, NOTHING can be used as an excuse for her murder.
_______________________________________________

Mr. Fats....
I couldn't agree with you more. You are right on. I believe she was still a British/Irish Citizen, and carried a Irish passport, could have had dual citizenship.
How can these lunatics blame Bush ??? Who are they blaming for all the deaths in 911??
Think you might appreciate the following:

How to Be A Modern Liberal Democrat

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

2. You have to be against capital punishment, but for abortion on demand, protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

3. You have to believe that the same public school teacher, who can't teach 4th graders to read, is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

4. You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless and doctors are overpaid.

5.You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

6. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented, cyclical changes in the Sun, and more affected by SUV's.

7. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being gay is natural.

8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but animal rights activists, who've never been out of Seattle, do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are are too high.

12. You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

13. You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Caesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.
14. you have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

15. You have to believe that second-hand smoke is moe dangerous than HIV.

16. You have to believe that conservatives are racist, but black people can't make it without your help.

17. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.

18. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

19. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail,
but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

20. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, S &amp; M,
transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected
and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

21. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by the
Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vote Democratic... It's easier than getting a job.


"Liberalism is not a Political Philosophy.
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder."
- Michael Savage <font color="blue"> </font color>

Qtec
11-19-2004, 11:03 PM
First i,d like to say that there is no way GW can be held accountable for the death of this woman. The group that killed her are our biggest threat. They have a warped interpretation of the Koran and anyone who doesnt agree with them are the enemy. Including their own people! In a situation like Iraq or Afghanistan, they use Islam and fear to coerce and intimidate the civilian population. We have just seen an example of what they can do in Fallujah when their is no rule of law.

[ QUOTE ]
1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding. <font color="blue"> I predict a huge rise over the next two years in HIV cases because of GW,s adversion to condoms. Especially in Africa. </font color>


2. You have to be against capital punishment, but for abortion on demand, protecting the guilty and killing the innocent. <font color="blue"> You are either pro-life or you are not. You either belive in the sanctity of life or you dont. </font color>

6. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented, cyclical changes in the Sun, and more affected by SUV's. <font color="blue">Geez! Yes Elaine, the climate does change but usually over a long period of time. What we are now seeing is a dramatic change in less than 50 years! The only reason that GW doesnt want to cut emissions is because of the cost. The biggest polluter on the planet is the US!</font color>

7. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being gay is natural. <font color="blue"> People are born gay everyday. I think I,m correct when I say that 99% of gays know they are gay from an early age. The fact that some go through the motions of being straight is because of social pressure. </font color>
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but animal rights activists, who've never been out of Seattle, do. <font color="blue"> I saw a docu the other day about Zimbabwe. There was a hunting party and they shot a zebra!!? I cant understand why anyone would want to do that. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

If you are going to cut and paste Elaine, surely you can do better than this.

Q

nhp
11-20-2004, 06:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Elaine:</font><hr> _-------------------------------------------
The only ones responsible for the death of Margaret Hassan are Zarqawi and his filthy, murderous band of terrorists, the very same people for whom you serve as an apologist. Margaret Hassan was an Iraqui citizen, married to an Iraqui and she had dedicated 30 years of her life to providing humanitarian aid, and health care to the poorest of the poor in Iraq. Nothing, not US policy, not religious hatred, not politics, not moral relativism, NOTHING can be used as an excuse for her murder.
_______________________________________________

Mr. Fats....
I couldn't agree with you more. You are right on. I believe she was still a British/Irish Citizen, and carried a Irish passport, could have had dual citizenship.
How can these lunatics blame Bush ??? Who are they blaming for all the deaths in 911??
Think you might appreciate the following:

How to Be A Modern Liberal Democrat

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

<font color="red"> Yes, I'm sure people think a sexually transmitted disease is spread by lack of funding. By lack of funding they mean that a cure might be developed with more funding. Please don't tell anyone your IQ. </font color>



2. You have to be against capital punishment, but for abortion on demand, protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

<font color="red">Yeah, I'm sure that all people in jail and all people who have been executed were 100% guilty. In our perfect criminal justice system, how could an innocent person ever slip thru the cracks? I mean, just look at Enron, a prime example of how perfect or criminal justice system is. </font color>



3. You have to believe that the same public school teacher, who can't teach 4th graders to read, is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

<font color="red"> Hey, whatever happened to the no child left behind act? Oh, and don't you think it's better to teach kids sex education so they don't go poking their neighbors wife, like so many "good Christian" conservatives do? Look at the statistics. The red states, especially the bible belt, have much higher divorce rates than the blue states. Oh, but us democrats are so immoral, arent we? </font color>



4. You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless and doctors are overpaid.

<font color="red"> I don't know where you got that from. That's just a matter of opinion. Keep coming with the generalizations, it suits your personality. </font color>



5.You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

<font color="red"> Actually we believe that nukes in the hands of North Koreans are more of a threat than nothing in the hands of a guy who has alot of oil. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif (sorry, couldn't resist) </font color>



6. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented, cyclical changes in the Sun, and more affected by SUV's.

