OT: The blame game is beginning...
Bob Dog
wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war.
The politicians are saying the media and army got it wrong,
the military say the media and the politicians, and the media
say it was the other two. It seems nobody wants to take
responsibility for setting expectations so high when they were
all guilty of it.
And now Iraq's sandstorms are finally coming, as predicted.
Napoleon in Russia...Hitler in Russia...Shrub in Iraq....
Here's an interesting anti-war slogan I saw on the weekend's
news: "George Hitler and Benito Blair". The protests in
downtown Seoul last weekend were large and impressive, but
the US and Seoul government are preventing protests (which
are entirely peaceful) from getting within a 500 meters of
the US embassy.
We wouldn't want to offend the Americans with free speech,
would we? O_-
Bob Dog
PS: Isn't it interesting that CNNsored and BlairBushCheney
both claim that Iraqi civilians are glad to see the invaders,
but neither shows any film of Iraqi reactions to seeing the
soldiers? The film I *have* seen (from DeutscheWorld TV) of
Iraqi civilians facing the occupiers shows them yelling for
the Americans/British to leave.
Given that Iraqis are trying to get back into Iraq to fight,
you have to wonder how much longer the media and government
lies can go on. If this fight goes on three months, we could
see the US go home with it's tail between it's legs, both for
money and domestic political reasons.
Automort
>In the last two days the fingerpointing has started: everyone
>wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war
So far it has been a short war with minimal casualties on our side -- or,
rather, on the Allies' side since most of you favor bullies and tyrants and
gangsters.
Herb Martin
> wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war.
>
The press did; I was listening the whole time.
Even their pundits never projected anything less
than a couple of weeks to reach Baghdad and no
one projected less than a month or two to bring
peace.
The SERVING military didn't even offer this, although
that may be the timeline if they plan goes perfectly.
So far, the plan is going fantasticly -- those people who
cannot see this are militarily uneducated or woefully
inept.
If you want the TRUTH, listen PRECISELY to what the
CentCom briefer says, and then what the Pentagon
briefer says.
These folks will not lie purposefully because they know
they will get caught (even if you don't believe they are
honorable.)
The press tried to get the CentCom briefer to deny
a report of a US bomb mishap today and he REFUSED
to claim it might be the Iraqis killing their own, or that
a GPS jammer might have sent a bomb astray.
You know the Iraqis would have immediately DENIED
it was their weapon, but a US spokesman MUST SAY,
"We don't know yet; we will investigate it."
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
phobos
> In the last two days the fingerpointing has started: everyone
> wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war.
It's been _one week_. We have the southeastern peninsula and most of Basra
and we're starting on Baghdad. How quick do you want things to be?
--
1 February 2003: There we were, now here we are; all this confusion,
nothing's the same to me...
Herb Martin
> and we're starting on Baghdad. How quick do you want things to be?
Most of the WANT it to be a "quagmire".
That it is not, means they have to invent or
magnify problems.
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"phobos" <pho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5slf7$32a$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
JTEM
"Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote
> > In the last two days the fingerpointing has started: everyone
> > wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a
> > short war.
> The press did; I was listening the whole time.
The press that has been recycling everything the administration
has been telling them?
You're grasping at straws, you dumb troll.
maff
"One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a
convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by. But once it had passed,
leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to
scowls. 'We don't want them here,' said 17-year-old Fouad, looking
angrily up at the plumes of grey smoke rising from Basra. 'Saddam is
our leader,' he said defiantly. 'Saddam is good'."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,920805,00.html
I'm sure there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with Saddam. But
equally there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with US and UK.
http://tinyurl.com/87e9
quibbler
wrote:
>> It's been _one week_. We have the southeastern peninsula and most of Basra
>> and we're starting on Baghdad. How quick do you want things to be?
>
>Most of the WANT it to be a "quagmire".
>
>That it is not, means they have to invent or
>magnify problems.
If it's not a quagmire, then what is our "exit strategy"? We have
never defined the point at which we will be able to withdraw, even
though this was supposedly one of the cardinal rules we claim to have
learned from previous wars like vietnam. There are at least a half
dozen different, perhaps even conflicting goals which we might have to
accomplish in order to say it was time to pull out. The fact is that
we can never know that all chemical and biological weapons have been
captured, or that the ability to produce more has been eliminated.
There's always something in Iraq that's going to keep I there, I
suspect. Just like in afghanistan, now that the taliban is out, we
have to stay there indefinitely to prop up the current regime. Do you
care to make any predictions when the US will be able to pull out of
either Afghanistan or Iraq?
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith
is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the
lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
maff
Foreboding Part of the Arab Report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29435-2003Mar25.html
Editorial Writers Mix Gloating and Gloom
Not-So-Friendly Fire
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31068-2003Mar26.html
It was clear that this "expectations" debate had gotten out of hand
when Don Rumsfeld came out to face the press yesterday.
Herb Martin
> never defined the point at which we will be able to withdraw, even
> though this was supposedly one of the cardinal rules we claim to have
> learned from previous wars like vietnam. There are at least a half
I believe there may be some truth to this CONCERN
but not (as yet) to the characterization that this is
a 'quagmire' -- as the fastest armored advance in
history continues, we'll see. Maybe things won't go
so well in the second week, maybe they will go better
but that's hard to imagine except that the press might
actually learn a little about overall results and not just
"local conditions"
To the guy in a firefight it is ALWAYS a big deal and
sometimes the end of the world; to the overall picture
the key is the overall picture.
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ril68v88l0i271r2l...@4ax.com...
Fester
"Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote in message
news:oIkga.9098$k8.2...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > In the last two days the fingerpointing has started: everyone
> > wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war.
> >
>
> The press did; I was listening the whole time.
>
> Even their pundits never projected anything less
> than a couple of weeks to reach Baghdad and no
> one projected less than a month or two to bring
> peace.
>
> The SERVING military didn't even offer this, although
> that may be the timeline if they plan goes perfectly.
>
> So far, the plan is going fantasticly -- those people who
> cannot see this are militarily uneducated or woefully
> inept.
And if it weren't for the weather doing what the Iraqis couldn't we'd
probably be well into the end game by now.
<snip>
Mark Richardson
>In the last two days the fingerpointing has started: everyone
>wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war.
>
>The politicians are saying the media and army got it wrong,
>the military say the media and the politicians, and the media
>say it was the other two. It seems nobody wants to take
>responsibility for setting expectations so high when they were
>all guilty of it.
It's a tad too early to say whether or not its a quick war.
If its still going in July you will definitely have a point.
The trouble is with the modern TV generation with its 3 minute
attention span, two days is an eternity.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
maky m.
how, exactly, is objecting to a costly war against a country not
posing a realistic threat equivalent or implicative to favouring
bullies and tyrants and gangsters? don't be shy with the details
now...
Automort
>how, exactly, is objecting to a costly war against a country not
>posing a realistic threat equivalent or implicative to favouring
>bullies and tyrants and gangsters? don't be shy with the details
>now...
>
Nip it in the bud.
JTEM
"Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote
> I believe
....in peanut butter so you gotta believe... in Peter Pan.
We know, Herb, we know.
J. Flachs
>"One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a
>convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by. But once it had passed,
>leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to
>scowls. 'We don't want them here,' said 17-year-old Fouad, looking
>angrily up at the plumes of grey smoke rising from Basra. 'Saddam is
>our leader,' he said defiantly. 'Saddam is good'."
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,920805,00.html
>
>
>I'm sure there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with Saddam. But
>equally there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with US and UK.
When Germany invaded my country in 1940, many people lined the streets
when the German army paraded in The Hague. Traitors you find
everywhere, in abundance.
--
Jos Flachs
Bangkok, Thailand.
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain;
but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had......
chariots of iron...!!! (Judges 1:19)
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>You know the Iraqis would have immediately DENIED
>it was their weapon, but a US spokesman MUST SAY,
>"We don't know yet; we will investigate it."
And hope that in a few days something else will occupy their minds,
and that they'll forget about it.
If there had to be a single word used to describe the briefings the
military is giving, it would have to be mealy-mouthed.
--
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net
Zymurgist # 2
August Pamplona
news:18510aff.03032...@posting.google.com...
I suspect we might find that Iraqi citizens have had a great deal of
experience dancing in the street for intimidating men with guns. What they
do after the men with guns leave (or just look the other way) is the million
dollar question (or in this case the 75 billion dollar question).
August Pamplona
--
"They are a little bit smelly, and there's something about the way they move
their antennae. But they look nicer when you put a little circuit on their
backs and remove their wings."
--Raphael Holzer
a.a. # 1811
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with 'cosmicaug'
August Pamplona
If it had been entirely up to Rummy we wouldn't have half as many troops
there as we do. The big untold story about the current administration is
that George W. Bush might be the one of the most competent members of it
(and, in case anybody is wondering, I'm not trying to say that Bush is a lot
more competent than he is commonly thought to be).
August Pamplona
news:uwlga.244550$qi4.126750@rwcrnsc54...
Actually, he's more right than wrong and so are you. The press did fail
and they have been recycling everything the administration has been telling
them.
