Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hanoi Jane should be tarred & feathered ..REPOST PLEASE!
156 views
Skip to first unread message
Kim Jong un
May 14, 2013, 12:27:30 PM5/14/13
to
EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
let this happen.
PLEASE READ AND SHARE THIS ON ALL YOUR FRIENDS WALLS AND EVERY GROUP
YOU BELONG TO!
Barbara Walters on Jane Fonda:
Jane Fonda was on 3 times this week talking about her new book. . .
and how good she feels in her 70s. . . She still does not know what
she did wrong. . .
Her book just may not make the bestseller list if more people knew.
Barbara Walters said: Thank you all. Many died in Vietnam for our
freedoms. I did not like Jane Fonda then and I don't like her now. She
can lead her present life the way she wants and perhaps SHE can forget
the past, but we DO NOT have to stand by without comment and see her
honored" as a "Woman of the Century."
(I remember this well.)
For those who served and/or died. . .
NEVER FORGIVE A TRAITOR.
SHE REALLY WAS A TRAITOR!!
And now President Obama wants to honor her !!!!
In Memory of Lt. C. Thomsen Wieland, who spent 100 days at the Hanoi
Hilton [infamous North Vietnam prison] --
IF YOU NEVER FORWARDED ANYTHING IN YOUR LIFE. FORWARD THIS SO THAT
EVERYONE WILL KNOW!
A TRAITOR IS BOUT TO NE HONORED. KEEP THIS MOVING ACROSS AMERICA.
This is for all the kids born in the 70s and after who do not
remember, and didn't have to bear the burden that our fathers, mothers
and older brothers and sisters had to bear.
Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the "100 Women of the Century."
Barbara Walters writes: Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still
countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the
idea of our country,
but specific men who served and sacrificed during the Vietnam War.
The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot's name is
Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat. In 1968, the former Commandant of the
USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison, the "Hanoi Hilton."
Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed
in clean PJ's, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American
"peace activist" the "lenient and humane treatment" he'd received. He
spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was dragged away. During the
subsequent beating, he fell forward onto the camp commandant 's feet,
which sent that officer berserk.
In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from double vision
(which permanently ended his flying career) from the commandant's
frenzied application of a wooden baton.
From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He
spent 6 years in the "Hanoi Hilton". . . the first three of which his
family only knew he was "missing in action." His wife lived on faith
that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and
clothed routine in preparation for a "peace delegation" visit.
They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world
that they were alive and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny
piece of paper, with his Social Security number on it, in the palm of
his hand. When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked
the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging
snippets like: "Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and "Are you
grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?"
Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of
paper.
She took them all without missing a beat. . . At the end of the line
and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the
POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him all the
little pieces of paper...
Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Colonel Carrigan was
almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know
of her actions that day.
I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was
captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968,
and held prisoner for over 5 years.
I spent 27 months in solitary confinement; one year in a cage in
Cambodia; and one year in a 'black box' in Hanoi. My North Vietnamese
captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a
nurse in a leprosarium in Banme Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in
the jungle near the Cambodian border. At one time, I weighed only
about 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.)
We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."
When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist
political officer if I would be willing to meet with her. I said yes,
for I wanted to tell her about the real treatment we POWs
received. . . and how different it was from the treatment purported by
the North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as "humane and lenient."
Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees, with
my arms outstretched with a large steel weight strapped on my hands,
and beaten with a bamboo cane.
I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda soon after I was
released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She
never did answer me.
These first-hand experiences do not exemplify someone who should be
honored as part of "100 Years of Great Women." Lest we forget. . .
"100 Years of Great Women" should never include a traitor whose hands
are covered with the blood of so many patriots.
There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi
Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them. Please take
the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will
eventually end up on her computer, and she needs to know that we will
never forget.
RONALD D. SAMPSON, CMSgt, USAF
716 Maintenance Squadron,
Chief of Maintenance
DSN: 875-6431 COMM: 883-6343
PLEASE HELP BY SENDING THIS TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK. FOR
ENOUGH PEOPLE TO SEE THIS MAYBE HER STATUS WILL CHANGE. —
treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
let this happen.
PLEASE READ AND SHARE THIS ON ALL YOUR FRIENDS WALLS AND EVERY GROUP
YOU BELONG TO!
Barbara Walters on Jane Fonda:
Jane Fonda was on 3 times this week talking about her new book. . .
and how good she feels in her 70s. . . She still does not know what
she did wrong. . .
Her book just may not make the bestseller list if more people knew.
Barbara Walters said: Thank you all. Many died in Vietnam for our
freedoms. I did not like Jane Fonda then and I don't like her now. She
can lead her present life the way she wants and perhaps SHE can forget
the past, but we DO NOT have to stand by without comment and see her
honored" as a "Woman of the Century."
(I remember this well.)
For those who served and/or died. . .
NEVER FORGIVE A TRAITOR.
SHE REALLY WAS A TRAITOR!!
And now President Obama wants to honor her !!!!
In Memory of Lt. C. Thomsen Wieland, who spent 100 days at the Hanoi
Hilton [infamous North Vietnam prison] --
IF YOU NEVER FORWARDED ANYTHING IN YOUR LIFE. FORWARD THIS SO THAT
EVERYONE WILL KNOW!
A TRAITOR IS BOUT TO NE HONORED. KEEP THIS MOVING ACROSS AMERICA.
This is for all the kids born in the 70s and after who do not
remember, and didn't have to bear the burden that our fathers, mothers
and older brothers and sisters had to bear.
Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the "100 Women of the Century."
Barbara Walters writes: Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still
countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the
idea of our country,
but specific men who served and sacrificed during the Vietnam War.
The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot's name is
Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat. In 1968, the former Commandant of the
USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison, the "Hanoi Hilton."
Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed
in clean PJ's, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American
"peace activist" the "lenient and humane treatment" he'd received. He
spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was dragged away. During the
subsequent beating, he fell forward onto the camp commandant 's feet,
which sent that officer berserk.
In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from double vision
(which permanently ended his flying career) from the commandant's
frenzied application of a wooden baton.
From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He
spent 6 years in the "Hanoi Hilton". . . the first three of which his
family only knew he was "missing in action." His wife lived on faith
that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and
clothed routine in preparation for a "peace delegation" visit.
They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world
that they were alive and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny
piece of paper, with his Social Security number on it, in the palm of
his hand. When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked
the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging
snippets like: "Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and "Are you
grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?"
Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of
paper.
She took them all without missing a beat. . . At the end of the line
and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the
POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him all the
little pieces of paper...
Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Colonel Carrigan was
almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know
of her actions that day.
I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was
captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968,
and held prisoner for over 5 years.
I spent 27 months in solitary confinement; one year in a cage in
Cambodia; and one year in a 'black box' in Hanoi. My North Vietnamese
captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a
nurse in a leprosarium in Banme Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in
the jungle near the Cambodian border. At one time, I weighed only
about 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.)
We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."
When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist
political officer if I would be willing to meet with her. I said yes,
for I wanted to tell her about the real treatment we POWs
received. . . and how different it was from the treatment purported by
the North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as "humane and lenient."
Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees, with
my arms outstretched with a large steel weight strapped on my hands,
and beaten with a bamboo cane.
I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda soon after I was
released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She
never did answer me.
