"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Wolf wrote:
>
> > >
> > > If a foreign power came to US terrritory and took Us citizens to Cuba,
would
> > > the US think they should have rights?
> > >
> > > If they were serving as part of foreign militaries then why doesn't
the
> > > geneva convention apply?
> >
> > A U.S. Oversees military base is not U.S. Soil, that is the whole point.
> >
> > For instance if a child is born in a U.S. Military hospital base
oversees
> > and both his parents are U.S. Citizens the child is a naturalized
citizen
> > and therefore can never be president.
>
> You will have to pardon our misunderstanding. We were led to believe that
the US
> held certain rights to be those rights are to be extended to all people.
> Meanwhile, the US wants to bring people to justice from anywhere in the
world for
> crimes against Americans.
>

How is it by the way that the US constitution beings? My memory is vague,
but I believe that it says something to the effect that it is a self-evident
truth that certain rights and freedoms are for everyone? Or am I absolutely
mislead?

Nik

On 12/12/2003 8:15 AM, in article , "Nik"
> opined:

>
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The Wolf wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> If a foreign power came to US terrritory and took Us citizens to Cuba,
> would
>>>> the US think they should have rights?
>>>>
>>>> If they were serving as part of foreign militaries then why doesn't
> the
>>>> geneva convention apply?
>>>
>>> A U.S. Oversees military base is not U.S. Soil, that is the whole point.
>>>
>>> For instance if a child is born in a U.S. Military hospital base
> oversees
>>> and both his parents are U.S. Citizens the child is a naturalized
> citizen
>>> and therefore can never be president.
>>
>> You will have to pardon our misunderstanding. We were led to believe that
> the US
>> held certain rights to be those rights are to be extended to all people.
>> Meanwhile, the US wants to bring people to justice from anywhere in the
> world for
>> crimes against Americans.
>>
>
> How is it by the way that the US constitution beings? My memory is vague,
> but I believe that it says something to the effect that it is a self-evident
> truth that certain rights and freedoms are for everyone? Or am I absolutely
> mislead?
>
> Nik
>
>
You are one dumb **** who can't read. Go somewhere
else.......................

"Polybus" > wrote in message
om...
> user > wrote in message
>. ..
>
> Hmm, I think the best argument in this (somewhat complicated) case is
> to consider the fact that we are are flying the American flag over
> there, and the territory was sealed off, for any ordinary Cubans (even
> Cuban exiles are no longer allowed to come to the base).
>
> >> And since the good old Fidel took over power in Cuba the US hasn't
> >> paid rent. One might actually argue that the base is occupied land.
>
>
> For your information: the U.S. IS PAYING 2,000 DOLLARS PER YEAR !
> Ever heard of SCUBA-diving and the Callypso-expeditions? (I have seen
> this documentary myself!)
>
> In 1985 President Fidel Castro told Captain Cousteau (the French
> film-maker, who is also the inventor of Scuba-technology) that Cuba
> does not recognize the US claim to Guantanamo and showed him the
> uncashed rent payments. Captain Cousteau crossed the mined
> no-man's-land to Guantanamo Base, the first non-Cuban to make the
> crossing since 1961, to discuss Castro's remarks with the base
> commander, who explained the base's use to train the fleet. In
> contrast to the historic island, the base looks like many American
> towns, complete with school bus, baseball field and McDonald's.
>
> See also:
> http://www.cousteausociety.org/tcs_e...ions_cuba.html
> http://www.cousteau.org/en/
> http://www.cousteau.org/en/heritage/...ions/scuba.php
> http://www.cousteau.org/en/heritage/calypso/history.php
>
> "Gitmo" as it is often called, is the oldest U.S. base outside of the
> continental United States. The U.S. Navy has maintained a presence at
> Guantánamo since 1903, when the area was acquired as a coaling and
> naval station. The original lease agreement signed between U.S.
> President Theodore Roosevelt and Cuban President Estrada Palma gave
> the United States "the right to exercise complete jurisdiction and
> control within and over the area. In turn, the United States
> recognized the ultimate sovereignty of Cuba over the leased areas."
> This original agreement was reaffirmed by a treaty signed in 1934 by
> President Franklin Roosevelt.
>
> The first American casualties of the Spanish-Cuban-American war were
> two marines killed at Guantánamo on June 11, 1898. A U.S. Marine
> battalion camped there the day before, marking the first U.S. presence
> on the bay.
>
> Just about five years later, on February 23, 1903, U.S. President
> Theodore Roosevelt signed an agreement with Cuba leasing the bay for
> 2,000 gold coins per year. The agreement was forced on the puppet
> Cuban government (with an American-citizen for President) through the
> Platt Amendment, which gave U.S. authorities the right to interfere in
> Cuban affairs.
> On July 2 1906, (just before the 2nd U.S. military intervention, a new
> lease is signed in Havana for Guantánamo Bay and Bahía Honda, for
> which the U.S. will pay a meager $2,000 per year.
>
> After Cubans annulled the Platt Amendment in 1934, a new lease was
> negotiated between the Roosevelt administration and a U.S.-friendly
> government that included Fulgencio Batista (who would later become the
> worst dictator the country has ever known) as one of three
> signatories. Batista emerged as the strong man on the island over the
> next twenty-five years.
> When the Revolution triumphed in 1959, the U.S. banned its soldiers
> stationed at the bay from entering Cuban territory. Legally speaking,
> Guantánamo should have been returned to Cuba at this time. (As a
> principle of universal law, perpetual contracts can be cancelled at
> any time)
>
> In an interview with Soviet journalists in October 1985, U.S.
> President Ronald Reagan said that the purpose of the base was
> political: to impose the U.S. presence, even if the Cubans didn't want
> it. Every year the U.S. sends a check for the lease amount, but the
> Cuban government has never cashed them.

Very interesting and fin description of the history. However, I believe that
it can still be argued that the US is not paying rent even if they try to
it. A renting agreement is an agreement between two parties. This seems not
to be the case here...


Nik.