<font color="red"> OK NOW THIS ONE I REALLY HAVE TO MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT. I am sorry, but this is by far the stupidest thing to come out of a republican yet, by far. Ok, not the stupidest of ALL TIME, but of recent times. ROFL I just am stunned at your ignorance. So you really think that the damage being caused to our ozone layer is no big deal? Holy crap, I think I'm gonna faint. I just can't believe this little quote of yours. I really hope you don't speak for the rest of the republicans, because I think you have a couple screws loose. </font color>





7. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being gay is natural.

<font color="red"> Typical right wing borderline prejudice crap. I am not very fond of feminists, but I do believe that it is not the duty of all women to be mothers sitting at home while daddy goes to work. This is the 21st century, stop living in the frickin 1950's, I swear that is so pathetic. As for homosexuals, you have absoloutely no way to prove that some people aren't born gay. If chimpanzees, dogs, and thousands of other animal species can be gay, so can humans. As long as they don't hit on me, I'm completely fine with it. </font color>



8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

<font color="red"> Actually we believe that when you use the same ideology that you used in lie #8, that helps create oppression. </font color>

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but animal rights activists, who've never been out of Seattle, do.

<font color="red"> You know, it is just so manly and brave to go out hunting. Seriously, those deer, man they are evil. Did you know that deer can shoot poison barbs out of their antlers? Yeah, and one time I saw a deer throw a grenade at a hunter. Luckily he had his high powered hunting rifle, and was able to shoot and kill the evil deer from 100 yards away, wearing camoflage and hiding in a bush. Man, that guy had some balls to go out there, especially because those deer are just so dangerous. </font color>

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

<font color="red"> Well, as of late being that the Bush administration wants to drug all of our children in schools, we won't have to worry about self esteem, or any other emotion. I'm sure you are proud of Bushie, arent ya? </font color>

11. You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are are too high.

<font color="red"> Sheesh, you get a $2.50 charge, plus another 2.50 charge on your bank statement. Who the hell wants to pay $5 every time they take out money? Now you are just desperately trying to find anything you can to throw at us. Pathetic. </font color>

12. You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

<font color="red"> Read my response to number 11. Desperate. Yawn. </font color>

13. You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Caesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.

<font color="red"> Have you ever heard a democrat say just that? No, you haven't. More desperate rubbish. Even more pathetic. </font color>

14. you have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

<font color="red"> If you bothered to look at some of those standardized tests, and note what type of person they are made for, you might change your mind. Then again, you are probably very close minded, so you probably won't. </font color>

15. You have to believe that second-hand smoke is moe dangerous than HIV.

<font color="red"> What if I told you that your opinions are full of more [censored] than a manure factory? Would that affect what is already reality? Of course not. The reality is, that of course HIV is deadlier, but both are deadly. Your opinions may not have much crap as a manure factory, but both of them still contain alot of crap, and that's all that counts. Get it? </font color>

16. You have to believe that conservatives are racist, but black people can't make it without your help.

<font color="red"> Hmm, being that the majority of black people in this country are liberal democrats, you should eat your own words. You said that, not us. Wow, you are just glowing with intelligence today. </font color>

17. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.

<font color="red"> No comment. </font color>

18. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

<font color="red"> This is a democracy. 51% of the country voted for Bush. How can the right people always be in charge when 51% of the country are brain-dead? </font color>

19. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail,
but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

<font color="red"> And don't you just love your former alcoholic, coke-snorting, multiple DUI getting, draft-dodging, business failing Bushie, don't you? </font color>

20. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, S &amp; M,
transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected
and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

<font color="red"> Uh, the athiests think that should be illegal. Blame the athiests, not us. And please don't think that just because we don't endorse gay-bashing that we are athiests. </font color>

21. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by the
Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

<font color="red"> Well at least it's better than invading a country for oil and revenge. I mean, at least the funding from the Chinese didn't cost us the lives of thousands of US Soldiers. It's ok, keep pretending that Saddam was a threat to us, keep pretending that North Korea and Iran were not bigger threats. We'll eventually forgive you. </font color>
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Be a conservative, you can cover up your evildoings with pretend-patriotism and bible quotes, yes, it's that easy.