These first-hand experiences do not exemplify someone who should be
honored as part of "100 Years of Great Women." Lest we forget. . .
"100 Years of Great Women" should never include a traitor whose hands
are covered with the blood of so many patriots.
There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi
Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them. Please take
the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will
eventually end up on her computer, and she needs to know that we will
never forget.
RONALD D. SAMPSON, CMSgt, USAF
716 Maintenance Squadron,
Chief of Maintenance
DSN: 875-6431 COMM: 883-6343
PLEASE HELP BY SENDING THIS TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK. FOR
ENOUGH PEOPLE TO SEE THIS MAYBE HER STATUS WILL CHANGE. —
-̮̮̃-̃ ̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾ ™Usenet Legends ªºªandɔa®ole
May 14, 2013, 5:41:42 PM5/14/13
to
needs to be hung from the tallest tree.
Chris Zakes
May 14, 2013, 8:52:17 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 09:27:30 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
laser caused Kim Jong un <broth...@gmail.com> to write:
>EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>let this happen.
>PLEASE READ AND SHARE THIS ON ALL YOUR FRIENDS WALLS AND EVERY GROUP
>YOU BELONG TO!
>
>Barbara Walters on Jane Fonda:
>Jane Fonda was on 3 times this week talking about her new book. . .
>and how good she feels in her 70s. . . She still does not know what
>she did wrong. . .
>
>Her book just may not make the bestseller list if more people knew.
>
>Barbara Walters said: Thank you all. Many died in Vietnam for our
>freedoms. I did not like Jane Fonda then and I don't like her now. She
>can lead her present life the way she wants and perhaps SHE can forget
>the past, but we DO NOT have to stand by without comment and see her
>honored" as a "Woman of the Century."
>
>(I remember this well.)
>
>For those who served and/or died. . .
>
>NEVER FORGIVE A TRAITOR.
>
>SHE REALLY WAS A TRAITOR!!
...Except for the minor detail that most of this article is a complete
laser caused Kim Jong un <broth...@gmail.com> to write:
>EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>let this happen.
>PLEASE READ AND SHARE THIS ON ALL YOUR FRIENDS WALLS AND EVERY GROUP
>YOU BELONG TO!
>
>Barbara Walters on Jane Fonda:
>Jane Fonda was on 3 times this week talking about her new book. . .
>and how good she feels in her 70s. . . She still does not know what
>she did wrong. . .
>
>Her book just may not make the bestseller list if more people knew.
>
>Barbara Walters said: Thank you all. Many died in Vietnam for our
>freedoms. I did not like Jane Fonda then and I don't like her now. She
>can lead her present life the way she wants and perhaps SHE can forget
>the past, but we DO NOT have to stand by without comment and see her
>honored" as a "Woman of the Century."
>
>(I remember this well.)
>
>For those who served and/or died. . .
>
>NEVER FORGIVE A TRAITOR.
>
>SHE REALLY WAS A TRAITOR!!
fabrication. http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/hanoijane.htm#.UZLY3kosGSo
Yes, Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam in 1972, as part of an anti-war
delegation. In retrospect, it was probably a stupid move, but at the
time it seemed the thing to do. But those of us who were around back
then may remember that there was a *lot* of popular sentiment against
the Vietnam War; Fonda's visit wasn't exactly a one-person show.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
Two things I have ever respected are warmth and the ability to sit still.
-Mayland Long in "Tea With the Black Dragon" by R.A. MacAvoy
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 14, 2013, 9:49:55 PM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:52:17 PM UTC-4, Chris Zakes wrote:
> Yes, Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam in 1972, as part of an anti-war
>
> delegation. In retrospect, it was probably a stupid move, but at the
>
> time it seemed the thing to do. But those of us who were around back
>
> then may remember that there was a *lot* of popular sentiment against
>
> the Vietnam War; Fonda's visit wasn't exactly a one-person show.
Whether or not Fonda went solo or as one of a cast of thousands is irrelevant. That she went, and that her apology if she had "offended" and for sitting at the anti-aircraft gun. To the best of my knowledge, to this day she has no qualms about going to North Vietnam, nor of making a broadcast on Radio Hanoi.
> Yes, Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam in 1972, as part of an anti-war
>
> delegation. In retrospect, it was probably a stupid move, but at the
>
> time it seemed the thing to do. But those of us who were around back
>
> then may remember that there was a *lot* of popular sentiment against
>
> the Vietnam War; Fonda's visit wasn't exactly a one-person show.
What Fonda and others have never grasped is that it's one thing to oppose a war; quite another to deliberately give propaganda fodder to an enemy. Although part of the letter above has been shown to be an Urban Legend, ( http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp ), it still remains she went and has never felt so much as a pang of regret.
Tesseract
May 15, 2013, 3:22:50 AM5/15/13
to
He unscrews the handle then finds a regular broom. Though the handle
does not come off, it will do. Finding a roll of duct tape, he tapes the
handles together, noting that the result is at least ten feet long.
Taking the contraption back into the main room, Tesseract sees Chris at
the bar. Extending the extended handle, Tesseract brushes Chris's
shoulder to get his attention.
"Chris, I know that it is fun to play with those things but please wash
your hands before you come back into the bar. Better yet, take a shower
and change your clothes (I'd wash them separately). And don't forget to
clean your shoes, including the bottoms. No need to expose the rest of
us to that putrid goo."
--
Tesseract
David Simpson
May 15, 2013, 4:37:29 AM5/15/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 19:52:17 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Then why did these stories circulate before the introduction of the
Internet?
I can remember there being controversy in the press during and after
her visit although I can no longer remember details.
--
David
No email replies please.
15/05/2013
Make a wish, it might come true.
wrote:
Internet?
I can remember there being controversy in the press during and after
her visit although I can no longer remember details.
--
David
No email replies please.
15/05/2013
Make a wish, it might come true.
rincewind
May 15, 2013, 5:18:41 AM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 4:37 am, David Simpson <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 19:52:17 -0500, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com>
profits from its sale of Filet o'Fish sandwiches to the Church of
Satan" (Not to mention the "McDonalds uses earthworms to extend its
hamburger meat" stories were circulating long before the internet.
As far as Jane's treason is concerned. While you may have a right to
be morally outraged, legally you don't have a leg to stand on as she
wasn't giving aid to an enemy in a time of war. In case you don't
remember, we never declared war against North Vietnam... we went over
there as "advisors" to South Vietnam and just started shooting them.
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 19:52:17 -0500, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 14 May 2013 09:27:30 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
> >laser caused Kim Jong un <brothern...@gmail.com> to write:
>
> >>EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
> >>treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
> >>let this happen.
> >>PLEASE READ AND SHARE THIS ON ALL YOUR FRIENDS WALLS AND EVERY GROUP
> >>YOU BELONG TO!
>
> >>Barbara Walters on Jane Fonda:
> >>Jane Fonda was on 3 times this week talking about her new book. . .
> >>and how good she feels in her 70s. . . She still does not know what
> >>she did wrong. . .
>
> >>Her book just may not make the bestseller list if more people knew.
>
> >>Barbara Walters said: Thank you all. Many died in Vietnam for our
> >>freedoms. I did not like Jane Fonda then and I don't like her now. She
> >>can lead her present life the way she wants and perhaps SHE can forget
> >>the past, but we DO NOT have to stand by without comment and see her
> >>honored" as a "Woman of the Century."
>
> >>(I remember this well.)
>
> >>For those who served and/or died. . .
>
> >>NEVER FORGIVE A TRAITOR.
>
> >>SHE REALLY WAS A TRAITOR!!
>
> >...Except for the minor detail that most of this article is a complete
> >fabrication.http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 14 May 2013 09:27:30 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
> >laser caused Kim Jong un <brothern...@gmail.com> to write:
>
> >>EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
> >>treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
> >>let this happen.
> >>PLEASE READ AND SHARE THIS ON ALL YOUR FRIENDS WALLS AND EVERY GROUP
> >>YOU BELONG TO!
>
> >>Barbara Walters on Jane Fonda:
> >>Jane Fonda was on 3 times this week talking about her new book. . .
> >>and how good she feels in her 70s. . . She still does not know what
> >>she did wrong. . .
>
> >>Her book just may not make the bestseller list if more people knew.
>
> >>Barbara Walters said: Thank you all. Many died in Vietnam for our
> >>freedoms. I did not like Jane Fonda then and I don't like her now. She
> >>can lead her present life the way she wants and perhaps SHE can forget
> >>the past, but we DO NOT have to stand by without comment and see her
> >>honored" as a "Woman of the Century."
>
> >>(I remember this well.)
>
> >>For those who served and/or died. . .
>
> >>NEVER FORGIVE A TRAITOR.
>
> >>SHE REALLY WAS A TRAITOR!!
>
> >...Except for the minor detail that most of this article is a complete
> >http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/hanoijane.htm#.UZLY3kosGSo
>
> >Yes, Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam in 1972, as part of an anti-war
> >delegation. In retrospect, it was probably a stupid move, but at the
> >time it seemed the thing to do. But those of us who were around back
> >then may remember that there was a *lot* of popular sentiment against
> >the Vietnam War; Fonda's visit wasn't exactly a one-person show.
>
> Then why did these stories circulate before the introduction of the
> Internet?
>
> I can remember there being controversy in the press during and after
> her visit although I can no longer remember details.
The "Proctor Gamble logo signifies Satanism" and the "McDonalds sends
>
> >Yes, Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam in 1972, as part of an anti-war
> >delegation. In retrospect, it was probably a stupid move, but at the
> >time it seemed the thing to do. But those of us who were around back
> >then may remember that there was a *lot* of popular sentiment against
> >the Vietnam War; Fonda's visit wasn't exactly a one-person show.
>
> Then why did these stories circulate before the introduction of the
> Internet?
>
> I can remember there being controversy in the press during and after
> her visit although I can no longer remember details.
profits from its sale of Filet o'Fish sandwiches to the Church of
Satan" (Not to mention the "McDonalds uses earthworms to extend its
hamburger meat" stories were circulating long before the internet.
As far as Jane's treason is concerned. While you may have a right to
be morally outraged, legally you don't have a leg to stand on as she
wasn't giving aid to an enemy in a time of war. In case you don't
remember, we never declared war against North Vietnam... we went over
there as "advisors" to South Vietnam and just started shooting them.
Chris Zakes
May 15, 2013, 8:00:33 AM5/15/13
to
claims in this particular post are incorrect.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
A properly balanced sword is the most versatile weapon for close quarters ever
devised... A sword never jams, never has to be reloaded, it is always ready.
-Oscar Gordon in "Glory Road" by Robert Heinlein
Chris Zakes
May 15, 2013, 8:05:57 AM5/15/13
to
been around for centuries, probably millenia. All the internet did was
speed up the flow and increase the dispersal rate.
Tesseract
May 15, 2013, 9:44:43 AM5/15/13
to
planning to attack the US?
--
Tesseract
David Simpson
May 15, 2013, 6:02:56 PM5/15/13
to
advisors to SV. We were attacked, we defended, albeit not very
successfully. My surmise is that as they attacked us that is
tantamount to a declaration of war.
--
David
No email replies please.
16/05/2013
David
No email replies please.
You will be attacked by a beast who has the body of a wolf, the tail of
a lion, and the face of Donald Duck.
Chris Zakes
May 15, 2013, 6:17:03 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 06:44:43 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>
Because North Vietnam had a Communist government, and they were allied
with the Soviet Union and China; therefore they were bad guys. If (as
was the US policy at the time) Communism should be contained as much
as possible then Communist expansion beyond North Vietnam into
South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia had to be opposed. Initially this was
done with monetary aid and equipment to South Vietnam, then with
military advisers and finally with US troops.
caused Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>
with the Soviet Union and China; therefore they were bad guys. If (as
was the US policy at the time) Communism should be contained as much
as possible then Communist expansion beyond North Vietnam into
South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia had to be opposed. Initially this was
done with monetary aid and equipment to South Vietnam, then with
military advisers and finally with US troops.
Tesseract
May 16, 2013, 4:26:03 AM5/16/13
to
taking it personally is rather juvenile.
--
Tesseract
Tesseract
May 16, 2013, 4:31:16 AM5/16/13
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veitnam_war
the US is one third to blame for the whole thing. After the end of WWII,
Vietnam was pretty much an independent country. "However, the major
allied victors of World War II, the United Kingdom, the United States,
and the Soviet Union, all agreed the area belonged to the French.[60] As
the French did not have the ships, weapons, or soldiers to immediately
retake Vietnam, the major powers came to an agreement that British
troops would occupy the south while Nationalist Chinese forces would
move in from the north."
If the Allies had just left the place alone, everything would have been
different.
--
Tesseract
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 16, 2013, 7:15:55 AM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:26:03 AM UTC-4, Tesseract wrote:
> Kind of dumb, visiting a war zone. You're liable to get shot at. Then
>
> taking it personally is rather juvenile.
Like the Lynyrd Skynyrd song goes, I'm a simple sort of man. Someone who knows who you are and shoots at you anyway is not you buddy. Having friends who served in Vietnam, who saw things that the media seldom mentioned and still doesn't discuss, I have a rather strong opinion. Meeting a former "guest" of the Hanoi Hilton only made it stronger.
> Kind of dumb, visiting a war zone. You're liable to get shot at. Then
>
> taking it personally is rather juvenile.
It is one thing to say the US should have not been there; it is one thing to say the US should have fought the war differently; It is quite another not to recognize North Vietnam as an enemy. I'll be blunt. Anyone who does not think North Vietnam was an enemy of the US is either too young to remember it, deluded by the spin of the era, or a sympathizer.
Chris Zakes
May 16, 2013, 7:37:49 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:31:16 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
Yes, I suppose that's true. And if Neville Chamberlain had stood up to
Adolf Hitler, rather than trying to appease him, things would also
have been very different.
What's your point, other than that hindsight is 20/20?
Adolf Hitler, rather than trying to appease him, things would also
have been very different.
What's your point, other than that hindsight is 20/20?
Tesseract
May 16, 2013, 8:45:30 AM5/16/13
to
chose the wrong thing. At that time, Vietnam was benign but the Allied
powers (not just the US) had to impose their western empire building
ethos upon the place, creating a problem where none existed.
--
Tesseract
Fred Brown
May 16, 2013, 3:59:01 PM5/16/13
to
<kevi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d12bc85e-5e9b-4800...@googlegroups.com...
not the politicians had
been in charge like WW2. The politicians were afraid the Chinese would
intervene like they did in Korea.
JimP.