"Jarg" > wrote in message
. com...
> Unbelievable how people can some up with such nonsense. My understanding
is
> that the nations in the Middle East SELL to the west. But now thanks to
you
> we know they were raped. I don't recall any western nation installing the
> dictatorships in

Iran

Read your history book once again.


Iraq,

Read your historybook once again


Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. And for the
> most part they have been left alone as long as they are not proving a
threat
> to other nations. Perhaps you forgot about the Iraqi invasions of Iran
and
> Kuwait and it's sponsorship of terrorism, most notably against Israel?
You
> are completely deluded.
>

A self portrait?


Nik

"Jarg" > wrote in message
. com...
> Or perhaps I am a bit more informed of Middle Eastern histroy than you
> thing, and you should read a bit more carefully. The operation you refer
> two has nothing to do with any of the current government in the Middle
East
> I referred to.
>
> Hussein invaded Kuwait to gratify his megalomania, just as he did Iran.
He
> mistakenly thought himself as destined to reunite the region.
>

CIA did play a role in the events that lead to the instalment of SH and they
played a very active role in dismantling democracy in Iran. Read your
history!

Nik

The current government in Iraq is the result of a revolution agains the
Shah. Read your history.

jarg

"Nik" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > Or perhaps I am a bit more informed of Middle Eastern histroy than you
> > thing, and you should read a bit more carefully. The operation you
refer
> > two has nothing to do with any of the current government in the Middle
> East
> > I referred to.
> >
> > Hussein invaded Kuwait to gratify his megalomania, just as he did Iran.
> He
> > mistakenly thought himself as destined to reunite the region.
> >
>
> CIA did play a role in the events that lead to the instalment of SH and
they
> played a very active role in dismantling democracy in Iran. Read your
> history!
>
> Nik
>
>

> How is it by the way that the US constitution beings? My memory is vague,
> but I believe that it says something to the effect that it is a
self-evident
> truth that certain rights and freedoms are for everyone? Or am I
absolutely
> mislead?

AMERICAN CONSTITUTION - Section. 9.
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax
or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for
each Person.

Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require
it.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual
service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

----------------

Well, well well. Back to future... What happened to the 5th and the 13th
amendment ??? If what's going on at Guantanamo (i.e. 'the importation of
people') is approved by the Supreme Court, this is more than a dangerous
precedent. In fact it would be a repeat of a cruel antecedent in American
history: slavery. Didn't Bush study history at Yale?

Anyway, any S.C. approval would make Guantanamo the new 21st century Sao
Tome & Principe, the state-run traffic-hub for muslim slaves and other
cattle.



"Nik" > wrote in message
...

Sorry but you are incorrect and I wish you would do a little research before
you start criticizing others.

Iran is governed by a Islamic theocracy that is the result of a revolution
against the Shah. The West had no involvement that I have ever heard of.

The Iraqi Bathes regime resulted from a coup against the Iraqi monarchy -
again not a Western action.

The Saudi monarchy actually occurred despite some British opposition (and is
outside of the half century mentioned in this discussion anyway).

Kuwait was a tribal area ruled by the family that is still in power. The
British did recognize sovereignty - they did not install the government.

Apparently you were given flawed history books. Want to try again?

Jarg






"Nik" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > Unbelievable how people can some up with such nonsense. My
understanding
> is
> > that the nations in the Middle East SELL to the west. But now thanks to
> you
> > we know they were raped. I don't recall any western nation installing
the
> > dictatorships in
>
> Iran
>
> Read your history book once again.
>
>
> Iraq,
>
> Read your historybook once again
>
>
> Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. And for the
> > most part they have been left alone as long as they are not proving a
> threat
> > to other nations. Perhaps you forgot about the Iraqi invasions of Iran
> and
> > Kuwait and it's sponsorship of terrorism, most notably against Israel?
> You
> > are completely deluded.
> >
>
> A self portrait?
>
>
> Nik
>
>

And you have to use insult when your arguement is weak.

Jarg

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
. be...
>
> "Mike Dobony" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > Finally, can someone explain me why one has to be a "LIBERAL", a
> > > "PEACENIK" or an "ATHEIST" to be against what's going at Guantanamo
> > > ??? Where is the humanity in that "black and white", "you are with us
> > > or against us" kind of argument? What the hell happened to
> > > Compassionate Conservatism and to the new Ethics at the White House??
> >
> > You have a measure of good point here. However, these are not just
> > prisoners, but prisoners of war. They are being treated as such.
> Prisoners
> > of war do not get trials. They are simply held until hostilities cease
> and
> > then are dealt with. The only trial that needs to be held is whether or
> not
> > the American-born people still hold American citizenship since they
joined
> a
> > foreign and hostile military. You are correct here. These
American-born
> > men need a speedy trial to determine if they are considered traitors or
> > prisoners of war.
> > --
> > Mike D.
>
>
> You prick,... Do you have any idea of what's going on in Guantanamo? Ever
> heard of the Geneva Conventions?? Locking people up incommunicado (for
over
> 20 months now), very often torturing them for 'strategic reasons', to keep
> them quiet, or as a way of collective punishment - is no way to treat a
POW,
> which is probably why the White House is doing everything it can to keep
the
> International Committee of the Red Cross out of its dirty business as much
> as it can, and it is also why its dealings in Cuba have always been
> condemned by the entire international community. This is an outright
> scandal, with grave consequences for the international reputation of our
> country, and W. Bush should, and will be sooner or later, held accountable
> over this - if not in the U.S., then maybe before the ICJ.
>
> Let me also remind you that many, if not most, of the Guantanamo detainees
> are not fighters who were captured - but mere 'suspects', who were
kidnapped
> from their houses or from their land. In fact no independent
international
> organisation, or legislative or judicial U.S. branch, has any control over
> what's going on at Guantanamo, over who is there, and why, and for how
long,
> and what's gonna happen to these people. Meanwhile, the what you call
"POW"
> and what the president has ruled to be "very, very bad people", are locked
> up in cages, chained like animals, treated like the jews on the way to the
> concentration camps and constantly beaten, humiliated and/or mentally
> abused.
>
> Let me also remind you that there are indeed plans to trial (some of)
these
> people, be it without - if any - 'proper' due process, without
(independent)
> legal counseling, although the risk the death penalty. There will be no
> appeal. The death penalty, in extreme circumstances, maybe for war
> criminals - but no way is it acceptable that the USA would start killing
its
> what-you-call POW, assuming that's what they are - but then again nobody
> knows, because the President doesn't want to be bothered to tell us, or
> Congres, or the media, or the UN, or the Red Cross, or Human Rights Watch,
> or Amnesty International, or anyone else for that matter. And why should
he,
> nobody seems to be asking any serious questions, and nobody is able - for
> the time being - to keep Bush and his bunch accountable for their acts.
>
> I admit that your view on the Guantanamo POW is very widespread all over
the
> U.S., largely due to simple ignorance and outright manipulation of the
> public opinion, which is made to believe that this is all part of the
> so-called 'war on terror'. If that is so, I can only hope that we lose
that
> "War on Terror", because it certainly isn't my war.
>
> And you, you are a scumbag.
>
>