Draw your own conclusions.
Richard
"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in message news:OQpga.223$PM3....@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> And if it weren't for the weather doing what the Iraqis couldn't we'd
> probably be well into the end game by now.
>
Really?
Here's part of a story from the Washington Post,
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33955-2003Mar26.html)
War Could Last Months, Officers Say
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 27, 2003; Page A01
Despite the rapid advance of Army and Marine
forces across Iraq over the past week, some senior
U.S. military officers are now convinced that the war
is likely to last months and will require considerably
more combat power than is now on hand there and in
Kuwait, senior defense officials said yesterday.
The combination of wretched weather, long and insecure
supply lines, and an enemy that has refused to be supine
in the face of American military might has led to a broad
reassessment by some top generals of U.S. military
expectations and timelines. Some of them see even the
potential threat of a drawn-out fight that sucks in more
and more U.S. forces. Both on the battlefield in Iraq and
in Pentagon conference rooms, military commanders
were talking yesterday about a longer, harder war than
had been expected just a week ago, the officials said.
"Tell me how this ends," one senior officer said yesterday.
Richard
Shawn
"maky m." <mman...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:188f56bf.03032...@posting.google.com...
good luck details have never been Auto's strong point
Fester
"Richard" <ric...@nospam.edu> wrote in message
news:%Owga.5964$Cj7....@news2.west.cox.net...
That's nice. Some anonymous "senior official" feels like mouthing off.
Meaningless.
Herb Martin
or,
> > rather, on the Allies' side since most of you favor bullies and tyrants
and
> > gangsters.
>
> how, exactly, is objecting to a costly war against a country not
> posing a realistic threat equivalent or implicative to favouring
> bullies and tyrants and gangsters? don't be shy with the details
> now...
In the same way that removing Hitler was more
of a favor to even the Germans was a just cause;
and in the same way that removing the fundamentalist
dictatorship of the Taliban and their Al Qaeda thugs
was.
It isn't that hard -- don't be so focused on cost it is
for both OUR the IRAQI people's good.
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"maky m." <mman...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:188f56bf.03032...@posting.google.com...
Kai
>
> That's nice. Some anonymous "senior official" feels like mouthing off.
> Meaningless.
Of course he remains anonymous. Don't you know it's apatriotic and directly
supportive of a ruthless dictator to say anything that contradicts the
Pentagon.
Kai
Herb Martin
> > Meaningless.
>
> Of course he remains anonymous. Don't you know it's apatriotic and
directly
> supportive of a ruthless dictator to say anything that contradicts the
> Pentagon.
>
> Kai
Yes. It may also be TREASON if it aids the enemy
in time of war.
It might also be some worthless shit in a closet office
who is supposed to be buying toilet paper for the military.
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> wrote in message
news:b5usq9$1qq$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
maky m.
you failed to answer the question.
next question...
how do you reconcile the fact that there are greater threats, as
defined by republicans, to the united states than iraq was, yet there
"nip it in the bud" philosophy is not applied?
maky m.
> > > So far it has been a short war with minimal casualties on our side --
> or,
> > > rather, on the Allies' side since most of you favor bullies and tyrants
> and
> > > gangsters.
> >
> > how, exactly, is objecting to a costly war against a country not
> > posing a realistic threat equivalent or implicative to favouring
> > bullies and tyrants and gangsters? don't be shy with the details
> > now...
>
> In the same way that removing Hitler was more
> of a favor to even the Germans was a just cause;
are you saying that the US is in a war for hire at this moment? who is
doing the hiring?
> and in the same way that removing the fundamentalist
> dictatorship of the Taliban and their Al Qaeda thugs
> was.
are you saying that iraq posed an equal threat as al qaeda? where is
the evidence?
> It isn't that hard -- don't be so focused on cost it is
> for both OUR the IRAQI people's good.
how is getting in a conflict opposed by practically the whole world
outside the united states for our own good???
and while you are addressing the latter, brainstorm on the indication
that there haven't been many iraqis running for "liberation" thus
far...
xyzzy
>>"One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a
>>convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by. But once it had passed,
>>leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to
>>scowls. 'We don't want them here,' said 17-year-old Fouad, looking
>>angrily up at the plumes of grey smoke rising from Basra. 'Saddam is
>>our leader,' he said defiantly. 'Saddam is good'."
>When Germany invaded my country in 1940, many people lined the streets
>when the German army paraded in The Hague. Traitors you find
>everywhere, in abundance.
Sometimes it's all about survival. Loyalty is often overrated,
especially by those who haven't been in such situations.
J.R.
citizens. You know, the ones we don't want here.
How does that sound?
Herb Martin
> > of a favor to even the Germans was a just cause;
>
> are you saying that the US is in a war for hire at this moment? who is
> doing the hiring?
No.
> > It isn't that hard -- don't be so focused on cost it is
> > for both OUR the IRAQI people's good.
>
> how is getting in a conflict opposed by practically the whole world
> outside the united states for our own good???
Sorry but the presupposition of your question is incorrect.
There are now 47 nations in the coalition publicly and
more privately agree and are cooperating. That is at
worst a large proportion of the world.
Second, the UN agreed and authorized it.
Third it needs doing.
Even IRAN has not providing military assistance to
the coalition but one presumes they do not wish to
be considered a "member."
> and while you are addressing the latter, brainstorm on the indication
> that there haven't been many iraqis running for "liberation" thus
> far...
The main reason seems to be the Fahadeen shooting those
that try -- Rumsfeld it explicating it RIGHT NOW on TV.
Death squad enforcers who shoot and threaten families.
How do you think Saddam Insane stayed in power? These
guy terrorized any dissidence.
Don't you know ANY OF THIS?
Kai
"Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> kirjoitti
viestissä:J2Ega.11416$qs.9...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > > That's nice. Some anonymous "senior official" feels like mouthing off.
> > > Meaningless.
> >
> > Of course he remains anonymous. Don't you know it's apatriotic and
> directly
> > supportive of a ruthless dictator to say anything that contradicts the
> > Pentagon.
> >
> > Kai
>
> Yes. It may also be TREASON if it aids the enemy
> in time of war.
People like you with comments like the above help "the enemy" more than anyone.
Kai
richard
"Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote in message
>
> It might also be some worthless shit in a closet office
> who is supposed to be buying toilet paper for the military.
>
I think it more likely that kind of description would apply to
the Bush administration's source for those now infamous
forged documents about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger,
the difference being in that case that the worthless shit was selling
the toilet paper.
Richard
JTEM
"Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote
> In the same way that removing Hitler was more
> of a favor to even the Germans was a just cause;
> and in the same way that removing the fundamentalist
> dictatorship of the Taliban and their Al Qaeda thugs
> was.
Hitler had declared war on the United States with every
intention of attacking Americans. The Taliban sheltered
Bin Laden, refused to hand him over or to allow the U.S.
to strike Al Qaeda targets. We had to attack the Taliban in
order to get at Bin Laden and Al Qauda.
Neither of these are true for Iraq. Iraq did not declare war
on the United States and what active terrorist groups there
were in Iraq were located in Kurdish-controlled areas.
JTEM
"Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote
> Yes. It may also be TREASON if it aids the enemy
> in time of war.
This isn't a "time of war" as per the U.S. constitution and
the relevant sections regarding "treason."
Though constitutional government is the last thing you
have to worry about. Isn't that right, commissar?
quibbler
wrote:
>On 26 Mar 2003 10:06:33 -0800, maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote:
>
>>"One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a
>>convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by. But once it had passed,
>>leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to
>>scowls. 'We don't want them here,' said 17-year-old Fouad, looking
>>angrily up at the plumes of grey smoke rising from Basra. 'Saddam is
>>our leader,' he said defiantly. 'Saddam is good'."
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,920805,00.html
>>
>>
>>I'm sure there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with Saddam. But
>>equally there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with US and UK.
>When Germany invaded my country in 1940, many people lined the streets
>when the German army paraded in The Hague. Traitors you find
>everywhere, in abundance.
The bush administration is full of them. They are tax traitors, first
and foremost, demanding that the government bribe them into being
loyal citizens. They also betray the interests of their country to
large corporations like Enron and Halliburton. Cheney himself
expressed a willingness to see thousands of body bags in the first
gulf war as an acceptable price for shoring up his oil interests.
I also notice that many repugs are obsessed with being on the band
wagon. They didn't appear much at all before the war at protests.
But once they heard that most people were supporting the war they came
out with signs that said things like," 76% of americans support the
war". Of course that is a lie, but before they were fed this by the
media they were predictably chickenshit about backing up their
beliefs. Even now, the cowards tow the official government line
because that's what they think they have to do. Many of these sheep
are scared to death that they might ever say anything which was the
slightest bit contrary to the present administration. They don't seem
to realize that even saddam allows pro-government rallies. Their
pro-government, in this light, could easily be due to cowardice,
rather than principle.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith
is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the
lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
Mark K. Bilbo
> On 26 Mar 2003 10:06:33 -0800, maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote:
>
>>"One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a
>>convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by. But once it had passed,
>>leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to
>>scowls. 'We don't want them here,' said 17-year-old Fouad, looking
>>angrily up at the plumes of grey smoke rising from Basra. 'Saddam is
>>our leader,' he said defiantly. 'Saddam is good'."
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,920805,00.html
>>
>>
>>I'm sure there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with Saddam. But
>>equally there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with US and UK.
> When Germany invaded my country in 1940, many people lined the streets
> when the German army paraded in The Hague. Traitors you find
> everywhere, in abundance.
I saw recently on CNN that at least a few were holding pro-Saddam rallies in front
of our troops passing out food.
So where is all this cheering we were supposed to see when we rolled in?
I'm reading more opinions of retired military brass which hold that Rummy
is mucking around with the war effort (ignorantly so) with the *faith that
this general uprising against Saddam and the people throwing rose petals
at our feet was going to make the war quick and easy.
So we're undermanned in Iraq. With a long supply line that's almost
indefensible.
The damn fool is going to turn this war into a fiasco if he keeps
overuling the experts.
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
_________________________________________________________________
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree
that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent."
I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the
possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
[Stephen Jay Gould]
Jim Lovering
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:57:15 +0700, J. Flachs <ab...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 26 Mar 2003 10:06:33 -0800, maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote:
> >
> >>"One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a
> >>convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by. But once it had passed,
> >>leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to
> >>scowls. 'We don't want them here,' said 17-year-old Fouad, looking
> >>angrily up at the plumes of grey smoke rising from Basra. 'Saddam is
> >>our leader,' he said defiantly. 'Saddam is good'."
> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,920805,00.html
> >>
> >>
> >>I'm sure there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with Saddam. But
> >>equally there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with US and UK.
>
> >When Germany invaded my country in 1940, many people lined the streets
> >when the German army paraded in The Hague. Traitors you find
> >everywhere, in abundance.
>
> The bush administration is full of them. They are tax traitors, first
> and foremost, demanding that the government bribe them into being
> loyal citizens.
Where is your proof for this claim?
They also betray the interests of their country to
> large corporations like Enron and Halliburton.
This sounds like an *ad hominem* fallacy -- rather than dealing with
their arguments for the war, it seems you'd rather question their
motives.
Cheney himself
> expressed a willingness to see thousands of body bags in the first
> gulf war as an acceptable price for shoring up his oil interests.
More unproved assertions.
> I also notice that many repugs are obsessed with being on the band
> wagon.
*Argumentum ad hominem*.
> But once they heard that most people were supporting the war they came
> out with signs that said things like," 76% of americans support the
> war". Of course that is a lie, but before they were fed this by the
> media they were predictably chickenshit about backing up their
> beliefs.
Where is your proof that this is a lie?
Even now, the cowards tow the official government line
> because that's what they think they have to do.
*Argumentum ad hominem*.
Many of these sheep
> are scared to death that they might ever say anything which was the
> slightest bit contrary to the present administration.
*Argumentum ad hominem*.
They don't seem
> to realize that even saddam allows pro-government rallies. Their
> pro-government, in this light, could easily be due to cowardice,
> rather than principle.
*Argumentum ad hominem*: you are questioning motives rather than
attacking arguments. Furthermore, the difference between American
democracy and Iraqi totalitarianism is that in America people have the
choice as to whether or not to openly support the government. In
Iraq, inevitably there will be severe punishment should one openly
oppose the autocratic aims of the establishment (by definition,
dictatorial regimes must be suppressive).
JTEM
"Jim Lovering" <jimlo...@yahoo.com> mistakenly wrote
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> They also betray the interests of their country to
> > large corporations like Enron and Halliburton.
> This sounds like an *ad hominem* fallacy -- rather than dealing
> with their arguments for the war, it seems you'd rather question
> their motives.
You've been fooled.
As you read this, try to keep in mind that Cheney is still on the
Halliburton payroll:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Business/story_47096.asp
Next I invite you to do a Google search on the cost of restoring
Iraq's oil production, or even just putting out the fires. Estimates
range all the way up to $50 billion. Yes, that's just for putting
out the fires.
Herb Martin
in front
> of our troops passing out food.
And you don't think some Germans supported the
Nazis? Some even continued that support AFTER
May 1945.
Some neo-Nazis exist inside (and outside of course)
Germany today. They still LOVE Hitler.
JTEM
"Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote
> Some neo-Nazis exist inside (and outside of course)
> Germany today. They still LOVE Hitler.
So, Herb, are you in or out?
Charles R Ward
wrote:
> In the last two days the fingerpointing has started: everyone
> wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war.
Of course we Americans have short memories, but remember how
many stories circulated about the size and strength of the
Iraqi military before the first Gulf War. Then the ground
war was over so quick that it looked easy. That has got to
affect expectations.
Charles R Ward
--
"I do live among my fellow atheists. I also happen to live among
Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, Satanists and
followers
of various other religions -- all of which have a perfect right
to
live in the United States without interference because of their
religion or lack thereof no matter how much it irks you." Liz
quibbler
wrote:
>quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ff8a8v4n98sm77a7a...@4ax.com>...
>
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:57:15 +0700, J. Flachs <ab...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 26 Mar 2003 10:06:33 -0800, maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote:
>> >
>> >>"One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a
>> >>convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by. But once it had passed,
>> >>leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to
>> >>scowls. 'We don't want them here,' said 17-year-old Fouad, looking
>> >>angrily up at the plumes of grey smoke rising from Basra. 'Saddam is
>> >>our leader,' he said defiantly. 'Saddam is good'."
>> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,920805,00.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>I'm sure there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with Saddam. But
>> >>equally there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with US and UK.
>>
>> >When Germany invaded my country in 1940, many people lined the streets
>> >when the German army paraded in The Hague. Traitors you find
>> >everywhere, in abundance.
>>
>> The bush administration is full of them. They are tax traitors, first
>> and foremost, demanding that the government bribe them into being
>> loyal citizens.
>
>Where is your proof for this claim?
What a remarkably stupid question. First off, you betray your idiocy
by asking for "proof". I dare say just about anybody asking for
proof, up to and including mathematicians, probably don't know what
they are asking for. Math might be the only area where it is
possible, though philosophically it is still an unresolved question.
Are you actually trying to deny that the same republicans who have
passed almost $2 trillion in tax bribes since bush has been in office
and who have run on the primary platform of raiding the public
treasury for the last twenty years could possibly not have provided
sufficient evidence to convince you of the veracity of this assertion?
To deny that republicans have demanded taxcuts as the touchstone of
their congressional and presidential campaigns is to deny reality. So
do not regale us with any more of your moronic comments and shut your
pathetic pie hole.
>
> They also betray the interests of their country to
>> large corporations like Enron and Halliburton.
>
>This sounds like an *ad hominem* fallacy
No, you fucking moron, it is a statement of fact. For it to be ad
hominem fallacy I would have to attempt to undermine some argument
they are making with the use of personal attack. They have made no
argument and therefore my statement of truth and fact is not
fallacious whatsoever.
> -- rather than dealing with
>their arguments for the war, it seems you'd rather question their
>motives.
Not true. First, it is not ad hominem unless one uses personal
attacks to actually reject specific arguments an opponent is making.
I did not reject a specific argument that they made with the use of
personal invective. I made a statement which can be supported by
strong evidence, though morons like you don't understand
>
>Cheney himself
>> expressed a willingness to see thousands of body bags in the first
>> gulf war as an acceptable price for shoring up his oil interests.
>
>More unproved assertions.
You are hereby forbidden to use any word or words relating to proof
until you state what this means.
>
>> I also notice that many repugs are obsessed with being on the band
>> wagon.
>
>*Argumentum ad hominem*.
You make another inaccurate diagnosis of fallacy. That is all to
common from novices and intellectual lightweights, so I'm not
surprised that you're doing it.
>
>> But once they heard that most people were supporting the war they came
>> out with signs that said things like," 76% of americans support the
>> war". Of course that is a lie, but before they were fed this by the
>> media they were predictably chickenshit about backing up their
>> beliefs.
>
>Where is your proof that this is a lie?
Shut up moron. Any five-year-old can just add, "prove it!" as a
comment after every sentence. You've obviously labored under the
delusion that other people have an obligation to educate you about the
fundamental facts of reality. It is not my job to convince you of
anything. If you want to be skeptical then go ahead. Reserve
judgment. But stop being intellectually lazy and expecting me to
satisfy your every demand for information, which is most likely not
even an honest inquiry.
>
>Even now, the cowards tow the official government line
>> because that's what they think they have to do.
>
>*Argumentum ad hominem*.
Wrong again, ignoramus. You're embarrassing yourself by proving that
you don't understand simple details of debate.
>
>Many of these sheep
>> are scared to death that they might ever say anything which was the
>> slightest bit contrary to the present administration.
>
>*Argumentum ad hominem*.
See above.
>
> They don't seem
>> to realize that even saddam allows pro-government rallies. Their
>> pro-government, in this light, could easily be due to cowardice,
>> rather than principle.
>
>*Argumentum ad hominem*: you are questioning motives rather than
>attacking arguments.
First off, that's not what ad hominem is. The motive may very well be
a piece of evidence that can be used to attack the argument.
Secondly, I am suggesting a hypothetical motive and I am also pointing
out a fundamental empirical fact, which is that the world over, one
does not need to get special permission to praise and agree with the
government. Conformity is, naturally enough, encouraged by society,
because it is a defining characteristic within social groups that
there must at least be conformity on certain issues.
> Furthermore, the difference between American
>democracy and Iraqi totalitarianism is that in America people have the
>choice as to whether or not to openly support the government.
I didn't say that there were no differences. There are very obviously
differences. However, it is not so clear that americans have a
completely free choice whether or not to support their government. Mr
Fleischer, for example, has suggested that certain things are never
appropriate to say and many republicans have claimed that it would be
treasonous for people to not support their governments. To the extent
that this is true and we agree that treason is illegal, they are
suggesting that people to not have the legal choice or right to
dissent.
> In
>Iraq, inevitably there will be severe punishment should one openly
>oppose the autocratic aims of the establishment (by definition,
>dictatorial regimes must be suppressive).
That of course has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is that
conformity to the government position will always be officially
tolerated. Saddam does allow protests in his country, as long as they
are against Americans and non-Iraqi entities. Also, FWIW, there are
many specific cases of the bush administration alone attempting to
suppress protest, removing people from speeches and ceremonies when
the president did not like their actions and attempting to corral
protestors many miles from the site of his speeches.
There are also cases of people attempting to stifle protestors in a
variety of wars in the recent news, which I will happily go into if
you care to dispute this.
JTEM
"Charles R Ward" <crw...@netins.net> wrote
> Of course we Americans have short memories, but
> remember how many stories circulated about the
> size and strength of the Iraqi military before the
> first Gulf War. Then the ground war was over so
> quick that it looked easy. That has got to affect
> expectations.
The administration blew it. A number of "retired" senior
army officers have been making the media rounds
specifically to denouce the handling of the war, citing
Rumsfeld as the patsy.
The administration topped their previous monumental
failure in diplomacy with inept bumbling on a truly
biblical scale. It's no secret that they didn't go in with
enough men, part of that failure is because Rumsfeld
kept an entire division at sea -- circling for a month --
while the administration destroyed relations with
Turkey and denied them a port to land. So the military
was denied an entire division. Right? No, you're wrong.
Our military was denied two divisions. The ships were
meant to drop off one heavily armed division, yes, but
then they were supposed to turn around and pick up
another for transport to the conflict. The result of the
administration's diplomatic disgrace is that the army
went into combat short two divisions. But that wasn't
the only mistake.
The other morning the army came as close to openly
denoucing Donald Rumsfeld as it can. During the
morning press briefing, the army positively identified
one Iraqi unit that disbanded as per the leaflets we dropped
on them. Rumsfeld didn't want to "slow down" the advance
to handle prisoners so, instead, they simply asked the Iraqis
to go away. They did. But then those Iraqi troops got a little
"motivational training" from Saddam's regime and, lo and
behold, the U.S. army is facing a unit that could have and
would have willingly surroundered if given the option.
The nitty gritty -- like having to fight units that would have
surrendered -- are all Rumsfeld's fault. There is no one but
him to blame. The failure in diplomacy of a biblical scale
must come home to Bush and Bush alone. He's the man at
the top, he allowed certain "changes" to the usual diplomatic
channels, he personally selects and/or approves the diplomats,
he takes full responsibility for the total failure.
America will be paying for Bush's failures for generations
to come. Some Americans have already paid with their
lives.
Bob Dog
> Bob Dog wrote:
>
> > In the last two days the fingerpointing has started: everyone
> > wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war.
>
> and we're starting on Baghdad. How quick do you want things to be?
You should try reading more often, not just accept what the
media says. It was Shrub, the miliary and the pundittoheads
who said it would take days. The only shock and awe is from
the Americans who are surprised it isn't over yet.
*I* didn't say it would take days. If you had been reading
this newsgroup regularly, you would know that _I_ was the one
who said the US would get bogged down for months, which looks
more and more likely to happen.
And I was widely criticized for saying it.
Bob Dog
Fester
"Bob Dog" <bg1...@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fa573de.0303...@posting.google.com...
> phobos <pho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<b5slf7$32a$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > Bob Dog wrote:
> >
> > > In the last two days the fingerpointing has started: everyone
> > > wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war.
> >
> > It's been _one week_. We have the southeastern peninsula and most of
Basra
> > and we're starting on Baghdad. How quick do you want things to be?
>
> You should try reading more often, not just accept what the
> media says. It was Shrub, the miliary and the pundittoheads
> who said it would take days. The only shock and awe is from
> the Americans who are surprised it isn't over yet.
No they didn't.
> *I* didn't say it would take days. If you had been reading
> this newsgroup regularly, you would know that _I_ was the one
> who said the US would get bogged down for months, which looks
> more and more likely to happen.
>
> And I was widely criticized for saying it.
As well you should have been. Despite what you've been hearing on the
Commie News Network your prediction isn't even a remote possiblity.
Fortunately, we won't have to wait much longer for the proof to become
evident.
Mark K. Bilbo
> If you want the TRUTH, listen PRECISELY to what the
> CentCom briefer says, and then what the Pentagon
> briefer says.
Yeah, sure Herbie. The Pentagon is going to hold a press conference and
say "golly, we sure fucked up that one!"
Mark K. Bilbo
>
> "Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote in message
> news:oIkga.9098$k8.2...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>> > In the last two days the fingerpointing has started: everyone
>> > wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war.
>> >
>>
>> The press did; I was listening the whole time.
>>
>> Even their pundits never projected anything less
>> than a couple of weeks to reach Baghdad and no
>> one projected less than a month or two to bring
>> peace.
>>
>> The SERVING military didn't even offer this, although
>> that may be the timeline if they plan goes perfectly.
>>
>> So far, the plan is going fantasticly -- those people who
>> cannot see this are militarily uneducated or woefully
>> inept.
>
> And if it weren't for the weather doing what the Iraqis couldn't we'd
> probably be well into the end game by now.
>
> <snip>
Except that Rummy overruled all the actual military experts, all the
advice from the CIA, and decided to run the war himself.
Watch Rumsfeld take the fall for this one. They're already starting to
distance Bush from the fuck up...
Mark K. Bilbo
>> > That's nice. Some anonymous "senior official" feels like mouthing off.
>> > Meaningless.
>>
>> Of course he remains anonymous. Don't you know it's apatriotic and
> directly
>> supportive of a ruthless dictator to say anything that contradicts the
>> Pentagon.
>>
>> Kai
>
> Yes. It may also be TREASON if it aids the enemy
> in time of war.
>
> It might also be some worthless shit in a closet office
> who is supposed to be buying toilet paper for the military.
So pretty much all the retired military hireups and even the guy that
tesitified before Congress (and the CIA to boot) are worthless shits in
closet offices...
Mark K. Bilbo
> Yes. It may also be TREASON if it aids the enemy
> in time of war.
Congress has not declared war.
Herb Martin
> > in time of war.
>
> Congress has not declared war.
You have better run to Washington and explain
this to THEM, because Congress (and the Courts)
think they have.
Hey, call the NY Times too.
Herb Martin
> > CentCom briefer says, and then what the Pentagon
> > briefer says.
>
> Yeah, sure Herbie. The Pentagon is going to hold a press conference and
> say "golly, we sure fucked up that one!"
So far they have. Do you WATCH the conference
or just lie about them blind?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
>> > Yes. It may also be TREASON if it aids the enemy
>> > in time of war.
>>
>> Congress has not declared war.
>
> You have better run to Washington and explain
> this to THEM, because Congress (and the Courts)
> think they have.
No they don't think they have. They think they passed a resolution.
Notice, however, there's not a goddamn thing in the Constitution about a
"resolution."
CONGRESS is vested with the power to declare war. And ONLY Congress. A
resolution authorizing the president to "do whatever you feel like" isn't
a declaration of war.
Show me the declaration of war in the Federal Register. You won't find
one. You'll find a piss ant "resolution" that enables Congress to shirk
it's constitutional duty.
Herb Martin
> media says. It was Shrub, the miliary and the pundittoheads
> who said it would take days. The only shock and awe is from
> the Americans who are surprised it isn't over yet.
You must be kidding, no one could honestly
believe that others would fall for this lie after
watching TV or reading the last two days.
The media has TRIED to make a case that this
war is not going well-- when the opposite is true.
They have LOOKED for any quote (when they
started realizing they MADE UP the "quick war"
story) and the BEST quote they can find is,
VP CHENEY (a couple of weeks ago):
"Weeks not months."
Sec. Rumsfeld has already explained (during
Afghanistan) that "weeks not months" means
LESS than two months.
So the FIRST REAL complaint the press can
have is: 9 weeks in. (We're at 10-11 days RIGHT
now, not 60.)
The Press and their PAID EXPERTS made this
up. I sort of suspect the paid experts might have
been working for two paymasters...but we can't
prove that.
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"Bob Dog" <bg1...@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fa573de.0303...@posting.google.com...
Mark K. Bilbo
>> > If you want the TRUTH, listen PRECISELY to what the
>> > CentCom briefer says, and then what the Pentagon
>> > briefer says.
>>
>> Yeah, sure Herbie. The Pentagon is going to hold a press conference and
>> say "golly, we sure fucked up that one!"
>
> So far they have. Do you WATCH the conference
> or just lie about them blind?
I thought you plonked me. Or did you lie about that too?
JTEM
"Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote
> You must be kidding, no one could honestly
> believe that others would fall for this lie after
> watching TV or reading the last two days.
Not if it was just over the last two days. But if they were
watching coverage of events leading up to this war, they
would know that the administration fucked up. They'd
know that the administration did set expectations high
than failed to deliver.
Mark K. Bilbo
Everything I read leads me to the conclusion they fucked up. In fact, it
looks like they're already distancing Bush from his "advisors." Which
could be a prelude to firing Rumsfeld...
JTEM
"Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote
> > Congress has not declared war.
> You have better run to Washington and explain
> this to THEM, because Congress (and the Courts)
> think they have.
Herb, are there any adults on your end we could talk to?
JTEM
"Mark K. Bilbo" <ya...@com.iskanipa> wrote
> Everything I read leads me to the conclusion they fucked up.
> In fact, it looks like they're already distancing Bush from
> his "advisors." Which could be a prelude to firing Rumsfeld...
Good. Rumsfeld stinks. He's a useless weasel. My only concern
is that people will fool themselves into thinking that it ends there.
Like a pyramid, the corruption of this administration is widest
at it's base, but it begins at the very top.
Bush is inept. He's out of his league. He can't handle the task.
This was more than clear after he fucked up the economy, and
the diplomatic blundering proved it wasn't a fluke. Now Bush
has incompetently handled the war.
Am I supposed to be surprised or something?
There is nothing so bad that this administration can't simply raise
a hand and make infinitely worse.
Our nation stops suffering when these greedy clowns are bounced
out of Washington.
John Popelish
(snip)
> Bush is inept. He's out of his league. He can't handle the task.
>
> This was more than clear after he fucked up the economy, and
> the diplomatic blundering proved it wasn't a fluke. Now Bush
> has incompetently handled the war.
I have to keep open the possibility that the economy and war are going
generally as planned. I give very little credence to the stated goals
of this administration.
All I am saying is that you need to keep from fixating on a single
explanation and be willing to consider where the evidence leads, even
if it doesn't support your favorite hypothesis. Remember the famous
advice from an anonymous Washington Post informer during the Watergate
era, "Follow the money".
It seems that everyone is shouting their opinions with great
certainty. I am just trying to evaluate lots of possibilities. Some
are pathetic (as you describe, above), and some are ugly.
Unfortunately, the noble possibilities do not square very well with
the evidence.
--
John Popelish
JTEM
"John Popelish" <jpop...@rica.net> wrote
> I have to keep open the possibility that the economy
> and war are going generally as planned. I give very
> little credence to the stated goals of this
> administration.
Wrecking the budget and the economy to use as an excuse
to destroy social programs is one thing, throwing away the
lives of soldiers is something else entirely.
As things stand, it's likely Bush will face a retired military
officer next November, and almost definitely a veteran at
the very least. The military will have it's candidate.
These are men of honor. Mostly right-wing, mostly
conservative, granted, but men of honor. They take their
oaths seriously. They would never accept the sacrofice
of men in battle for the political gain of a deserter. They
would flock to General Clark, or even a Kerry, in a heart
beat.
If there's so much as a glimmer of truth in what you
suggest -- and it's equally as likely as my explanation --
Bush will be facing a difficult road ahead. You simply
can't push the stakes up that high and not invite it.
John Popelish
I have no argument with anything you say, here. What I think you
should be ready for is that this administration may be ready to push
the stakes up much further to preempt whatever candidates it faces in
the next election. Put this exchange away for 9 months and then see
if I have got it right.
--
John Popelish
JTEM
I've just created a new folder -- "december" -- and
stuffed a copy of this post inside...
"John Popelish" <jpop...@rica.net> wrote
stoney
<ya...@com.iskanipa>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.03.28....@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
>On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:57:15 +0700, J.Flach wrote:
>
>> On 26 Mar 2003 10:06:33 -0800, maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote:
>>
>>>"One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a
>>>convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by. But once it had passed,
>>>leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to
>>>scowls. 'We don't want them here,' said 17-year-old Fouad, looking
>>>angrily up at the plumes of grey smoke rising from Basra. 'Saddam is
>>>our leader,' he said defiantly. 'Saddam is good'."
>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,920805,00.html
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm sure there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with Saddam. But
>>>equally there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with US and UK.
>> When Germany invaded my country in 1940, many people lined the streets
>> when the German army paraded in The Hague. Traitors you find
>> everywhere, in abundance.
>
>I saw recently on CNN that at least a few were holding pro-Saddam rallies in front
>of our troops passing out food.
>
>So where is all this cheering we were supposed to see when we rolled in?
>
>I'm reading more opinions of retired military brass which hold that Rummy
>is mucking around with the war effort (ignorantly so) with the *faith that
>this general uprising against Saddam and the people throwing rose petals
>at our feet was going to make the war quick and easy.
>
>So we're undermanned in Iraq. With a long supply line that's almost
>indefensible.
>
>The damn fool is going to turn this war into a fiasco if he keeps
>overuling the experts.
I'm starting to wonder if that's his intention.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
stoney
Message ID: <8tYga.1403$Zo.3300@sccrnsc03> wrote in alt.atheism;
Herb is in, of course. He's got his head firmy up Shrub's arse to his
shoulders.
Mark K. Bilbo
Nah. I think the administration just believed its own propoganda...
John Popelish
> > > Wrecking the budget and the economy to use as an excuse
> > > to destroy social programs is one thing, throwing away the
> > > lives of soldiers is something else entirely.
> > >
> > > As things stand, it's likely Bush will face a retired military
> > > officer next November, and almost definitely a veteran at
> > > the very least. The military will have it's candidate.
> > >
> > > These are men of honor. Mostly right-wing, mostly
> > > conservative, granted, but men of honor. They take their
> > > oaths seriously. They would never accept the sacrofice
> > > of men in battle for the political gain of a deserter. They
> > > would flock to General Clark, or even a Kerry, in a heart
> > > beat.
> > >
> > > If there's so much as a glimmer of truth in what you
> > > suggest -- and it's equally as likely as my explanation --
> > > Bush will be facing a difficult road ahead. You simply
> > > can't push the stakes up that high and not invite it.
> >
> > I have no argument with anything you say, here. What I think you
> > should be ready for is that this administration may be ready to push
> > the stakes up much further to preempt whatever candidates it faces in
> > the next election. Put this exchange away for 9 months and then see
> > if I have got it right.
>
> stuffed a copy of this post inside...
>
and tell me I am stupid. But, regardless, I will be worried through
November.
--
John Popelish
Jim Lovering
> >> The bush administration is full of them. They are tax traitors, first
> >> and foremost, demanding that the government bribe them into being
> >> loyal citizens.
> >
> >Where is your proof for this claim?
>
> What a remarkably stupid question. First off, you betray your idiocy
> by asking for "proof". I dare say just about anybody asking for
> proof, up to and including mathematicians, probably don't know what
> they are asking for. Math might be the only area where it is
> possible, though philosophically it is still an unresolved question.
This is _wrong_. The term proof is used by experts on logic, as I
will show.
"Proof is considered anything that can be proven, is accepted as fact
by your audience, and is authoritative."
( http://writing.colostate.edu/references/documents/argument/pop2c1.cfm
)
Michael Gilbert, Professor of philosophy at York University, uses the
cognate "prove" in defining a circular argument:
"An argument is circular or begs the question when one of the reasons
assumes what it is supposed to prove."
Have you ever heard of the concept "burden of proof?" Proof, despite
what you claim, is a term used by numerous experts (if not a vast
majority or all) in logic.
Furthermore, your objection has detracted from the subject: you made a
claim regarding the character of higher-ups in the federal government,
and you did not offer evidence.
> To deny that republicans have demanded taxcuts as the touchstone of
> their congressional and presidential campaigns is to deny reality. So
> do not regale us with any more of your moronic comments and shut your
> pathetic pie hole.
I am not sure what you mean by "...touchstone of their congressional
and presidential campaigns..." From your initial statement it seems
you were attacking the character of certain government officials, and
claimed, if I interpreted you correctly, that many among them are "tax
traitors."
I then asked for proof. You blew up at this request, it seems, and
tried to be pedantic on a term to avoid the argument.
> > They also betray the interests of their country to
> >> large corporations like Enron and Halliburton.
> >
> >This sounds like an *ad hominem* fallacy
>
>
> No, you fucking moron, it is a statement of fact. For it to be ad
> hominem fallacy I would have to attempt to undermine some argument
> they are making with the use of personal attack. They have made no
> argument and therefore my statement of truth and fact is not
> fallacious whatsoever.
An argument can be defined as a dispute between individuals. I wrote
that you committed an *ad hominem* fallacy because it seems you are
engaging in the tactic of attacking motives rather than the reasons
for the explicit policies of the Bush administration.
Contrary to what you claim, attacking motives is considered *ad
hominem*.
"This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person
who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself."
Also (and this is especially relevant for your above quotes):
"Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are
discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they
advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people
arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative
action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of
these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but
whether the argument is valid."
( http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem
)
> >More unproved assertions.
>
> You are hereby forbidden to use any word or words relating to proof
> until you state what this means.
The definition is in the beginning of this post.
> >> But once they heard that most people were supporting the war they came
> >> out with signs that said things like," 76% of americans support the
> >> war". Of course that is a lie, but before they were fed this by the
> >> media they were predictably chickenshit about backing up their
> >> beliefs.
> >
> >Where is your proof that this is a lie?
>
> Shut up moron. Any five-year-old can just add, "prove it!" as a
> comment after every sentence. You've obviously labored under the
> delusion that other people have an obligation to educate you about the
> fundamental facts of reality. It is not my job to convince you of
> anything. If you want to be skeptical then go ahead. Reserve
> judgment. But stop being intellectually lazy and expecting me to
> satisfy your every demand for information, which is most likely not
> even an honest inquiry.
There is no such thing as being too skeptical. Given your many
missteps in this debate, one should be very cautious about accepting
your claims.
> > They don't seem
> >> to realize that even saddam allows pro-government rallies. Their
> >> pro-government, in this light, could easily be due to cowardice,
> >> rather than principle.
> >
> >*Argumentum ad hominem*: you are questioning motives rather than
> >attacking arguments.
>
> First off, that's not what ad hominem is. The motive may very well be
> a piece of evidence that can be used to attack the argument.
This is covered earlier in the post.
> Secondly, I am suggesting a hypothetical motive and I am also pointing
> out a fundamental empirical fact, which is that the world over, one
> does not need to get special permission to praise and agree with the
> government. Conformity is, naturally enough, encouraged by society,
> because it is a defining characteristic within social groups that
> there must at least be conformity on certain issues.
Pointing out "hypothetical motives" is useless in a debate.
> > Furthermore, the difference between American
> >democracy and Iraqi totalitarianism is that in America people have the
> >choice as to whether or not to openly support the government.
>
> I didn't say that there were no differences. There are very obviously
> differences. However, it is not so clear that americans have a
> completely free choice whether or not to support their government. Mr
> Fleischer, for example, has suggested that certain things are never
> appropriate to say and many republicans have claimed that it would be
> treasonous for people to not support their governments. To the extent
> that this is true and we agree that treason is illegal, they are
> suggesting that people to not have the legal choice or right to
> dissent.
Saying certain things are not appropriate is not tantamount to saying
they should be illegal. For example, I might say that burping in
public is inappropriate, but that does not mean I am saying it should
be illegal.
JTEM
"John Popelish" <jpop...@rica.net> wrote
> I hope for lots of reasons that you can write back to me
> in January and tell me I am stupid. But, regardless, I
> will be worried through November.
I wouldn't tell you that you're stupid. None of us have the
information we should have to go on and we're all trying
to make sense of the present situation.
I've got my own future headlines you can laugh at...
For 2004:
"1968 Democratic convention opens in Boston this week"
"War protesters behind collapse of economy, the administration
claims, admitting they've got as much mileage as they could out
of blaming Clinton for everything."
"Iran had secret deal to buy nuclear weapons technology from
china, says three year old news reports the administration is
only ready now."
"Cheney firm only made a few billion on Iraq contract"
Arne Langsetmo
[snip]
> > > It isn't that hard -- don't be so focused on cost it is
> > > for both OUR the IRAQI people's good.
> >
> > how is getting in a conflict opposed by practically the whole world
> > outside the united states for our own good???
>
> Sorry but the presupposition of your question is incorrect.
>
> There are now 47 nations in the coalition publicly and
> more privately agree and are cooperating. That is at
> worst a large proportion of the world.
Less than 25% of the nations. And some of the nations listed
in this "coalition of the billing" have said "no, you must
have been talking to someone else." (in fairness, some have
asked to be included). But practically speaking, despite
U.S. arm-twisting, and with its economic and political clout,
the U.S> has really only gotten four or so real contributors
to this "coalition".
> Second, the UN agreed and authorized it.
Nope. Flat out false.
> Third it needs doing.
Sez you. But there's no strong evidence that this war was the
best option (or even a good option), much less the only option
(which is what you imply by saying that "it _needs_ doing").
> Even IRAN has not providing military assistance to
> the coalition but one presumes they do not wish to
> be considered a "member."
Huh?
> > and while you are addressing the latter, brainstorm on the indication
> > that there haven't been many iraqis running for "liberation" thus
> > far...
>
> The main reason seems to be the Fahadeen shooting those
> that try -- Rumsfeld it explicating it RIGHT NOW on TV.
Ahhhh, you believe Rumsfeld. Yes, there may have been some such
events, but I have yet to see any reliable independent evidence
that this has occured on a widespread basis (or even any good
proof this has happened even once; there have been apparently
Iraqis shot by other than "coalition" forces, but it's not
clear _why_ they were shot).
> Death squad enforcers who shoot and threaten families.
The claims I'd read for this seem to have come from Iraqi
exiles. You know, the same exiles that seem to have told
the U.S. about the Scuds in that abandoned chicken farm that
turned up a load of chickenshit, and the "mobile bioweapons
labs" that Dr. Blix checked out and said were perfectly
legit. I don't trust Iraqi exiles as dispassionate and
impartial sources of information about things happening
inside Iraq.
> How do you think Saddam Insane stayed in power? These
> guy terrorized any dissidence.
Yes.
> Don't you know ANY OF THIS?
Do you know that some Iraqis may dislike or even hate Saddam,
but may well hate any occupation force _more_?
I'm not the only one to say this; apparently even some of
the more level-headed folks in the CIA thought that the
hoped-for garlands and laurels and wildly cheering crowds
might be a bit optimistic. I understand that the CIA wasn't
going to forget to cover all bases, and have been handing out
scads of money to people in southern Iraq to buy support ...
kind of like they did in that other country where things are
going so swimmingly, Afghanistan. . . .
But you'll find that out as the U.S. tries to occupy Iraq;
there will be endless attacks on U.S. forces and loss of life.
That's pretty much a certainty.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
a.a. #101
>
> > > It isn't that hard -- don't be so focused on cost it is
> > > for both OUR the IRAQI people's good.
> >
> > how is getting in a conflict opposed by practically the whole world
> > outside the united states for our own good???
> >
> > and while you are addressing the latter, brainstorm on the indication
> > that there haven't been many iraqis running for "liberation" thus
> > far...
> >
> > > --
> > > Herb Martin
> > > Try ADDS for great Weather too:
> > > http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
> > >
> > > "maky m." <mman...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:188f56bf.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > > > auto...@aol.com (Automort) wrote in message
> news:<20030326113515...@mb-me.aol.com>...
> > > > > >From: bg1...@apexmail.com (Bob Dog)
>
> > > > > >In the last two days the fingerpointing has started: everyone
> > > > > >wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war
> > > > >
> > > > > So far it has been a short war with minimal casualties on our
> side --
> or,
> > > > > rather, on the Allies' side since most of you favor bullies and
> tyrants
> and
> > > > > gangsters.
> > > >
> > > > how, exactly, is objecting to a costly war against a country not
> > > > posing a realistic threat equivalent or implicative to favouring
> > > > bullies and tyrants and gangsters? don't be shy with the details
> > > > now...
Kermit
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:24:37 GMT, "Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com>
> wrote:
>
> >> It's been _one week_. We have the southeastern peninsula and most of Basra
> >> and we're starting on Baghdad. How quick do you want things to be?
> >
> >
> >That it is not, means they have to invent or
> >magnify problems.
>
>
> If it's not a quagmire, then what is our "exit strategy"? We have
> never defined the point at which we will be able to withdraw, even
> though this was supposedly one of the cardinal rules we claim to have
> learned from previous wars like vietnam. There are at least a half
> dozen different, perhaps even conflicting goals which we might have to
> accomplish in order to say it was time to pull out. The fact is that
> we can never know that all chemical and biological weapons have been
> captured, or that the ability to produce more has been eliminated.
> There's always something in Iraq that's going to keep I there, I
> suspect. Just like in afghanistan, now that the taliban is out, we
> have to stay there indefinitely to prop up the current regime. Do you
> care to make any predictions when the US will be able to pull out of
> either Afghanistan or Iraq?
Well, we could look to recent history. Britain went into Iraq to
liberate them from the truly evil Ottoman Empire in 1917. They finally
left in 1933 (after setting up a king on the throne).
In 1898 we declared war on Spain in order to liberate Cuba. We
established Bautista there as our puppet before we pulled out. We also
acquired Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. We "allowed" the
Philippine Islands its independence in 1946. Hawaii and Peurto Rico of
course are still US. Apparently assimilated nicely.
--- Kermit
Herb Martin
> > more privately agree and are cooperating. That is at
> > worst a large proportion of the world.
>
> Less than 25% of the nations. And some of the nations listed
Are there 200 nations? I am unsure of the
'exact' count. Sounds reasonable.
Doesn't matter; the world is not A democracy.
When the US is threatened, we don't need permission.
JTEM
"Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote
> When the US is threatened, we don't need permission.
And the U.S. wasn't threatened.
gOD
> > > There are now 47 nations in the coalition publicly and
> > > more privately agree and are cooperating. That is at
> > > worst a large proportion of the world.
> >
> > Less than 25% of the nations. And some of the nations listed
>
> Are there 200 nations? I am unsure of the
> 'exact' count. Sounds reasonable.
More than 240 I believe.
>
> Doesn't matter; the world is not A democracy.
One rule for the US, one rule for others.
>
> When the US is threatened, we don't need permission.
>
One rule for the US, one rule for others.
Automort
>We "allowed" the
>Philippine Islands its independence in 1946.
The plan was that they would become independent before that, but the kindly,
peace-loving, tolerant Japanese invaded and we viciously threw them out ---
inducing them to commit mass murders and various atrocities even before we
returned. We kept our ptomise in 1946.
> They finally
>left in 1933 (after setting up a king on the throne).
The British were monarchists and the King had some historical conection to the
Beni Hashim, important in early Islam. The people wanted such a ruler.
> We
>established Bautista there as our puppet before we pulled out.
He was good for business and seemed to be liked.
>We also
>acquired Hawaii,
Now that was indeed a set up and illegal.
You omitted Texas, which nobody in the US wanted to take in until they learned
that the Republic was negotiating with Britain for military help against Mexico
and the Comanche (who were militarily superior to Mexico). The Yankees didn't
want British troops on both sides of them, especially since Texas' claim
extended to the Pacific.
Agents in the US and Texas forced the annexation through, though many people in
both countries didn't like it, simply because of this.
But you wouldn't like us if we had not joined, either.
Automort
>
>One rule for the US, one rule for others.
>
Well, then, since we are the most powerful, do you feel everyone should give up
all their laws and customs and adopt ours?
J.R.
Bullies never need permission to be bullies.
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote in message news:<FoGga.14453$5F.6...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
>
> [snip]
>
>> > > It isn't that hard -- don't be so focused on cost it is
>> > > for both OUR the IRAQI people's good.
>> >
>> > how is getting in a conflict opposed by practically the whole world
>> > outside the united states for our own good???
>>
>> Sorry but the presupposition of your question is incorrect.
>>
>> There are now 47 nations in the coalition publicly and
>> more privately agree and are cooperating. That is at
>> worst a large proportion of the world.
>
> Less than 25% of the nations. And some of the nations listed
> in this "coalition of the billing" have said "no, you must
> have been talking to someone else." (in fairness, some have
> asked to be included). But practically speaking, despite
> U.S. arm-twisting, and with its economic and political clout,
> the U.S> has really only gotten four or so real contributors
> to this "coalition".
Three really. Spain seems AWOL when it comes to actually joining the fray.
What I suspect is going to look increasingly worse for us is that the
actual combat is being done by the English speaking world minus Canada.
Despite all the "coalition" claims, only the US, Britain, and Australian
are actually on the ground...
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote in message news:<hRVha.15485$C86.8...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
>> > > There are now 47 nations in the coalition publicly and
>> > > more privately agree and are cooperating. That is at
>> > > worst a large proportion of the world.
>> >
>> > Less than 25% of the nations. And some of the nations listed
>>
>> Are there 200 nations? I am unsure of the
>> 'exact' count. Sounds reasonable.
>
> More than 240 I believe.
Actually about 192. 189 in the UN.
http://www.countrywatch.com/@school/number_countries.htm
(Of course, it's an iffy number and arguable but that's a rough count)
gOD
What do you think? Reading and comprehension is an often overlooked
skill. Where did I mention anything about other cultures giving up
laws and customs? that seems to be an American endeavour.
Herb Martin
No, and rescuers who try to defend themselves
and others are often mistaken for such.
Some Police officers claim the scariest call is
"domestic violence" where the abused woman
(usually) is likely to attack the police when they
try to stop the abuser.
Everyone agrees that SoDamn Insane is a terrible
torturer and dictator -- for another week or so anyway.
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"J.R." <hey...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:54de13e7.03033...@posting.google.com...
Arne Langsetmo
> > > There are now 47 nations in the coalition publicly and
> > > more privately agree and are cooperating. That is at
> > > worst a large proportion of the world.
> >
> > Less than 25% of the nations. And some of the nations listed
>
> Are there 200 nations? I am unsure of the
> 'exact' count. Sounds reasonable.
>
> Doesn't matter; the world is not A democracy.
Neither is the U.S. ;-)
But that doesn't mean that democratic ideals and practises are
not the best path.
> When the US is threatened, we don't need permission.
Who's threatened the U.S.? Oh, yeah, right, silly me. There's
Mr. "Dead or Alive" (a.k.a.o.a.d.d. "He's not important") bin Laden.
And Kim Jong Il. Thanks for reminding me.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Herb Martin
>
> Who's threatened the U.S.? Oh, yeah, right, silly me. There's
> Mr. "Dead or Alive" (a.k.a.o.a.d.d. "He's not important") bin Laden.
> And Kim Jong Il. Thanks for reminding me.
Key reports on Iraq and the "War on Terror"
from Defense & Foreign Affairs and
the Global Information System
http://www.strategicstudies.org/crisis/Iraq.htm
Iraq Moves WMD Matériel to Syrian Safe-Havens
http://www.strategicstudies.org/crisis/Iraq.htm#Oct2802
Iraq Believed Using Riverine Barges, Vessels,
for WMD Storage, Development and Possible Launch
http://www.strategicstudies.org/crisis/Iraq.htm#Oct0202
Ansar Al-Islam: Iraq's Al-Qaeda Connection
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/824263/posts
Saddam & Friends
http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2003/283/zarqawi.html
IRAQ AND TERRORISM, PART TWO -- AL-QAEDA LINKS
http://www.hereticalideas.com/archives/000106.html
Toxic Terror Tick Tock
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1
051-032803A
C.I.A. and the Pentagon take another look at Al Qaeda and Iraq
(New Yorker)
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030210fa_fact
Saddam is linked to the 1993 World Trade Center attack
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB:
Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
--
stoney
<ya...@com.iskanipa>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.03.30....@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:29:02 +0000, Fester wrote:
>
>>
>> "Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote in message
>> news:oIkga.9098$k8.2...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>> > In the last two days the fingerpointing has started: everyone
>>> > wants to know who screwed up and said it would be a short war.
>>> >
>>>
>>> The press did; I was listening the whole time.
>>>
>>> Even their pundits never projected anything less
>>> than a couple of weeks to reach Baghdad and no
>>> one projected less than a month or two to bring
>>> peace.
>>>
>>> The SERVING military didn't even offer this, although
>>> that may be the timeline if they plan goes perfectly.
>>>
>>> So far, the plan is going fantasticly -- those people who
>>> cannot see this are militarily uneducated or woefully
>>> inept.
>>
>> And if it weren't for the weather doing what the Iraqis couldn't we'd
>> probably be well into the end game by now.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>Except that Rummy overruled all the actual military experts, all the
>advice from the CIA, and decided to run the war himself.
>
>Watch Rumsfeld take the fall for this one. They're already starting to
>distance Bush from the fuck up...
They can't since Bush has been a royal fuck-up from the time he raised
his hand from the Bible upon assuming orfice.
Mark K. Bilbo
If they can convince a majority of the public that Iraq was behind 9/11,
don't be surprise if they get away with distancing Bush from the fuck up...
gOD
> > how is getting in a conflict opposed by practically the whole world
> > outside the united states for our own good???
>
> Sorry but the presupposition of your question is incorrect.
>
> There are now 47 nations in the coalition publicly and
> more privately agree and are cooperating. That is at
> worst a large proportion of the world.
Do these include:
Poland
"Polls suggest only one-fifth of Poles think their troops should be
involved in the actual fighting."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2886759.stm
Italy
"Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, began his political
retreat before a shot was fired. Mr Berlusconi was a signatory of the
Anglo-Spanish letter that backed the US before the conflict begun.
That did not translate into concrete military support, however.
Denmark
"Denmark, which has backed the action, had to scale back its small
military deployment because of parliamentary opposition. "
Netherlands
"The Netherlands, which did not sign the Anglo-Spanish letter but was
sympathetic, has ruled out military involvement, fearful of
destabilising negotiations to form a coalition government. "
Spain
"Jose Maria Aznar, the Prime Minister of Spain, which has dispatched
9,000 troops to Iraq for humanitarian work, is under intense pressure
from domestic opposition. "
Ireland
"Ireland has made Shannon airport available to the US, but failed to
endorse the war. "
Czech Republic
"His successor Vaclav Klaus has warned that using force to impose
democracy on Iraq is a notion "from another universe" and sets a
dangerous precedent. "
Croatia
"Croatia was presented as part of the "coalition of the willing" on
the basis that it opened its airspace and bases to US civilian
aircraft. But Stipe Mesic, the President, denounced the war as
"illegitimate" because it lacked UN backing. "
Slovenia
"Slovenia has also rejected the idea that it backs the conflict"
New Zealand
"With every passing day the folly of Bush's war becomes more exposed.
The war is going badly, not because Iraqis support Saddam Hussein, but
because they don't want to be colonised by the US. Mr Locke said the
Greens agreed with Helen Clark "that we can't trade soldiers' lives
for a free-trade agreement with America."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3301577&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
And also:
"Several nations provided logistical support because failing to do so
would have provoked a diplomatic schism with Washington. "
Quotes also from:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3301599&thesection=news&thesubsection=world
Hear that noise ringing all around the world? It is the people
laughing at the US goverment, and supports like you.
Also interesting to see that Australia are scaling back their
involvement in the conflict. Iraq is going to be very lonely for
coalition forces soon!!
>
> Second, the UN agreed and authorized it.
>
You are kidding right, where is the punchline?
gOD
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:07:42 -0800, gOD wrote:
>
> > "Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote in message news:<hRVha.15485$C86.8...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> >> > > There are now 47 nations in the coalition publicly and
> >> > > more privately agree and are cooperating. That is at
> >> > > worst a large proportion of the world.
> >> >
> >> > Less than 25% of the nations. And some of the nations listed
> >>
> >> Are there 200 nations? I am unsure of the
> >> 'exact' count. Sounds reasonable.
> >
> > More than 240 I believe.
>
> Actually about 192. 189 in the UN.
>
> http://www.countrywatch.com/@school/number_countries.htm
>
> (Of course, it's an iffy number and arguable but that's a rough count)
FIFA make it 204 :)
Lawrence Seib
> "Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote in message news:<FoGga.14453$5F.6...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
>
> > > how is getting in a conflict opposed by practically the whole world
> > > outside the united states for our own good???
> >
> > Sorry but the presupposition of your question is incorrect.
> >
> > There are now 47 nations in the coalition publicly and
> > more privately agree and are cooperating. That is at
> > worst a large proportion of the world.
> Croatia
> "Croatia was presented as part of the "coalition of the willing" on
> the basis that it opened its airspace and bases to US civilian
> aircraft. But Stipe Mesic, the President, denounced the war as
> "illegitimate" because it lacked UN backing. "
Good job but you forgot to mention The United Kingdom, our staunchest
Ally. The Brittish people are mostly against the war too,
Tony Blair may not last long.
Larry
Christopher A. Lee
FIFA think England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are 4
different countries.
It's for historic reasons - the first ever Soccer international was
between England and Scotland.
Mark K. Bilbo
I notice FIFA also has separate teams from Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands,
etc.
Not that they *can't, it's just that they allow teams from places that
aren't considered--in the main--independent nations.
(Shouldn't they allow a team from Hawaii and any native nation that wants
one as well?)
J. Flachs
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>FIFA make it 204 :)
>>
>>http://www.fifa.com/rank/index_E.html
>
>FIFA think England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are 4
>different countries.
>
>It's for historic reasons - the first ever Soccer international was
>between England and Scotland.
Arrr laddy! Brrring yourrrr passporrrt when you English dogs, errr,
laddies come play with orrr boys! Arr! Arr!
(And brrring a wee bit of cinnamon, for me porridge) :-)
--
Jos Flachs
Bangkok, Thailand.
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain;
but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had......
chariots of iron...!!! (Judges 1:19)
Christopher A. Lee
<ya...@com.iskanipa> wrote:
>>>> Actually about 192. 189 in the UN.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.countrywatch.com/@school/number_countries.htm
>>>>
>>>> (Of course, it's an iffy number and arguable but that's a rough count)
>>>
>>>FIFA make it 204 :)
>>>
>>>http://www.fifa.com/rank/index_E.html
>>
>> FIFA think England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are 4
>> different countries.
>>
>> It's for historic reasons - the first ever Soccer international was
>> between England and Scotland.
>
>I notice FIFA also has separate teams from Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands,
>etc.
>
>Not that they *can't, it's just that they allow teams from places that
>aren't considered--in the main--independent nations.
>
>(Shouldn't they allow a team from Hawaii and any native nation that wants
>one as well?)
If Hawaii put themselves forward that way, yes.
The International Olympic Committee are more strict. There is a single
British Olympic team.
stoney
<ya...@com.iskanipa>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.04.01....@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
Point. No one has lost money underestimating the ignorance of the
American populace.................. :\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
stoney
<ya...@com.iskanipa>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.03.31....@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:49:26 -0800, Arne Langsetmo wrote:
>
>> "Herb Martin" <Ne...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote in message news:<FoGga.14453$5F.6...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> > > It isn't that hard -- don't be so focused on cost it is
>>> > > for both OUR the IRAQI people's good.
>>> >
>>> > how is getting in a conflict opposed by practically the whole world
>>> > outside the united states for our own good???
>>>
>>> Sorry but the presupposition of your question is incorrect.
>>>
>>> There are now 47 nations in the coalition publicly and
>>> more privately agree and are cooperating. That is at
>>> worst a large proportion of the world.
>>
>> Less than 25% of the nations. And some of the nations listed
>> in this "coalition of the billing" have said "no, you must
>> have been talking to someone else." (in fairness, some have
>> asked to be included). But practically speaking, despite
>> U.S. arm-twisting, and with its economic and political clout,
>> the U.S> has really only gotten four or so real contributors
>> to this "coalition".
>
>Three really. Spain seems AWOL when it comes to actually joining the fray.
>
>What I suspect is going to look increasingly worse for us is that the
>actual combat is being done by the English speaking world minus Canada.
>
>Despite all the "coalition" claims, only the US, Britain, and Australian
>are actually on the ground...
"Christian" countries......
stoney
<ya...@com.iskanipa>, Message ID:
<pan.2003.03.30....@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
>On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:19:30 +0000, stoney wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:28:04 -0800, "Mark K. Bilbo"
>> <ya...@com.iskanipa>, Message ID:
>> <pan.2003.03.28....@eac.org> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
>>>On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:57:15 +0700, J.Flach wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26 Mar 2003 10:06:33 -0800, maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a
>>>>>convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by. But once it had passed,
>>>>>leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to
>>>>>scowls. 'We don't want them here,' said 17-year-old Fouad, looking
>>>>>angrily up at the plumes of grey smoke rising from Basra. 'Saddam is
>>>>>our leader,' he said defiantly. 'Saddam is good'."
>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,920805,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm sure there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with Saddam. But
>>>>>equally there are many Iraqis who are pissed off with US and UK.
>>>> When Germany invaded my country in 1940, many people lined the streets
>>>> when the German army paraded in The Hague. Traitors you find
>>>> everywhere, in abundance.
>>>
>>>I saw recently on CNN that at least a few were holding pro-Saddam rallies in front
>>>of our troops passing out food.
>>>
>>>So where is all this cheering we were supposed to see when we rolled in?
>>>
>>>I'm reading more opinions of retired military brass which hold that Rummy
>>>is mucking around with the war effort (ignorantly so) with the *faith that
>>>this general uprising against Saddam and the people throwing rose petals
>>>at our feet was going to make the war quick and easy.
>>>
>>>So we're undermanned in Iraq. With a long supply line that's almost
>>>indefensible.
>>>
>>>The damn fool is going to turn this war into a fiasco if he keeps
>>>overuling the experts.
>>
>> I'm starting to wonder if that's his intention.
>
>Nah. I think the administration just believed its own propoganda...
I hope you're right, although the end results are the same. :\
gOD
It is historic. In theory, it should only consist of independent
nations, but try combining the home nations in a British football
team!!
newBjorn
> > Bullies never need permission to be bullies.
>
> No, and rescuers who try to defend themselves
> and others are often mistaken for such.
sheesh - you'd reckon those ayrabs would be grateful that you're using
such expensive bombs on 'em
> Some Police officers claim the scariest call is
> "domestic violence" where the abused woman
> (usually) is likely to attack the police when they
> try to stop the abuser.
This is invasion of a sovereign nation, not a domestic incident.
fucktard!
> Everyone agrees that SoDamn Insane is a terrible
> torturer and dictator -- for another week or so anyway.
Hey, he was trained & equipped by the best!
--
B Witbotl.
J.R.
Isn't it fun to punish Saddam for what Saudi Arabia did? I wonder why
the rest of the world is letting us get away with it.
stoney
<54de13e7.03040...@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
I suspect they're waiting to see what happens with the next election, if
it occurs.
J.R.
The only thing that makes sense to me (and I'm not saying that Bush
has to make sense) is that if we can take over Iraq, then we don't
need Saudi any more and we can give them what they've been asking for.