May 16, 2013, 5:09:22 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:37:49 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Ho Chi Min asked the U.S. for help in gettnig the French out. The Us
refused. The French asked for help, from JFK, to help at dein Ben Phu.
He refused. Then we got involved.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
wrote:
refused. The French asked for help, from JFK, to help at dein Ben Phu.
He refused. Then we got involved.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
Jim Hetley
May 16, 2013, 6:00:58 PM5/16/13
to
On Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:09:22 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
>
>
> Ho Chi Min asked the U.S. for help in gettnig the French out. The Us
>
> refused.
Well, it was more along the lines of help *keeping* the French out, after the defeat of the Japanese occupation forces. Instead, we helped the French back in . . .
>
>
> Ho Chi Min asked the U.S. for help in gettnig the French out. The Us
>
> refused.
Jim
JimP.
May 16, 2013, 6:45:21 PM5/16/13
to
guys, some of them my high school classmates, die there. And the
bureaucrats blew it.
Tim Merrigan
May 16, 2013, 8:56:32 PM5/16/13
to
help getting the French out the first time, at the Council of
Versailles in 1919.
Marten Kemp
May 16, 2013, 9:21:14 PM5/16/13
to
--
-- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply)
Jim Hetley
May 17, 2013, 9:53:22 AM5/17/13
to
On Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:45:21 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
>
>
> I think my main point is there was an opportunity to not have our
>
> guys, some of them my high school classmates, die there. And the
>
> bureaucrats blew it.
>
>
Yeah. I was drafted for the Vietnam war. That made it pretty easy to regard the US government and Richard Nixon as my real enemies . . .
>
>
> I think my main point is there was an opportunity to not have our
>
> guys, some of them my high school classmates, die there. And the
>
> bureaucrats blew it.
>
>
Jim
JimP.
May 17, 2013, 4:07:54 PM5/17/13
to
Fred Brown
May 18, 2013, 12:43:01 PM5/18/13
to
"Tesseract" <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote in
message news:kn25am$uo4$1...@dont-email.me...
The French battled the Viet Minh communist revolutionaries culminating
in the defeat of the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in May 1954.
Vietnam was partitioned at the Geneva Accords at the 17th parallel
in 1954 creating North and South Vietnam. The Viet Minh continued
guerrilla operations against the South prompting US military advisor aid
beginning in 1959. President Kennedy sent the US Army Green Berets
in the early '60s and major US military buildup began after the Gulf of
Tonkin incident in which the destroyer USS Maddox was attacked by
North Viet torpedo boats and Congress authorized President Johnson
to send aid to South Viet Nam. In the Spring- early Summer of 1965
the increased presence of North Vietnamese troops prompted the
Pentagon to levy all Army personnel stationed in the US and with
six months or more of active service left in their tours of duty to be
sent to Vietnam.
Phew! I missed it by 5 days.
> --
> Tesseract
Drumondo Rufus
May 21, 2013, 7:24:32 PM5/21/13
to
On May 15, 1:44 pm, Tesseract
<hypertesseractBECAUSE_IT_MUST_BE_H...@verywarm.com> wrote:
a war.
The Dixie chicks tried speaking out against the USA and now they
could not get a gig or a recording contract if Hell froze over.
Traitor Jane should be black-listed also.
<hypertesseractBECAUSE_IT_MUST_BE_H...@verywarm.com> wrote:
> On 14-May-13 6:49 PM, kevin_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:52:17 PM UTC-4, Chris Zakes wrote:
> >> Yes, Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam in 1972, as part of an
> >> anti-war
>
> >> delegation. In retrospect, it was probably a stupid move, but at
> >> the
>
> >> time it seemed the thing to do. But those of us who were around
> >> back
>
> >> then may remember that there was a *lot* of popular sentiment
> >> against
>
> >> the Vietnam War; Fonda's visit wasn't exactly a one-person show.
>
> > Whether or not Fonda went solo or as one of a cast of thousands is
> > irrelevant. That she went, and that her apology if she had "offended"
> > and for sitting at the anti-aircraft gun. To the best of my
> > knowledge, to this day she has no qualms about going to North
> > Vietnam, nor of making a broadcast on Radio Hanoi.
>
> > What Fonda and others have never grasped is that it's one thing to
> > oppose a war; quite another to deliberately give propaganda fodder to
> > an enemy. Although part of the letter above has been shown to be an
> > Urban Legend, (http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp), it still
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:52:17 PM UTC-4, Chris Zakes wrote:
> >> Yes, Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam in 1972, as part of an
> >> anti-war
>
> >> delegation. In retrospect, it was probably a stupid move, but at
> >> the
>
> >> time it seemed the thing to do. But those of us who were around
> >> back
>
> >> then may remember that there was a *lot* of popular sentiment
> >> against
>
> >> the Vietnam War; Fonda's visit wasn't exactly a one-person show.
>
> > Whether or not Fonda went solo or as one of a cast of thousands is
> > irrelevant. That she went, and that her apology if she had "offended"
> > and for sitting at the anti-aircraft gun. To the best of my
> > knowledge, to this day she has no qualms about going to North
> > Vietnam, nor of making a broadcast on Radio Hanoi.
>
> > What Fonda and others have never grasped is that it's one thing to
> > oppose a war; quite another to deliberately give propaganda fodder to
> > an enemy. Although part of the letter above has been shown to be an
> > remains she went and has never felt so much as a pang of regret.
>
> Why was North Vietnam the enemy? Did they attack the US? Were they
> planning to attack the US?
>
> --
> Tesseract
Are you really that dumb? You do NOT fraternize with the enemy during
>
> Why was North Vietnam the enemy? Did they attack the US? Were they
> planning to attack the US?
>
> --
> Tesseract
a war.
The Dixie chicks tried speaking out against the USA and now they
could not get a gig or a recording contract if Hell froze over.
Traitor Jane should be black-listed also.
JimP.
May 21, 2013, 7:37:25 PM5/21/13
to
ballot, let alone anyone voting for him. And yes he was a former drug
addict, he admitted to it.
Like any celebrity going to a war zone, Jane Fonda was used by North
Viet Nam. Just as celebs going to South Viet Nam were used. Welcome to
Reality.
Viet Nam happened because American businesses there would be
nationalized if NVN won. Not really another reason.
And the Dixie Chicks did something some people don't like, exercised
their First Amendment Rights.
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 21, 2013, 11:19:22 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:37:25 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
> And the Dixie Chicks did something some people don't like, exercised
>
> their First Amendment Rights.
Incorrect. People didn't like what the Dixie Chicks said. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequences. The Dixie Chicks are free to say anything they please, just as people who take exception with the opinions of the Dixie Chicks are free not to buy their music.
> And the Dixie Chicks did something some people don't like, exercised
>
> their First Amendment Rights.
Samuel Harris
May 22, 2013, 12:46:53 AM5/22/13
to
US in time of war, idiot.
Frank McCoy
May 22, 2013, 1:10:28 AM5/22/13
to
Drumondo Rufus <sec...@blackvoices.com> wrote:
>The Dixie chicks tried speaking out against the USA and now they
>could not get a gig or a recording contract if Hell froze over.
A. The Dixie Chicks did *NOT* speak out against the USA.
>The Dixie chicks tried speaking out against the USA and now they
>could not get a gig or a recording contract if Hell froze over.
They spoke out against *President George W. Bush*!!!!