"Many conservatives are just plain ignorant."
-Me, just now, 2004.


<font color="blue"> </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for the ignorance, Elaine. That was by far one of the stupidest list of lies I've ever seen. Congrats.

Gayle in MD
11-20-2004, 11:08 AM
Words often have more than one definition Ed. Only the writer knows which definition is appropriate to express their intended meaning. The selection of one definition over another, does not necessarily mean that the writer is ignoring the other definition, only that it does not best express the writers literate intention.

Since the definition for my meaning was found under the word heathen, I am using the word appropriately.

Now, is there anything else you can think of to pick at me for today? Perhaps we could debate whether the sky is really blus, or whether there is really a Santa Clause?

Gayle

Gayle in MD
11-20-2004, 11:17 AM
Yes, they killed her Ed. Insurgents and terrorists killed her. I have said that from the start. Also, they wouldn't have been there in the first place if not for Bush.

For heavens sake, this woman had lived in Iraq for thirty years, and was married to an Iraqi. Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq was apparently a safe place for her to live.

Don't you have anything better to do with your time than to spend it nit-picking my posts????

Gayle

Wally_in_Cincy
11-20-2004, 11:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Yes, they killed her Ed. Insurgents and terrorists killed her. I have said that from the start. Also, they wouldn't have been there in the first place if not for Bush.

For heavens sake, this woman had lived in Iraq for thirty years, and was married to an Iraqi. Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq was apparently a safe place for her to live.
<hr /></blockquote>

It may have been safe for her but it was not safe for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were discovered in mass graves.

Gayle in MD
11-20-2004, 12:24 PM
That is very true Walley, and that is the very reason why I stated long ago on this board that I wanted to try to support the President after 9/11. In fact, I recall predicting that he was presenting his case to the world from the wrong perspective (WMD's) and should be highlighting the human tragedy of the Iraqis instead of WMD's.

I even think that the world is safer with Saddam in jail, but I do not think that Bush chose the right way to go about achieving his objectives. There were other ways to get there, ways which would have benefitted our position in the world, and the opressed Iraqi people. Ways which would have shown our objectors up for the slime bags they really were. Ways that would have saved our boys, and thousands of innocent Iraqis, not to mention the costs involved in War.

After 9/11 he had the world in his hand, and he blew it, IMHO.

Some presidents are uniters, Bush is a divider. Yeah, he was reelected, but half the country doesn't want him in there, and his mandate for a War President is pretty flimsey.

Enter the religeous fanatics in our own country. I'm sorry, I see where all this is headed, and I don't like it one bit.

The beginning of my own personal dislike of the President came about through the books I have read about him as a man. For me, it began at the moment that I learned about the efforts made by his administration to undermine the investigation into 9/11. The smear campaigns launched against Anne Richards, and John McCain. The pressure used against various government officials to accumulate false propaganda to present to the American people. There have been many things about which I have studied which have concerned me about this man, and his close associates.

Of all things, his failure to safe gaurd our borders, he quest to provide illegal ailiens with rewards for breaking our laws. His refusal to address the health care issues, vacant spots at the top levels of Food &amp; Drug which he has failed to fill. Three quarters of the pay off money, AKA Campaign Contributions, from the Pharmaceutical Corporations have gone to the Republican Party.

Nothing is ever all black or all white.

Gayle in Md.

Elaine
11-20-2004, 02:07 PM
Okay liberals..... And Gayle those quotes were from Michael Savage (talk radio host)not me directly - it was meant as a jest - not to be taken entirely serious. Obviously above your IQ and your sense of humor. What ever happened to your party of tollerance.
1. Don't always believe all you read in the mainstream news.
2. Mt. St. Helens and other natural disasters (and liberals) are the largest polluters - not SUV's.
3. Social medicine/government run health care is not the answer - take it from someone who knows what social medicine is like. I am still a British Citizen and don't agree with government in hospitals. Health care is out of control because of trial lawyers - government is not the be all cureall of all your social ills particularly when it comes to handing out condoms. If John Kennedy were alive today he would be a republican not what is percieved as a democrat today.