Of course he will win. I wonder how many of the Bush haters will blow a
gasket when he is reelected!

Jarg

"Shouse" > wrote in message ...
> In article > "Mike Dobony"
> writes:
>
>
>
> I second your opinion. Bush will win big in 04 precisely because he's done
the
> right things.
>
>
> >For doing trhe right thing? Either we deal with these murderers now or
they
> >would continue to deal with us later. This so-called citizen gave up
those
> >rights by serving in a foreign military. By joining teh foreign military
he
> >ceased to be a US citizen just as one does when one desires citizenship
in
> >another country. In order to join a foreign military one customarily
swares
> >an oath to that country. He therefore gave up all rights as a citizen.
>
> >That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore would
have
> >just let the terrorists continue on their merry way preparing to attack
> >again and again and again.
>
> >> Corse
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

The fact that you have to resort to name calling says a lot about the
weakness of your beliefs.

Jarg

"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "robert" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> > Ah but he will be reelected. There is no strong personality to replace
> him.
> >
>
> Sure there is. My DOG has more personality than that blithering dolt!
>
>

Nik muttered....


>
> Very interesting and fin description of the history. However, I
> believe that it can still be argued that the US is not paying rent
> even if they try to it. A renting agreement is an agreement between
> two parties. This seems not to be the case here...
>
>
Generally speaking, as far as US courts have looked at contract law, if a
"lease" (a contract agreement) exists between two parties, leasee and
leasor, and the leasee renders in negotiable fashion timely payment and
meets other criteria of performance, the leasor is held to the contract
whether or not he/she "uses" the payments.

"Term"? IIRC, the Guantanamo Agreement was an "in perpetuity unless
cancelled by both parties" deal.

TMO

Many nations including the US BUY Middle Eastern oil. And I gues the Taliban
sponsorship of Al Quaeda and the resulting attack that killed thousands of
Americans had nothing to do with US actions in Afghanistan? Do you have any
idea how illogical that is? I pity you for your paranoid view of the
world.

Jarg

"stephen" > wrote in message
...
> user > wrote:
>
> >What the heck are you talking about Mike? It isn't about the US
> >****ing off the Muslims, its all about free societies ****ing off the
> >Muslims for simply that, being free.
>
> Hmmm... as near as I can see, the Muslims, even the Fundie ones, are
> prepared to share the planet. The problem is the US going where the
> oil is, and that, for the most part, is where the Muslims are.
>
> The Fundie Muslims would be happy to leave the oil in the ground.
> That is why the US supports "Royal Families" and dictators who will
> produce the oil.
>
> Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. That was a lie.
>
> The US only deposes dictators that they don't like. The claim that
> they are liberating the people is a lie. (Why not liberate the people
> in Zimbabwee or China?
>
> Going into Afghanistan was an attempt to get a pipeline for Caspian
> Sea oil, that did not go through Russia, but they outsmarted the US
> by being a 'friend' and invading (securring) the north.
>
> Now you are in Iraq to ensure that their oil comes on the world markets
> and you are going to steal enough of it to rebuilt their country that
> you destroyed. And you pay inflated prices to US contractors who
> will funnel some of the proceeds to the Republicans.
>
> >watch CNN and call this "Bush's War"!!!! C;mon grow some stones and
> >fight back! Do you have the STONES to stand up to them???? I'm dam
>
> I think Bill Mahar had it right. It doen't take *stones* to fire
> a $100,000 guided missil at a target 10 miles away.
>
> Now that the troops are on the ground, and seeing their buddies
> become causualties, we are starting to see desertions (not reported
> by the US media, so you won't know about this) and growing
> opposition at home.
>
> >sure glad we have a president AND a congress (yes dorothy you seem to
> >forget they bilateraly voted FOR this action).
>
> If Bush did not lie about the WMD they probably would not have.
>
> >What is wrong with you
> >people??? You have no clue how American Government works??? Bush
>
> It is bought and paid for by big business, especially the big oil
> business.
>
> The Christian Fundies have taken control of the Republican party
> and let business plunder the foreign heathens in exchange for putting
> Ashcroft and his kind in charge of eliminating domestic freedoms
> that the Fundies don;t like.
>
> >couldn't have possibly done this on his own, he had support and
> >guidance from the majority, which is how it works. Its so funny that
>
> There is so much apathy in the US, that any claim to support of a
> majority is absurd. More people voted for Gore than Bush. And what
> percentage of those eligible even voted at all?
>
> >when we actually attacked these fanatics, these freedom haters, that
> >the majority supported the action. Now that the going is tough, we now
> >know who the weak are....thanks for showing us your true soul Mike
>
> Hmmm, I kinda suspect that you supported the US being in Vietnam.
>
> --
> Stephen
>
> Did Colin Powell know he was lying to the United Nations and US allies?
>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:30:28 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>
>Pan Ohco wrote:
>
>> > Saddam Hussein and "the terrorists" didn't start
>> >this fight.
>> >
>> >Rick
>> >
>> Oh, who flew the planes in to the twin towers?
>
>Saudis.
>Duh

Oh terrorist didn't fly the planes?
Saddam didn't give aid to terrorist?

Duh! You should at least remember your own posting.
Pan Ohco

More off-topic trolling and domain theft from JF Mezei:

Message-ID: >
From: nobody >
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
alt.gossip.celebrities,rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.food.cooking,rec.travel
..air,rec.aviation.military
Subject: Detained at the whim of the president
References: >
. net>
m>
> >
>
>
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Forwarded: by - (DeleGate/8.5.4)
Lines: 39
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:19:18 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.230.45.164
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1071224135 64.230.45.164 (Fri, 12 Dec 2003
05:15:35 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:15:35 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico

Craig Welch wrote:
> >The coalition is the US and England. Who else supplied troops?
>
> Australia. Are you so isolated from fact that you don't even know
> that? So hidden in your insular little world?

OK, lets rephrase the question: except for the United States, are there any
governments who decided to support the USA invasion of Iraq with the support
of their citizens ?

What financial incentives (read: blackmail) did the USA have to provide to all
those former eastern block countries in exchance for their lack of opposition
to the invasion of Iraq ?

Kudos to Turkey whose government acted according to the population's wishes
despite huge sums of money offered by the USA.


Any and every government must be held accountable for their actions outside
their own jurisdiction. Hussein wasn't right in invading Kuwait without the
support of the international community. The USA wasn't right in invading Iraq
without the support of the international community.

Just as there were sanctions against Iraq for having invaded Kuwait, there
should be sanctions against the USA for having invaded Iraq. And the first
person who shoudl be tried at that new Iraqi war crimes tribunal is Goerge W
Bush along with Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz.

The USA must pay for the damages, but anyone who participated in the
destruction/invasion of Iraq should be under sanctions to prohibit these
countries from benefiting from reconstruction money.

Irak is not populated by neanderthals. They are intelligent enough to decide
how their country shoudl be reconstructed, and more importantly, who should
help them reconstruct it.

Only if Iraq holds a referendum and the pupulation does decide to become a USA
territory/possession would the USA have any right to decide on how Iraq
rebuilds or is administered.

-----------------------------

nobody.com is a registered domain. Report Mezei's theft and abuse of this
domain to its owner >

Domain Name: NOBODY.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Southport Technologies
314 Queen Street South
Suite 158
Bolton, Ontario L7E 4Z9
CA
905-880-0289 fax: 905-880-3061

Record expires on 24-Aug-2004.
Record created on 25-Aug-1995.

Also report him to:





Jean-Francois Mezei
86 Harwood Gate
Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3
(514) 695-8259

A DECADE OF USENET TROLLING






[nospam]
nobody >
Conspiracy Theory >
Lou Raccoon >
Flapping Labias >
Throbbing vulva >
Twin Gonads >
Loose Scrotum >
Raised Organ >
Popped Cherry >
Monica Lewinski >
Deep Fried Foreskin >
Aroma of Smegma >
Wet fart >
Pubic dandruff >
Voluptuous Nipple >
Inserted Finger >
Pubic Nair >
Flatulent Meatus >
Lihk Mhygroin >
Pre Khum >
Phi Mosis >
Bal Anatis >
Fren Ullum >
Ivanna Getlaid >
Ivanna Wankalot >
Ivanna Umpalot >
Wan Tnoneofit >
Wan Itbad >
Wan Towank >
Wan Tolik >
Testos Terone >
Upper Gonad >
Right Gonad >
Left Gonad >
Tyson's Glands >
Nose Hair >
Coronal Sulcus >
Corpus Cavernus >
Armpit moisture >
Onani Room >
Arnie's Banana >
Raised eyebrows >
Vas Deferens >
Naked Canuck >
Arni's socks >
Notable Exception >
Unpopped Cherry >
Tatooed Ovaries >
Pierced eyelid >
Limp Tomato >
Eggplant Earrings >
Banana Underpants >
Naval Lint >
Ingrown Toenail >
Empty Stomach >
Full Stomach >
Smelly Cat >
Torn Ligament >
Art Tistic >
Furry Raccoon >
Wet Racoon >
Mad Racoon >
Lazy Racoon >
Eaten Racoon >
Happy Raccoon >
Sleeping Racoon >
Hungry Racoon >
Horny Raccoon >
Smart Raccoon >
George W Raccoon >
Ronald McRaccoon >
Thirsty Raccoon >
Johnny Raccoon >
Oshi Santo >
Oishi Chinko >
T.Yellow >
Q >
Borg Queen >
Ronald Wilkerson >
John Balterman >

The Wolf wrote:

> >
> > You will have to pardon our misunderstanding. We were led to believe that the
> > US
> > held certain rights to be those rights are to be extended to all people.
> > Meanwhile, the US wants to bring people to justice from anywhere in the world
> > for
> > crimes against Americans.
> >
>
>
> There is case law all the way back to the U.S. Civil War about what rights
> Citizens and unlawful combatants have.

How are they unlawful combatants. They were in a country that was invaded by the
US. There is a very strong suspicion that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out by a
terrorist organization that has bases in the lawless regions of Afghanistan, that
lawlessness being the result of a power vacuum that the US help to create by
undermining the former regime.

Many of the Taliban fighters are foreigners (to Afghanistan), but they did not
attack the US. They were fighting to defend Afghanistan from the invasion.



>
> Most of these matters will be decided by the Supreme Court next year.
>
> Why do you care?

Because it is yet another example of hypocrisy and double standards.

The Wolf wrote:

>
> >
> > How is it by the way that the US constitution beings? My memory is vague,
> > but I believe that it says something to the effect that it is a self-evident
> > truth that certain rights and freedoms are for everyone? Or am I absolutely
> > mislead?
> >
> > Nik
> >
> >
> You are one dumb **** who can't read. Go somewhere
> else.......................

Yeah. You tell him. You have a such an economy of words to just call him a dumb
**** instead of correcting him and pointing out that those words are actually in
the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their ......

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message ...
> Kudos to Turkey whose government acted according to the population's wishes
> despite huge sums of money offered by the USA.

Let's be accurate here. Colon Powell didn't spend eight months
flying around the world offering money to foreign countries if they
supported our invasion of Iraq. He spent eight months flying
around the world threatening foreign countries with dire economic
consequences if they didn't support it. That is an established fact.
The most recent consequence was announced just yesterday:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...211iraq11.html

Not only was Bush wrong about Iraq, now he's punishing the
countries who were right. Absolutely outrageous. The man
needs a swift boot upside his amoral head.

Rick

Oh i get it..it is in the cooking group because the mention of turkey..am i
right? Wait, wait, don't tell me I'm the big winner today..!!<tears of
joy..> Where do i pick up my onion prize?
--

Laura


"Rick" > wrote in message
...
> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> > Kudos to Turkey whose government acted according to the population's
wishes
> > despite huge sums of money offered by the USA.
>
> Let's be accurate here. Colon Powell didn't spend eight months
> flying around the world offering money to foreign countries if they
> supported our invasion of Iraq. He spent eight months flying
> around the world threatening foreign countries with dire economic
> consequences if they didn't support it. That is an established fact.
> The most recent consequence was announced just yesterday:
> http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...211iraq11.html
>
> Not only was Bush wrong about Iraq, now he's punishing the
> countries who were right. Absolutely outrageous. The man
> needs a swift boot upside his amoral head.
>
> Rick
>
>

"Rick" > wrote:

>"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Kudos to Turkey whose government acted according to the population's wishes
>> despite huge sums of money offered by the USA.
>
>Let's be accurate here. Colon Powell didn't spend eight months

Hey, you mother****ing asshole, why don't you try HARDER at being accurate ... I
didn't post that, Mezei the Canadian Troll did. Pay more attention next time
and be more careful with your attributions.

----------------------------------------

More off-topic trolling and domain theft from JF Mezei:

Message-ID: >
From: nobody >
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
alt.gossip.celebrities,rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.food.cooking,rec.travel
..air,rec.aviation.military
Subject: Detained at the whim of the president
References: >
. net>
m>
> >
>
>
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Forwarded: by - (DeleGate/8.5.4)
Lines: 39
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:19:18 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.230.45.164
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1071224135 64.230.45.164 (Fri, 12 Dec 2003
05:15:35 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:15:35 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico

Craig Welch wrote:
> >The coalition is the US and England. Who else supplied troops?
>
> Australia. Are you so isolated from fact that you don't even know
> that? So hidden in your insular little world?

OK, lets rephrase the question: except for the United States, are there any
governments who decided to support the USA invasion of Iraq with the support
of their citizens ?

What financial incentives (read: blackmail) did the USA have to provide to all
those former eastern block countries in exchance for their lack of opposition
to the invasion of Iraq ?

Kudos to Turkey whose government acted according to the population's wishes
despite huge sums of money offered by the USA.


Any and every government must be held accountable for their actions outside
their own jurisdiction. Hussein wasn't right in invading Kuwait without the
support of the international community. The USA wasn't right in invading Iraq
without the support of the international community.

Just as there were sanctions against Iraq for having invaded Kuwait, there
should be sanctions against the USA for having invaded Iraq. And the first
person who shoudl be tried at that new Iraqi war crimes tribunal is Goerge W
Bush along with Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz.

The USA must pay for the damages, but anyone who participated in the
destruction/invasion of Iraq should be under sanctions to prohibit these
countries from benefiting from reconstruction money.

Irak is not populated by neanderthals. They are intelligent enough to decide
how their country shoudl be reconstructed, and more importantly, who should
help them reconstruct it.

Only if Iraq holds a referendum and the pupulation does decide to become a USA
territory/possession would the USA have any right to decide on how Iraq
rebuilds or is administered.

-----------------------------

nobody.com is a registered domain. Report Mezei's theft and abuse of this
domain to its owner >

Domain Name: NOBODY.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Southport Technologies
314 Queen Street South
Suite 158
Bolton, Ontario L7E 4Z9
CA
905-880-0289 fax: 905-880-3061

Record expires on 24-Aug-2004.
Record created on 25-Aug-1995.

Also report him to:





Jean-Francois Mezei
86 Harwood Gate
Beaconsfield, QC H9W3A3
(514) 695-8259

A DECADE OF USENET TROLLING






[nospam]
nobody >
Conspiracy Theory >
Lou Raccoon >
Flapping Labias >
Throbbing vulva >
Twin Gonads >
Loose Scrotum >
Raised Organ >
Popped Cherry >
Monica Lewinski >
Deep Fried Foreskin >
Aroma of Smegma >
Wet fart >
Pubic dandruff >
Voluptuous Nipple >
Inserted Finger >
Pubic Nair >
Flatulent Meatus >
Lihk Mhygroin >
Pre Khum >
Phi Mosis >
Bal Anatis >
Fren Ullum >
Ivanna Getlaid >
Ivanna Wankalot >
Ivanna Umpalot >
Wan Tnoneofit >
Wan Itbad >
Wan Towank >
Wan Tolik >
Testos Terone >
Upper Gonad >
Right Gonad >
Left Gonad >
Tyson's Glands >
Nose Hair >
Coronal Sulcus >
Corpus Cavernus >
Armpit moisture >
Onani Room >
Arnie's Banana >
Raised eyebrows >
Vas Deferens >
Naked Canuck >
Arni's socks >
Notable Exception >
Unpopped Cherry >
Tatooed Ovaries >
Pierced eyelid >
Limp Tomato >
Eggplant Earrings >
Banana Underpants >
Naval Lint >
Ingrown Toenail >
Empty Stomach >
Full Stomach >
Smelly Cat >
Torn Ligament >
Art Tistic >
Furry Raccoon >
Wet Racoon >
Mad Racoon >
Lazy Racoon >
Eaten Racoon >
Happy Raccoon >
Sleeping Racoon >
Hungry Racoon >
Horny Raccoon >
Smart Raccoon >
George W Raccoon >
Ronald McRaccoon >
Thirsty Raccoon >
Johnny Raccoon >
Oshi Santo >
Oishi Chinko >
T.Yellow >
Q >
Borg Queen >
Ronald Wilkerson >
John Balterman >

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message ...
> Hey, you mother****ing asshole, why don't you try HARDER at being accurate ... I
> didn't post that, Mezei the Canadian Troll did. Pay more attention next time
> and be more careful with your attributions.

Er, sorry. Sheesh. What moron puts complete headers in
message bodies anyway?

Rick

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch >
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:30:40 GMT, john
> wrote:
>
>>Cut the crap!
>>
>>The coalition is the US and England. Who else supplied troops?
>
>Australia. Are you so isolated from fact that you don't even know
>that? So hidden in your insular little world?

How many troops did Australia supply? 10? 20? 100?

Mabe you can tell me how many troops were supplied by the following

coalition countries:


Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the
Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia,
Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania,
Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

I doubt if you will have to take your shoes off to count over 10.

The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
of the troops in Iraq.

"john" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch >
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:30:40 GMT, john
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Cut the crap!
> >>
> >>The coalition is the US and England. Who else supplied troops?
> >
> >Australia. Are you so isolated from fact that you don't even know
> >that? So hidden in your insular little world?
>
> How many troops did Australia supply? 10? 20? 100?
>
> Mabe you can tell me how many troops were supplied by the following
>
> coalition countries:
>
>
> Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the
> Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia,
> Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania,
> Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland,
> Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
>
> I doubt if you will have to take your shoes off to count over 10.
>
> The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
> of the troops in Iraq.

Do we Australians have to be forever grateful that we supported the US, you
retard.?
A simple "thanks for your help" would have done.
Read up on the population of Aust, and our current military commitments,
before you mouth off on something you obviously know nothing about.

On 12/12/2003 1:38 PM, in article , "Dave
Smith" > opined:

> The Wolf wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You will have to pardon our misunderstanding. We were led to believe that
>>> the
>>> US
>>> held certain rights to be those rights are to be extended to all people.
>>> Meanwhile, the US wants to bring people to justice from anywhere in the
>>> world
>>> for
>>> crimes against Americans.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is case law all the way back to the U.S. Civil War about what rights
>> Citizens and unlawful combatants have.
>
> How are they unlawful combatants. They were in a country that was invaded by
> the
> US. There is a very strong suspicion that the attacks of 9/11 were carried
> out by a
> terrorist organization that has bases in the lawless regions of Afghanistan,
> that
> lawlessness being the result of a power vacuum that the US help to create by
> undermining the former regime.

Your forgetting the little episode Afghanistan had with the former Soviet
Union.

Why do you enter discussions you know nothing about?
>
> Many of the Taliban fighters are foreigners (to Afghanistan), but they did not
> attack the US. They were fighting to defend Afghanistan from the invasion.


>
>
>
>>
>> Most of these matters will be decided by the Supreme Court next year.
>>
>> Why do you care?
>
> Because it is yet another example of hypocrisy and double standards.
>
>

Grow up dickhead.

On 12/12/2003 1:47 PM, in article , "Dave
Smith" > opined:

> The Wolf wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> How is it by the way that the US constitution beings? My memory is vague,
>>> but I believe that it says something to the effect that it is a self-evident
>>> truth that certain rights and freedoms are for everyone? Or am I absolutely
>>> mislead?
>>>
>>> Nik
>>>
>>>
>> You are one dumb **** who can't read. Go somewhere
>> else.......................
>
> Yeah. You tell him. You have a such an economy of words to just call him a
> dumb
> **** instead of correcting him and pointing out that those words are actually
> in
> the Declaration of Independence.
>
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
> they
> are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
> are
> Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights,
> Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
> consent
> of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
> these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
> organizing
> its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
> ......
>

CITIZENS

Pan Ohco wrote:

> >> Oh, who flew the planes in to the twin towers?
> >
> >Saudis.
> >Duh
>
> Oh terrorist didn't fly the planes?
> Saddam didn't give aid to terrorist?
>
> Duh! You should at least remember your own posting.

Of course terrorists were involved. hey hijacked the
planes and flew them into the WTC. There is not proof
that Saddam had anything to do with that. Even Bush is on
record as saying there is no proof on any link between
Saddam and al Queda (if you can believe anything he
says). Of course, he and his boys alluded to some sort of
connection, which resulted in a lot of very poorly
informed USians jumping on the bandwagon.

"Sunny" > wrote in
:

>> The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied
>> 99% of the troops in Iraq.
>
> Do we Australians have to be forever grateful that we supported
> the US, you retard.?
> A simple "thanks for your help" would have done.
> Read up on the population of Aust, and our current military
> commitments, before you mouth off on something you obviously know
> nothing about.

Welcome to Canada's private hell mate. Imagine having to live next to
them. Then make it ten times worse...that's about what it's like. And
they have the unmitigated gall to call *us* arrogant...

--
"The problem with the French is they have no
word for entrepreneur."

attributed to George W. Bush by Tony Blair
via Baroness Williams

Dave Smith > wrote in news:3FDA5D64.FF96A002
@sympatico.ca:

> Of course, he and his boys alluded to some sort of
> connection, which resulted in a lot of very poorly
> informed USians jumping on the bandwagon.

Sounds like they went from frying Pan to Fire!!! ;-)

--
"The problem with the French is they have no
word for entrepreneur."

attributed to George W. Bush by Tony Blair
via Baroness Williams

On 12/12/2003 4:29 PM, in article , "Dave
Smith" > opined:

> Pan Ohco wrote:
>
>>>> Oh, who flew the planes in to the twin towers?
>>>
>>> Saudis.
>>> Duh
>>
>> Oh terrorist didn't fly the planes?
>> Saddam didn't give aid to terrorist?
>>
>> Duh! You should at least remember your own posting.
>
> Of course terrorists were involved. hey hijacked the
> planes and flew them into the WTC. There is not proof
> that Saddam had anything to do with that. Even Bush is on
> record as saying there is no proof on any link between
> Saddam and al Queda (if you can believe anything he
> says). Of course, he and his boys alluded to some sort of
> connection, which resulted in a lot of very poorly
> informed USians jumping on the bandwagon.
>
So why did U.S. Forces uncover murals painted inside his palaces celebrating
9/11?

**** you and **** everybody who thinks like you. I lost friends that day.

If you canadians ever get lucky enough to have a leader like Bush maybe you
won't always be a U.S. welfare state.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:18:19 GMT, "Sunny" >
wrote:

>
>"john" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:30:40 GMT, john
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Cut the crap!
>> >>
>> >>The coalition is the US and England. Who else supplied troops?
>> >
>> >Australia. Are you so isolated from fact that you don't even know
>> >that? So hidden in your insular little world?
>>
>> How many troops did Australia supply? 10? 20? 100?
>>
>> Mabe you can tell me how many troops were supplied by the following
>>
>> coalition countries:
>>
>>
>> Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the
>> Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia,
>> Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania,
>> Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland,
>> Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
>>
>> I doubt if you will have to take your shoes off to count over 10.
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
>> of the troops in Iraq.
>
>Do we Australians have to be forever grateful that we supported the US, you
>retard.?
>A simple "thanks for your help" would have done.
>Read up on the population of Aust, and our current military commitments,
>before you mouth off on something you obviously know nothing about.
>

Alright, asshole, please tell us how many Australian troops were
engaged in combat in Iraq. Tell us the number of troops and what
percentage of the total number of combat troops were Australian.

Oh, by the way, what part of Iraq were the Australian troops fighting
in?

"Jarg" > wrote:

>And you have to use insult when your arguement is weak.

Weak? The denial of Geneva Convention rights is a weak argument?

Not a chance. You just cannot defend the indefensible so you try to
avoid the issue.

Bush and his puppeteers are committing war crimes in Guantanemo Bay.

Hopefully they will someday be brought to trial.

--
Stephen

There were no weapons of mass destruction, just words of mass deception.

"Jarg" > wrote:

>Many nations including the US BUY Middle Eastern oil.

I wrote nothing about this. Are you trying to change the subject away
from my arguments that you cannot deal with?

>And I gues the Taliban
>sponsorship of Al Quaeda and the resulting attack that killed thousands of
>Americans had nothing to do with US actions in Afghanistan? Do you have any
>idea how illogical that is? I pity you for your paranoid view of the
>world.

The Taliban is a Fundy sect and supported one of their members. The
Fundy sects in the US would do the same, and they are doing the same.

I don't hear the Fundy leaders condemning Bush for the killing of
innocent children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, then, your government didn't care about the innocent children at
Wacko, either. More important to kill the bad guys.

While dropping bombs on the deserts of Afghanistan was good for the
testosterone, it failed to get Bin Lauden.

Seems fair to suggest that different tactics should have been followed.
Fewer innocent people would have been killed.

You could have asked the Israelies to get Bin Lauden. They have a much
better record of success in missions of this sort, than does the US.

--
Stephen

Did Colin Powell know he was lying to the United Nations and US allies?

"Mike Dobony" > wrote:

>You obviously do not know history or read the news. Muslims across the
>world are murdering non-Muslims (primarlily Christians and Jews) and trying
>to take control over nation's governments.

>It will NOT
>stop until Christ returns on his horse of war. Only then will there be true
>peace.

What a Fundy. What do you have to say about the Inquisition and the
Crusades. Not to mention the witch burnings.

And the Fundy takeover of the Republican party.

You are so alike the Muslim Fundies!

--
Stephen

There were no weapons of mass destruction, just words of mass deception.

"john" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:18:19 GMT, "Sunny" >
> wrote:
<snip>
> >> The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
> >> of the troops in Iraq.
> >
> >Do we Australians have to be forever grateful that we supported the US,
you
> >retard.?
> >A simple "thanks for your help" would have done.
> >Read up on the population of Aust, and our current military commitments,
> >before you mouth off on something you obviously know nothing about.
> >
>
> Alright, asshole, please tell us how many Australian troops were
> engaged in combat in Iraq. Tell us the number of troops and what
> percentage of the total number of combat troops were Australian.
>
> Oh, by the way, what part of Iraq were the Australian troops fighting
> in?

More than 2,000 Australian troops fought alongside American and British
troops in the campaign
SASR, Inf, RAAF F18s, Tankers, we still have 800+ Infantry in Baghdad, Navy
ships in the Gulf ,
It's our RAAF that is running Baghdad airport atm.
Read some of your own bloody newspapers you lazy one eyed fool.
It's arseholes like you that give Americans a bad name.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Vi...Commitment.htm
http://www.defence.gov.au/index.cfm

And how did the Shah come into power?

Nik

"Jarg" > wrote in message
. com...
> The current government in Iraq is the result of a revolution agains the
> Shah. Read your history.
>
> jarg
>
> "Nik" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jarg" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > Or perhaps I am a bit more informed of Middle Eastern histroy than you
> > > thing, and you should read a bit more carefully. The operation you
> refer
> > > two has nothing to do with any of the current government in the Middle
> > East
> > > I referred to.
> > >
> > > Hussein invaded Kuwait to gratify his megalomania, just as he did
Iran.
> > He
> > > mistakenly thought himself as destined to reunite the region.
> > >
> >
> > CIA did play a role in the events that lead to the instalment of SH and
> they
> > played a very active role in dismantling democracy in Iran. Read your
> > history!
> >
> > Nik
> >
> >
>
>

Well what a nice attempt to change the subject. And how did the Romans
conquer the Gauls? How far back should we take this?

We are talking about current regimes and I fail to see why you want to
discuss the last Shah (I asume that is who you are referring to, though
there were others in case you didn't know) , who has been out of power for
almost 30 years.

Jarg

"Nik" > wrote in message
...
> And how did the Shah come into power?
>
> Nik
>
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > The current government in Iraq is the result of a revolution agains the
> > Shah. Read your history.
> >
> > jarg
> >
> > "Nik" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jarg" > wrote in message
> > > . com...
> > > > Or perhaps I am a bit more informed of Middle Eastern histroy than
you
> > > > thing, and you should read a bit more carefully. The operation you
> > refer
> > > > two has nothing to do with any of the current government in the
Middle
> > > East
> > > > I referred to.
> > > >
> > > > Hussein invaded Kuwait to gratify his megalomania, just as he did
> Iran.
> > > He
> > > > mistakenly thought himself as destined to reunite the region.
> > > >
> > >
> > > CIA did play a role in the events that lead to the instalment of SH
and
> > they
> > > played a very active role in dismantling democracy in Iran. Read your
> > > history!
> > >
> > > Nik
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

john > wrote in message >. ..

> Mabe you can tell me how many troops were supplied by the following
>
> coalition countries:
> Poland,

> I doubt if you will have to take your shoes off to count over 10.
>

Poland submitted 200 commandos from GROM unit.

Plus IIRC two thousands of peace-keepers later.

peace & prosper

a.d.danilecki

So you think that there was democracy in Iran during the reign of the Shah?
What I said was that the CIA played an active role in dismantling democracy
in Iran - which they did when the Shah was installed.


Nik.



"Jarg" > wrote in message
om...
> Well what a nice attempt to change the subject. And how did the Romans
> conquer the Gauls? How far back should we take this?
>
> We are talking about current regimes and I fail to see why you want to
> discuss the last Shah (I asume that is who you are referring to, though
> there were others in case you didn't know) , who has been out of power for
> almost 30 years.
>
> Jarg
>
> "Nik" > wrote in message
> ...
> > And how did the Shah come into power?
> >
> > Nik
> >
> > "Jarg" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > The current government in Iraq is the result of a revolution agains
the
> > > Shah. Read your history.
> > >
> > > jarg
> > >
> > > "Nik" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Jarg" > wrote in message
> > > > . com...
> > > > > Or perhaps I am a bit more informed of Middle Eastern histroy than
> you
> > > > > thing, and you should read a bit more carefully. The operation
you
> > > refer
> > > > > two has nothing to do with any of the current government in the
> Middle
> > > > East
> > > > > I referred to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hussein invaded Kuwait to gratify his megalomania, just as he did
> > Iran.
> > > > He
> > > > > mistakenly thought himself as destined to reunite the region.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > CIA did play a role in the events that lead to the instalment of SH
> and
> > > they
> > > > played a very active role in dismantling democracy in Iran. Read
your
> > > > history!
> > > >
> > > > Nik
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Jarg" > wrote in message
news
> Sorry but you are incorrect and I wish you would do a little research
before
> you start criticizing others.
>
> Iran is governed by a Islamic theocracy that is the result of a revolution
> against the Shah. The West had no involvement that I have ever heard of.

They were heavily involved in installing the Shah in the first place. The
background was that the British out of gratitude for the American
involvement WWII gave some American oil companies some very lucrative rights
in Iran. When the Iranians tried to stop this (and at the same time got too
close to the USSR) the Shah was installed.

>
> The Iraqi Bathes regime resulted from a coup against the Iraqi monarchy -
> again not a Western action.

Deep CIA involvement in this one should be common knowledge (perhaps not
specifically in selecting SH). However, there were quite some political
turbulence in Iraq before the Baths took power.

>
> The Saudi monarchy actually occurred despite some British opposition (and
is
> outside of the half century mentioned in this discussion anyway).
>
> Kuwait was a tribal area ruled by the family that is still in power. The
> British did recognize sovereignty - they did not install the government.
>
> Apparently you were given flawed history books. Want to try again?
>
> Jarg
>
>

I've had no comments on the Saudis (that is helped security wise by the US)
nor on the Kuwaitis.

Olivers > wrote in message >...
> Nik muttered....
> > believe that it can still be argued that the US is not paying rent
> > even if they try to it. A renting agreement is an agreement between
> > two parties. This seems not to be the case here...
> >
> Generally speaking, as far as US courts have looked at contract law, if a
> "lease" (a contract agreement) exists between two parties, leasee and
> leasor, and the leasee renders in negotiable fashion timely payment and
> meets other criteria of performance, the leasor is held to the contract
> whether or not he/she "uses" the payments.
> "Term"? IIRC, the Guantanamo Agreement was an "in perpetuity unless
> cancelled by both parties" deal.
> TMO

What's going on at Guantanamo, has to stop now. Regardless of us
staying there or not.

Besides, any perpetual contract can be cancelled/terminated at any
time, by any of the parties, normally without damages or compensation,
provided that this termination cannot happen untimely or without
proper notice. That is a universal principal of modern law (if there
is such a thing of course), notably US federal law, and notably in the
case of a renting agreement. Upholding a perpetual agreement, would
be a major obstacle to civil order and the peace of the nation(s).

I take it that the cancellation in this case was very timely indeed
(didn't the U.S. attack Cuba, Bay of pigs remember) and that the term
of notice has lasted more than long enough now.

Besides, the so-called lease in itself was illegal, since it was not
contracted with mutual agreement, but under pressure, intimidation and
improper influence from one party over the other.

Seriously, what would the judicial value be of say a perpetual lease
between the US and Iraq, if the Iraqi Provisional Govt. were to rent
out the Iraqi oil fields for ever to the U.S. government at the price
of 2,000 dollars per year?

Any such a deal is simply VOID. Any U.S.-based scholar would tell you
so, as would any of the supreme judges, or educated military officers
- if they weren't afraid of prosecution, if they weren't biased and/or
if there wasn't the risk of them losing their jobs.

What's going on in Guantanamo base, is the biggest civil rights
scandal the U.S. has known for decades. It has to stop now. Regardless
of us keeping our base in Guantanamo or not.