B. They were RIGHT to do so.
Bush was wrong about Weapons-of-mass-distraction in Iraq.
Bush ran us into an incredibly costly war there.
He claimed it was WON eight years ago. It wasn't.
C. They still sell records and make money doing so.
D. They still get "gigs".
However, C and D are *nothing* like what they got before they dissed
GWB.
They forgot that their main buying-public were rednecks-types who LIKE
George Bush and supported his war.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Tim Merrigan
May 22, 2013, 5:22:12 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Drumondo Rufus
that is a straight up false statement. BTW, the first part of it is
false, too. They spoke out against the Bush administration and the
war in Iraq, not against the USA. Admittedly they're more likely to
get gigs in liberal venues than conservative ones.
BTW in the USA le majeste is not a crime.
Tesseract
May 22, 2013, 6:15:39 AM5/22/13
to
should at least try to answer the question. Should North Vietnam have
even been an enemy? If the US hadn't colluded with the other Allied
powers to return Vietnam back to France but had supported Vietnam
gaining its independence, something that the US had once fought for for
itself, would the war have even happened?
--
Tesseract
Tesseract
May 22, 2013, 6:18:19 AM5/22/13
to
--
Tesseract
Chris Zakes
May 22, 2013, 7:12:44 AM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:18:19 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
Well, that depends. Which is less important? Stopping Communism or
stopping terrorism?
stopping terrorism?
invalidd
May 22, 2013, 7:19:51 AM5/22/13
to
Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:18:19 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>
> to write:
>
>>
>>Which US war was more unnecessary? Vietnam or Iraq?
>
>
> Well, that depends. Which is less important? Stopping Communism or
> stopping terrorism?
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
Afghanistan was about stopping terrorism.
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:18:19 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>
> to write:
>
>>
>>Which US war was more unnecessary? Vietnam or Iraq?
>
>
> Well, that depends. Which is less important? Stopping Communism or
> stopping terrorism?
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
Iraq was about oil.
Tim Merrigan
May 22, 2013, 3:18:42 PM5/22/13
to
Tim Merrigan
May 22, 2013, 3:20:29 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:12:44 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Stopping terrorism, which Iraq had nothing to do with, except
internally, as with all cult of personality dictatorships.
wrote:
internally, as with all cult of personality dictatorships.
Tim Merrigan
May 22, 2013, 3:21:34 PM5/22/13
to
Frank McCoy
May 22, 2013, 3:36:00 PM5/22/13
to
Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com> wrote:
>Which US war was more unnecessary? Vietnam or Iraq?
I'm simply NOT getting into the, "Which war was worse, my war or your
>Which US war was more unnecessary? Vietnam or Iraq?
war?" argument.
JimP.
May 22, 2013, 4:24:51 PM5/22/13
to
defend the U.S.Constitution. If you were ever in the US Military, or a
politician, you swear an Oath to up hold that paper.
If you don't see that they have the First Amendment Right to call
Shrubie, a former drug addict, a doofus, then you are a dolt and an
idiot.
JimP.
May 22, 2013, 4:26:17 PM5/22/13
to
did exercise their First Amendment Rights. They did nothing wrong.
Frank McCoy
May 22, 2013, 4:47:58 PM5/22/13
to
Chris Zakes
May 22, 2013, 6:47:26 PM5/22/13
to
than they were in 2003 at the time of the Iraq invasion.
US gas prices:
http://www.simplerna.com/2013/03/pump-gas-prices-2003-2013.html
British petrol prices: http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html
-Chirs Zakes
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 22, 2013, 8:04:16 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 7:19:51 AM UTC-4, invalidd wrote:
> Afghanistan was about stopping terrorism.
>
> Iraq was about oil.
Ah, no. *Kuwait* was about oil, namely keeping it flowing through the Arabian Gulf. You may or may not remember it, but the US skirmished with Iran in the 1980s with the goal of keeping open the Straits of Hormuz. Iraq, well, Iraq was something else.
> Afghanistan was about stopping terrorism.
>
> Iraq was about oil.
Am I the only one here who remembers when Bill Clinton tried to drum up public support for going back into Iraq? Members of his administration went around with how Saddam was breaking the sanctions. And sanction enforcement *was* a pathetic joke, so much so it even showed up in skits. UN inspectors were notifying Saddam *before* inspections and fly-overs.
Anywho, the GOP invoked talk of "Wag the Dog," and even DNC support was rather cool. I remember listening to a live "town meeting" on NPR, where this was a pointed question by the audience, and I remember asking myself if I would support going back in if Clinton wasn't, well, Clinton. I remember thinking that enforcement was necessary, but wasn't comfortable with the idea. Neither were most Americans, and Clinton dropped it.
Fast forward to the 21st Century. The US was hit on 9/11. If Saddam had been as smart as Arafat, he would have bent over backwards to appear to side with US against terrorism. He could have come out of it not only with no sanctions, but as a US ally. But no: Saddam rattles the saber harder. He plays up research in weapons of mass destruction, and engages in activity that looks like he has WMD. He flaunts UN inspection more than he ever had.
It's a stupid thing to stand next to someone shooting at a cop. It's even stupider to wave a pistol at a cop someone's shot at. It's stupider still to wave a toy gun at a cop someone's shot at. Saddam did all of the above. And unfortunately for him, the US took him seriously.
So we did what Clinton wanted to do way back when: Took him out. And we discovered the WMD were overblown. Know, however, we did find some chemical weapons, and there was rumors of Saddam sending them to Syria, and Syria has recently used chemical weapons.
We could have handled it better. We could have partitioned the country between the Kurds and other groups, told them to "Play nice or you know what we'll do," and went home. We tried to rebuild Iraq like Japan and Germany, but without regard that it took a strong man to hold a lid on things.
So no, we didn't go into Iraq because of oil; we went because he was violating the sanctions, because it looked like he had WMD and ties to terrorist groups, and fear that he'd arm them. In retrospect we perhaps didn't need to return to Iraq, but I'm not certain of that, because Saddam was working to get his hands on WMD as fast as he could.
Frank McCoy
May 23, 2013, 12:08:37 AM5/23/13
to
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:19:51 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> to write:
>
>>Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:18:19 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>
>>> to write:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Which US war was more unnecessary? Vietnam or Iraq?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that depends. Which is less important? Stopping Communism or
>>> stopping terrorism?
>>>
>>> -Chris Zakes
>>> Texas
>>
>>Afghanistan was about stopping terrorism.
>>Iraq was about oil.
>
>Riiight. That certainly explains why gas prices are so much lower now
>than they were in 2003 at the time of the Iraq invasion.
>
>US gas prices:
>http://www.simplerna.com/2013/03/pump-gas-prices-2003-2013.html
>
>British petrol prices: http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html
>
invalidd was talking about the AIM, not the success (or failure)
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:19:51 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> to write:
>
>>Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:18:19 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>
>>> to write:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Which US war was more unnecessary? Vietnam or Iraq?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that depends. Which is less important? Stopping Communism or
>>> stopping terrorism?
>>>
>>> -Chris Zakes
>>> Texas
>>
>>Afghanistan was about stopping terrorism.
>>Iraq was about oil.
>
>Riiight. That certainly explains why gas prices are so much lower now
>than they were in 2003 at the time of the Iraq invasion.
>
>US gas prices:
>http://www.simplerna.com/2013/03/pump-gas-prices-2003-2013.html
>
>British petrol prices: http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html
>
story.
Barry Gold
May 23, 2013, 12:28:19 AM5/23/13
to
her movies etc. Those who agreed that this was a stupid war that we
should never have gotten into, can continue to enjoy "Cat Ballou," "They
Shoot Horses, Don't They," On Golden Pond," Barbarella(*), and other
fine films.
Oh, and while you're criticizing her for her statements, you might want
to see this quote from a 1988 interview with Barbara Walters:
"I would like to say something, not just to Vietnam veterans in New
England, but to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I
caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to
help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was
thoughtless and careless about it and I'm very sorry that I hurt them.
And I want to apologize to them and their families. [...] I will go to
my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft gun, which
looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many
soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I
could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless."
In fact, you might want to read the Wikipedia article, especially the
part that starts, "It happened on my last day in Hanoi"
(*) Okay, Barbarella is mostly enjoyable for its sexiness, the "plot" is
pretty stupid.
Tesseract
May 23, 2013, 3:31:59 AM5/23/13
to
more than an annoyance to Israel. He was a problem to Iran, but that was
with the blessing and encouragement of the US. Kuwait was a mistake; he
had misjudged the US reaction, and he got spanked for it.
If the US had wanted to get rid of him, and there was reason, as he was
also a threat to some of his own citizens, the end of the Kuwait war
would have been the time, as a group wanted to stage a coup with US
assistance.
Saddam had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Inspectors on the ground did
not find any evidence of them. Nobody except the US believed that he did
have them. I doubt that even Blair believed that; he went along for
political reasons.
Saddam's connection to Al-Qaeda was the same as Bush's: they both had
Al-Qaeda operatives in their countries; these operative were unwanted
and considered these countries enemies and targets, not friends.
--
Tesseract
invalidd
May 23, 2013, 6:37:23 AM5/23/13
to
Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:19:51 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> to write:
>
>>
>>Afghanistan was about stopping terrorism.
>>Iraq was about oil.
>
>
> Riiight. That certainly explains why gas prices are so much lower now
> than they were in 2003 at the time of the Iraq invasion.
>
> US gas prices:
> http://www.simplerna.com/2013/03/pump-gas-prices-2003-2013.html
>
> British petrol prices: http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html
>
I can't speak for the USA but the rise in Brit petrol prices is a
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:19:51 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> to write:
>
>>
>>Afghanistan was about stopping terrorism.
>>Iraq was about oil.
>
>
> Riiight. That certainly explains why gas prices are so much lower now
> than they were in 2003 at the time of the Iraq invasion.
>
> US gas prices:
> http://www.simplerna.com/2013/03/pump-gas-prices-2003-2013.html
>
> British petrol prices: http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html
>
combination of OPEC rapaciousness, demand from emerging economies like
China, and the Global Warming Industry tax escalator (which thankfully
the government has brought to a temporary halt).
invalidd
May 23, 2013, 7:01:01 AM5/23/13
to
kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
> We could have handled it better. We could have partitioned the
> country between the Kurds and other groups, told them to "Play nice
> or you know what we'll do," and went home. We tried to rebuild Iraq
> like Japan and Germany, but without regard that it took a strong man
> to hold a lid on things.
>
> So no, we didn't go into Iraq because of oil; we went because he was
> violating the sanctions, because it looked like he had WMD and ties
> to terrorist groups, and fear that he'd arm them. In retrospect we
> perhaps didn't need to return to Iraq, but I'm not certain of that,
> because Saddam was working to get his hands on WMD as fast as he
> could.
Good points, but they take it as given that the US was acting
philanthropically. I remain to be convinced. I suspect statistics
comparing how much oil the US imported from Iraq in the last years of
Saddam's reign compared to how much it currently imports would be very
illuminating.
Recently it seems that whenever the West intervenes in the Arab/Asian
world, it always leaves the people disadvantaged. Women, certainly, are
worse off in Afghanistan and Iraq than they were under previous regimes.
Apparently we're strongly considering arming Syrian
rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters, and on our current track record, I
can't see that being a good thing.
<snip>
> We could have handled it better. We could have partitioned the
> country between the Kurds and other groups, told them to "Play nice
> or you know what we'll do," and went home. We tried to rebuild Iraq
> like Japan and Germany, but without regard that it took a strong man
> to hold a lid on things.
>
> So no, we didn't go into Iraq because of oil; we went because he was
> violating the sanctions, because it looked like he had WMD and ties
> to terrorist groups, and fear that he'd arm them. In retrospect we
> perhaps didn't need to return to Iraq, but I'm not certain of that,
> because Saddam was working to get his hands on WMD as fast as he
> could.
philanthropically. I remain to be convinced. I suspect statistics
comparing how much oil the US imported from Iraq in the last years of
Saddam's reign compared to how much it currently imports would be very
illuminating.
Recently it seems that whenever the West intervenes in the Arab/Asian
world, it always leaves the people disadvantaged. Women, certainly, are
worse off in Afghanistan and Iraq than they were under previous regimes.
Apparently we're strongly considering arming Syrian
rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters, and on our current track record, I
can't see that being a good thing.
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 23, 2013, 7:25:15 AM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:01:01 AM UTC-4, invalidd wrote:
> Good points, but they take it as given that the US was acting
>
> philanthropically. I remain to be convinced. I suspect statistics
>
> comparing how much oil the US imported from Iraq in the last years of
>
> Saddam's reign compared to how much it currently imports would be very
>
> illuminating.
>
>
>
> Recently it seems that whenever the West intervenes in the Arab/Asian
>
> world, it always leaves the people disadvantaged. Women, certainly, are
>
> worse off in Afghanistan and Iraq than they were under previous regimes.
>
> Apparently we're strongly considering arming Syrian
>
> rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters, and on our current track record, I
>
> can't see that being a good thing.
Although the US does tend to act philanthropically (which is why we're really not suited for empire building), this was more of a pre-WWI situation instead of the goodness of our hearts. Note that the point was violation of sanctions. And there was a point: The allies turned a blind eye to Germany's violations in the run-up to WWII.
> Good points, but they take it as given that the US was acting
>
> philanthropically. I remain to be convinced. I suspect statistics
>
> comparing how much oil the US imported from Iraq in the last years of
>
> Saddam's reign compared to how much it currently imports would be very
>
> illuminating.
>
>
>
> Recently it seems that whenever the West intervenes in the Arab/Asian
>
> world, it always leaves the people disadvantaged. Women, certainly, are
>
> worse off in Afghanistan and Iraq than they were under previous regimes.
>
> Apparently we're strongly considering arming Syrian
>
> rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters, and on our current track record, I
>
> can't see that being a good thing.
As to the other, things are worst for *Christians* in every Middle Eastern country the US has some involvement. For women? Not in Afghanistan as compared to the Taliban. In Iraq? Questionable.
Syria is a prime example of the philanthropic attitude of the US. We have no political or economic reason to intervene or to support one faction over the other - and the US has about as much luck picking factions as I do lottery tickets. Yet note both GOP and DNC calls to do *something* to "help."
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 23, 2013, 7:34:35 AM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:31:59 AM UTC-4, Tesseract wrote:
> Saddam was never a threat to the US. though he could have been he wasn't
>
> more than an annoyance to Israel. He was a problem to Iran, but that was
>
> with the blessing and encouragement of the US. Kuwait was a mistake; he
>
> had misjudged the US reaction, and he got spanked for it.
>
>
>
> If the US had wanted to get rid of him, and there was reason, as he was
>
> also a threat to some of his own citizens, the end of the Kuwait war
>
> would have been the time, as a group wanted to stage a coup with US
>
> assistance.
>
>
>
> Saddam had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Inspectors on the ground did
>
> not find any evidence of them. Nobody except the US believed that he did
>
> have them. I doubt that even Blair believed that; he went along for
>
> political reasons.
>
>
>
> Saddam's connection to Al-Qaeda was the same as Bush's: they both had
>
> Al-Qaeda operatives in their countries; these operative were unwanted
>
> and considered these countries enemies and targets, not friends.
You forget two things:
> Saddam was never a threat to the US. though he could have been he wasn't
>
> more than an annoyance to Israel. He was a problem to Iran, but that was
>
> with the blessing and encouragement of the US. Kuwait was a mistake; he
>
> had misjudged the US reaction, and he got spanked for it.
>
>
>
> If the US had wanted to get rid of him, and there was reason, as he was
>
> also a threat to some of his own citizens, the end of the Kuwait war
>
> would have been the time, as a group wanted to stage a coup with US
>
> assistance.
>
>
>
> Saddam had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Inspectors on the ground did
>
> not find any evidence of them. Nobody except the US believed that he did
>
> have them. I doubt that even Blair believed that; he went along for
>
> political reasons.
>
>
>
> Saddam's connection to Al-Qaeda was the same as Bush's: they both had
>
> Al-Qaeda operatives in their countries; these operative were unwanted
>
> and considered these countries enemies and targets, not friends.
1. Ever since, well, the end of WWII, the US had a conscious roll of the good buy, initially we are in the Free World, and the Free World does not do such things. As opposed to, say, the Axis, then the Eastern Bloc. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is a point of debate.
2. There was danged strong intel that Saddam was up to something. The UN inspections were a pathetic joke - they told Saddam in advance when and where they'd be, for crying out loud. Either Saddam had WMD, was working to get them, or was engaged in a dangerous bluff, for all the indicators were there. It nows seems the latter of the two.
In any event, we did find poison gas, some in shells, and some interesting things from our "allies." So yes, there were WMD, just not in the expected quantities.
It is very interesting that there were rumors Saddam had shipped them to Syria, and now Syria has used gas against the rebels. No smoking gun, but it does make one go "Hmmmm."
Chris Zakes
May 23, 2013, 7:58:23 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:28:19 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>On 5/21/2013 8:19 PM, kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:37:25 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
>>> And the Dixie Chicks did something some people don't like, exercised
>>>
>>> their First Amendment Rights.
>>
>> Incorrect. People didn't like what the Dixie Chicks said. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequences. The Dixie Chicks are free to say anything they please, just as people who take exception with the opinions of the Dixie Chicks are free not to buy their music.
>
>Yeah. And people who don't like what Jane Fonda said are free not to buy
>her movies etc. Those who agreed that this was a stupid war that we
>should never have gotten into, can continue to enjoy "Cat Ballou," "They
>Shoot Horses, Don't They," On Golden Pond," Barbarella(*), and other
>fine films.
Well... she visited Hanoi in the summer of 1972. "Cat Ballou", "They
caused Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>On 5/21/2013 8:19 PM, kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:37:25 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
>>> And the Dixie Chicks did something some people don't like, exercised
>>>
>>> their First Amendment Rights.
>>
>> Incorrect. People didn't like what the Dixie Chicks said. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequences. The Dixie Chicks are free to say anything they please, just as people who take exception with the opinions of the Dixie Chicks are free not to buy their music.
>
>Yeah. And people who don't like what Jane Fonda said are free not to buy
>her movies etc. Those who agreed that this was a stupid war that we
>should never have gotten into, can continue to enjoy "Cat Ballou," "They
>Shoot Horses, Don't They," On Golden Pond," Barbarella(*), and other
>fine films.
Shoot Horses, Don't They?" and "Barbarella" all predate that visit, so
if one wanted to be all legalistic, one could still watch those
movies, and just skip anything made after 1972.
<shrug> With the exception of "Cat Ballou", I don't find her movies
all that entertaining, so that's the only one I watch. YMMV, of
course.
-Chris Zakes
Tesseract
May 23, 2013, 8:55:37 AM5/23/13
to
On 22-May-13 9:28 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 8:19 PM, kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:37:25 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
>>> And the Dixie Chicks did something some people don't like, exercised
>>>
>>> their First Amendment Rights.
>>
>> Incorrect. People didn't like what the Dixie Chicks said. Freedom of
>> speech is not the same as freedom from consequences. The Dixie Chicks
>> are free to say anything they please, just as people who take
>> exception with the opinions of the Dixie Chicks are free not to buy
>> their music.
>
> Yeah. And people who don't like what Jane Fonda said are free not to buy
> her movies etc. Those who agreed that this was a stupid war that we
> should never have gotten into, can continue to enjoy "Cat Ballou," "They
> Shoot Horses, Don't They," On Golden Pond," Barbarella(*), and other
> fine films.
...
> On 5/21/2013 8:19 PM, kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:37:25 PM UTC-4, JimP. wrote:
>>> And the Dixie Chicks did something some people don't like, exercised
>>>
>>> their First Amendment Rights.
>>
>> Incorrect. People didn't like what the Dixie Chicks said. Freedom of
>> speech is not the same as freedom from consequences. The Dixie Chicks
>> are free to say anything they please, just as people who take
>> exception with the opinions of the Dixie Chicks are free not to buy
>> their music.
>
> Yeah. And people who don't like what Jane Fonda said are free not to buy
> her movies etc. Those who agreed that this was a stupid war that we
> should never have gotten into, can continue to enjoy "Cat Ballou," "They
> Shoot Horses, Don't They," On Golden Pond," Barbarella(*), and other
> fine films.
> (*) Okay, Barbarella is mostly enjoyable for its sexiness, the "plot" is
> pretty stupid.
for the next showing, and we saw the opening a third time before we left.
--
Tesseract
David Simpson
May 23, 2013, 10:56:30 AM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:01:01 +0100, invalidd
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> We could have handled it better. We could have partitioned the
>> country between the Kurds and other groups, told them to "Play nice
>> or you know what we'll do," and went home. We tried to rebuild Iraq
>> like Japan and Germany, but without regard that it took a strong man
>> to hold a lid on things.
>>
>> So no, we didn't go into Iraq because of oil; we went because he was
>> violating the sanctions, because it looked like he had WMD and ties
>> to terrorist groups, and fear that he'd arm them. In retrospect we
>> perhaps didn't need to return to Iraq, but I'm not certain of that,
>> because Saddam was working to get his hands on WMD as fast as he
>> could.
>
>Good points, but they take it as given that the US was acting
>philanthropically. I remain to be convinced. I suspect statistics
>comparing how much oil the US imported from Iraq in the last years of
>Saddam's reign compared to how much it currently imports would be very
>illuminating.
>
>Recently it seems that whenever the West intervenes in the Arab/Asian
>world, it always leaves the people disadvantaged. Women, certainly, are
>worse off in Afghanistan and Iraq than they were under previous regimes.