[ QUOTE ]
but I do believe that it is not the duty of all women to be mothers sitting at home while daddy goes to work. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle....it is the duty of a mother to raise her children and not let day care workers do it. If a woman chooses to have children she should be responsible enough to fulfill the duties of a mother and not pay hired help to do the raising - that is the problem with a lot of kids today. If more Mom's were home doing the "right thing" our kids would be much better off. In fact I believe the trend is changing. Doesn't mean you can't be educated and live a meaningful life. What job is more fullfilling than raising productive, happy, successful adults.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, as of late being that the Bush administration wants to drug all of our children in schools, <hr /></blockquote>

What the heck are you reading.....Bush is now responsible for kids taking drugs?? I think you must be smoking something!

How is it that the goverment is responsible for everyone one of the problems that you have touted here. Your insipid degrading remarks as it relates to anyone that disagrees with you simply shows your superficial insight.

Obviously I could use your same tactics and refer to you as as ignorant, stupid, low IQ etc. Frankly, I think you need to be referred to a shrink from France.

Sincerely
Elaine

eg8r
11-20-2004, 07:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they killed her Ed. Insurgents and terrorists killed her. I have said that from the start. Also, they wouldn't have been there in the first place if not for Bush. <hr /></blockquote> Keep towing the line.

eg8r

eg8r
11-20-2004, 07:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Now, is there anything else you can think of to pick at me for today? Perhaps we could debate whether the sky is really blus, <hr /></blockquote> Since you sarcastically asked, I will play your game... Lets debate...I don't think the sky is really blus. I don't even know what blus is, but I am willing to debate that it is not the sky.

eg8r &lt;~~~knows Gayle misspelled the word but if we are being sarcastic...

nhp
11-20-2004, 07:46 PM
You really think I'm smoking something? Read this, and then tell me what you think about the Bush administration.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1234

Your budy S. Fats posted this up. How can anyone still hold Bush in high regards after reading this?

Gayle in MD
11-21-2004, 08:53 AM
1. As far as I know, I never responded to your post.
2. I get my information mostly from books, and watching C-span, footage from the floor of the Senate, and from the public broadcasting station.
3. Social health care is not what I want to see here either, I want a health care bill that would help to prevent the gaugeing of the American Public, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, which is a huge part of the cost, and the greatest offenders, who BTW are being protected by Bush and the Republican party, as a thankyou for the vast campaign contributions. Did you read anything about Vioxx, BTW?

This quote, "But I do believe it is not the duty of all mothers to be...." Mind telling me where you found this? I was a stay at home mother, and come from a family of stay at home mothers. My daughter walked away from a huge position in television management in order to give her little girl the benefit of having a full time mother in her home also. I don't try however, to influence the decisions of other mothers, or to degrade them if they find they can be better mothers while working, or need to work to support their family.

As for your other points, you obviously need to do some research before we could discuss them. Have you read the news lately regarding the phychological testing of our children in school?

Your post makes it difficult to determine whom it is your are attacking, none of your quotes came from me as far as I can tell.

Have a nice day????????

Gayle in MD
11-21-2004, 08:58 AM
Looking back over this thread, I never responded to your post about talk radio. Also, you might want to check out the thread posted by none other than Seacaucus regarding the Bush administration plan for drugs for our school children entitled, " Congress stop this now " where there is a link provided.
Only you know where the rest of your tirade comes from. In the future, I suggest you use a little care checking out the threads and posts before you go off half cocked.

Have a nice day

Elaine
11-21-2004, 12:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
2. I get my information mostly from books, and watching C-span, footage from the floor of the Senate, and from the public broadcasting station. <hr /></blockquote>

This is your first mistake, try watching FOX News.C-span is the most liberal one sided news you can watch. Do you know about the owner of PBS? You maybe should read up on who you are listening to.
As far as the article goes, I will check out the source and get back to you with my opinion.
I wasn't attacking or addressing anyone imparticular. Sorry if you felt I was attacking you.
Elaine

Gayle in MD
11-21-2004, 01:41 PM
Do you know who owns Fox News, and what his politics are, LOL.
My dear woman, girl, whatever, C-Span is live coverage from the floor of the Senate, I hardly think I could get a more realistic unbiased viewpoint than watching live what is happening on the Senate floor.

Public Broadcasting couldn't light a candle to Fox when it comes to being biased. Do some reading about Rupert Muhrdock before you start advising about unbiased news. BTW, do you know who owns the Public Broadcasting Station?

Gayle in Md