I heard an American on the BBC on Sunday.
He said America is not a rational nation.
Not on Sundays, not on weekdays, not on November 2nd.

I agree with him.
Bush has most of you behaving irrationally.
The fact that your Head of State is also Chief of the executive also induces
patriotic obedience to an optional policy.

Saying no to Bush is (was) being unpatriotic.
He (or those who pull his strings) know that.

They know they can get away with it.

That's why the troops are in Iraquistan instead of Afgharq.

They have you by the balls.
Psyopsed into irrational obedience.


---
Mosalie.






"Wirt Atmar" <[log in to unmask]> a écrit dans le message de
news:uJGdnUcBPMM13vXcRVn-qA@fidnet.com...
> Jim writes:
>
> > So, to answer the question: was the allied bombing of enemy
> >  cities a war crime in 1945? No, because the allies won.  Winners
> >  are never found guilty because they rarely try themselves.
>
> In this very regard, I'm still madder than hell that the United States
> launched an unprovoked aggression into Iraq. In a more just and equitable
world,
> Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Feith, Kristol and Perle would be
facing
> trial as war criminals. The invasion of Iraq was an illegal act. More than
that,
> it was a deeply immoral act.
>
> I wrote on February 25, 2003, during the current administration's campaign
of
> nonsense, in their runup for the war, prior to the invasion:
>
> =======================================
>
> Life is not nearly as simple as the current administration is making it
seem.
> Perhaps more relevant, nothing Iraq has done lately has posed any threat
to
> either the United States or any of Iraq's neighbors. Saddam is 65 years
old
> now, he has no active WMD programs, and he governs an army that is only
30%
> to 50% the size it was during the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. The situation
in
> Iraq will come to an end in another 10 years of its own accord.
Containment
> as a policy worked for the Soviet Union, for Libya, and it would work for
> Iraq. The most pro-western Islamic country in the region is now Iran, and
it
> became so on its own, primarily because we left it alone.
>
> =======================================
>
> I further wrote on May 22, 2003:
>
> =======================================
>
> Although that statement caused the list to erupt in squabling as to what
> constituted a weapon of mass destruction and how many cubic football
stadiums
> Saddam's current biological weapons production could fill, I only all the
more
> resolutely stand by my statement. The war in Iraq was not only a great
waste
> of
> money, lives and international credibility, it has done a significant
amount
> of
> harm to the long-term prospects of peace in the region.
>
> As the occupying power, we are now obligated to rebuild Iraq as well as we
> can, but that remains something that I have gave doubts that we will see
> through
> to even a mediocre end. If we had left the situation alone, to evolve on
its
> own, we -- and the people of the region -- would certainly have been
better
> off.
>
> ========================================
>
> There are a great many people on this list who should be deeply ashamed of
> their uncritical, unthinking support of the administration's nonsensical
> justifications for war with Iraq. In a very real way, you are partially
responsible
> for the death of tens of thousands of people.
>
> Greg Stigers quoted someone a few weeks back who said that anyone who
thinks
> that George Bush is dumb isn't worth arguing with. I therefore expect no
> argument from anyone regarding this post, if for no other reason than I
deeply
> believe that Bush is as dumb as the day is long -- and one of the most
dangerous
> presidents that the United States has had during the last 100 years.
>
> Wirt Atmar
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *