Merry Christmas

"Cynicor" wrote in message
...
Harry Stottle wrote:

It seems to me that most of the killing is being done by Saddam
Hussein supporters, and not by British or American troops.

Er..."most of" the killing? So Shi'ites have done a minority of the
killing? At least it's not being blamed on al-Qaeda.

The British and American troops might have upset those who had a
comfortable living before the invasion,

"You forgot Poland."

but that is not enough reason for those same Saddam Hussein
supporters to slaughter their neighbours because they have now had
their nose put out of joint.

Put the blame where it belongs, on
those that are doing the killing, and not on those that went there to
try and prevent it, no matter how misguided this now appears to have
been with the benefit of hindsight.

So the reason for the invasion was to try and prevent sectarian
violence?

If you listen carefully to what Blair said before the invasion, I
believe that the oppression and sectarian violence carried out by Saddam
Hussein and his supporters was part of the reason for him agreeing with
the invasion. He was happy to go along with the 'weapons of mass
destruction' theory because it fitted in with his ideals against that
oppression.

wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:00:24 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Harry Stottle wrote:
"ASAAR" wrote in message
...

In the future it's a near certainty that nobody will ever wish
others to have a Very Merry Minneøttimas.

Merry Xmas, Happy Hanukkah, Ramadan Kareem, Happy Kwanzaa,
Cool Yule, Blessed Be and Happy Trails to You, until we meet again!



What about us Atheists?
Possibly the only sane group of any society, and we never get a mention.

The LA times is talking all about you: http://tinyurl.com/vls3h

Cheers,
Alan


An excellent post!

They forgot one thing - atheists have never started a war, or crashed an
airliner into a building, or did the Spanish inquisition!

Believers all!

Lets hope that this year, not too many depressed believers murder their young
children to send them to a 'better place'...


And to you Alan, happy Saturnalia!

Hmm. . .let's see. The former Soviet Union was an atheist state--the
opium of the masses and all that. China is an atheist state. That
brings to mind, Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Tibet. . .just
name a few.
--
Gator Bait

Bill K wrote:
Hmm. . .let's see. The former Soviet Union was an atheist state--the
opium of the masses and all that. China is an atheist state. That
brings to mind, Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Tibet. . .just
name a few.

The United States has no state religion.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:57:03 -0000, "Harry Stottle"
wrote:

He was happy to go along with the 'weapons of mass
destruction' theory because it fitted in with his ideals against that
oppression.

Or because the action has not exactly harmed his US post-appointment
lecture tour earnings, a primary career goal I fear. Downing Street is
just one CV item for this guy, do understand the overview. It's
important to bear in mind that war potentially earned Blair millions.
Couldn't have been a factor in the decision though, I'm sure. He's a
regular churchgoer after all. Let's hope the US populace eventually
get with reality and he can't bank the post-dated cheque.

Steve

(UK)

Bill K wrote:
Hmm. . .let's see. The former Soviet Union was an atheist state--the
opium of the masses and all that. China is an atheist state. That
brings to mind, Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Tibet. . .just
name a few.

Soviet Union is no more. And Marxist/Leninist Bolshevism for all its
"official" atheism, was as much of a religion as scientology is.

China is almost as mixed a bag religion-wise as the US (christians,
muslims, buddists, confucians ...don't know about wiccans); Afghanistan
is predominantly muslim; Hungary, the Czech Replublic & Slovakia are
mostly Roman Catholic AFAIK; Tibet is buddist ...

Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:19:09 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more
people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003
than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

That estimate assumes that the status quo would have remained.
If, OTOH, SH had decided the Kurds were no longer to be tolerated, he
could very well have launched a 'cleansing.'

But SH *didn't*. GWB did.

Harry Stottle wrote:


It seems to me that most of the killing is being done by Saddam Hussein
supporters, and not by British or American troops.

About 70% Shiites murdering Sunnis; about 20% Sunnis murdering Shiites,
and about 10% Shiites & Sunnis trying to kill Americans and other
foreigners.

It's like the sign in the antiques shop says, "You break it, you bought it!"

Cynicor wrote:
Bill K wrote:
Hmm. . .let's see. The former Soviet Union was an atheist state--the
opium of the masses and all that. China is an atheist state. That
brings to mind, Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Tibet. . .just
name a few.

The United States has no state religion.

There's a huge difference between not having a state religion, and being an
atheist state.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:19:09 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more
people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003
than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

That estimate assumes that the status quo would have remained.
If, OTOH, SH had decided the Kurds were no longer to be tolerated, he
could very well have launched a 'cleansing.'
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

You are wasting your time.....Every Iraqi death since the instant that we
started our invasion, and lasting for the rest of time, is going to be laid
directly on the shoulders of George Bush....That goes without
saying........Oh....That goes for every American death, too.........

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:42:18 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:19:09 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more
people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003
than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

That estimate assumes that the status quo would have remained.
If, OTOH, SH had decided the Kurds were no longer to be tolerated, he
could very well have launched a 'cleansing.'

"Could have." He also "could have" launched an attack on Ireland. But he
didn't, and he didn't, and our war has been responsible for over half a
million additional deaths.

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
Are we to assume he would not have done so again?
And the use of the word 'responsible" is, IMO, reckless; the way SH
kept the inter-necine warfare under control is well documented. Are we
to think that you think such mesasures are better than freedom?

--
Democrat John Edwards stood in the
hurricane-ravaged ninth ward of
New Orleans with a shovel in his
hands Thursday and announced he's
running for president. He promised
an end to poverty and free health
care for all. That explains the shovel.