You consider the fact that those in Afghanistan can now access
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> We could have handled it better. We could have partitioned the
>> country between the Kurds and other groups, told them to "Play nice
>> or you know what we'll do," and went home. We tried to rebuild Iraq
>> like Japan and Germany, but without regard that it took a strong man
>> to hold a lid on things.
>>
>> So no, we didn't go into Iraq because of oil; we went because he was
>> violating the sanctions, because it looked like he had WMD and ties
>> to terrorist groups, and fear that he'd arm them. In retrospect we
>> perhaps didn't need to return to Iraq, but I'm not certain of that,
>> because Saddam was working to get his hands on WMD as fast as he
>> could.
>
>Good points, but they take it as given that the US was acting
>philanthropically. I remain to be convinced. I suspect statistics
>comparing how much oil the US imported from Iraq in the last years of
>Saddam's reign compared to how much it currently imports would be very
>illuminating.
>
>Recently it seems that whenever the West intervenes in the Arab/Asian
>world, it always leaves the people disadvantaged. Women, certainly, are
>worse off in Afghanistan and Iraq than they were under previous regimes.
education, drive, wear other than a burqa, etc. being worse off in
that country? Getting rid of the Taliban certainly improved their lot
considerably in my estimation.
--
David
No email replies please.
24/05/2013
%
Frank McCoy
May 23, 2013, 11:09:55 AM5/23/13
to
right back in that mode ... mainly (again) to placate the Taliban.
invalidd
May 23, 2013, 11:23:42 AM5/23/13
to
into their legal framework, condemning women to second class status for
the forseeable future.
Jette Goldie
May 23, 2013, 1:27:53 PM5/23/13
to
--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com
Living in the Future!
Frank McCoy
May 23, 2013, 1:36:16 PM5/23/13
to
Tim Merrigan
May 23, 2013, 3:27:34 PM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:47:26 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
fields and refineries, after nearly a decade of no outside maintenance
supplies, were in far worse condition than anyone in charge expected.
They were literally being held together with bailing wire and duct
tape.* And since the Allied forces arrived and took over, they've had
to deal with an armed insurgency actively trying to prevent the oil
fields and refineries being brought back on line and brought up to
date, or delivering their product (a couple pipelines have been
bombed).
*I was going to say bailing wire and chewing gum, but that wouldn't be
literal.
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:19:51 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> to write:
>
>>Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:18:19 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>
>>> to write:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Which US war was more unnecessary? Vietnam or Iraq?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that depends. Which is less important? Stopping Communism or
>>> stopping terrorism?
>>>
>>> -Chris Zakes
>>> Texas
>>
>>Afghanistan was about stopping terrorism.
>>Iraq was about oil.
>
>Riiight. That certainly explains why gas prices are so much lower now
>than they were in 2003 at the time of the Iraq invasion.
>
>US gas prices:
>http://www.simplerna.com/2013/03/pump-gas-prices-2003-2013.html
>
>British petrol prices: http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html
>
> -Chirs Zakes
> Texas
Even were that true (not saying one way or the other), the Iraqi oil
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:19:51 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> to write:
>
>>Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 03:18:19 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Tesseract <hypertesseractBECA...@verywarm.com>
>>> to write:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Which US war was more unnecessary? Vietnam or Iraq?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that depends. Which is less important? Stopping Communism or
>>> stopping terrorism?
>>>
>>> -Chris Zakes
>>> Texas
>>
>>Afghanistan was about stopping terrorism.
>>Iraq was about oil.
>
>Riiight. That certainly explains why gas prices are so much lower now
>than they were in 2003 at the time of the Iraq invasion.
>
>US gas prices:
>http://www.simplerna.com/2013/03/pump-gas-prices-2003-2013.html
>
>British petrol prices: http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html
>
> -Chirs Zakes
> Texas
fields and refineries, after nearly a decade of no outside maintenance
supplies, were in far worse condition than anyone in charge expected.
They were literally being held together with bailing wire and duct
tape.* And since the Allied forces arrived and took over, they've had
to deal with an armed insurgency actively trying to prevent the oil
fields and refineries being brought back on line and brought up to
date, or delivering their product (a couple pipelines have been
bombed).
*I was going to say bailing wire and chewing gum, but that wouldn't be
literal.
Tim Merrigan
May 23, 2013, 3:34:29 PM5/23/13
to
Tim Merrigan
May 23, 2013, 3:38:43 PM5/23/13
to
Tim Merrigan
May 23, 2013, 3:42:29 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:01:01 +0100, invalidd
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
<inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
to leave their homes, or to get any education?
>
Jessica
May 23, 2013, 4:35:14 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:42:29 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
> Women in Afghanistan are worse off now than when they weren't allowed to
> leave their homes, or to get any education?
Now women are vulnerable to acid attacks and other similar crimes which if
> Women in Afghanistan are worse off now than when they weren't allowed to
> leave their homes, or to get any education?
they were ocurring to men there would be massive worldwide outcry.
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/world/meast/cnnheroes-jan-afghan-school>
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/22/afghanistan-gender-women-
taliban>
invalidd
May 23, 2013, 5:15:12 PM5/23/13
to
Love them or loathe them, men have evolved to be protective towards
women. That's why people are so appalled when a man hits a woman but not
so much when it's the other way around. I think the same applies to acid
attacks - the public regards men on men or women on men as less
abhorrent than men on women.
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 23, 2013, 6:06:31 PM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:35:14 PM UTC-4, Jessica wrote:
> Now women are vulnerable to acid attacks and other similar crimes which if
>
> they were ocurring to men there would be massive worldwide outcry.
Now women get medical care that was denied under the Taliban. Do you remember the outrage over the Taliban in Afghanistan a few years prior to 9/11? Do you remember the woman reporter who went undercover and what she filmed? Do you remember the clandestine video shot of executions in soccer fields?
> Now women are vulnerable to acid attacks and other similar crimes which if
>
> they were ocurring to men there would be massive worldwide outcry.
Are you truly arguing that this was *better?*
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 23, 2013, 6:09:21 PM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:34:29 PM UTC-4, Tim Merrigan wrote:
> Hook, line, and sinker.
Indeed? What part of my post do you deem untrue? And, if it's untrue, that implies you have information to the contrary. Trot it out and let's have a look at it.
> Hook, line, and sinker.
Indeed? What part of my post do you deem untrue? And, if it's untrue, that implies you have information to the contrary. Trot it out and let's have a look at it.
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 23, 2013, 6:11:42 PM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:38:43 PM UTC-4, Tim Merrigan wrote:
> Where would you like your bridge delivered?
Interesting response. Once again, can you refute what I posted? Surely you're not just trolling.
> Where would you like your bridge delivered?
Frank McCoy
May 23, 2013, 6:41:51 PM5/23/13
to
or just piece by piece?
Frank McCoy
May 23, 2013, 6:43:24 PM5/23/13
to
there. ;-{
SOME men in Afghanistan like their liberated women.
All too many it seems, do not.
Frank McCoy
May 23, 2013, 6:44:20 PM5/23/13
to
Frank McCoy
May 23, 2013, 6:45:05 PM5/23/13
to
Tim Merrigan
May 23, 2013, 7:49:37 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:35:14 +0000 (UTC), Jessica <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
And under the Taliban they were subject to government sanctioned
summery execution if they violated the rules, I think that's worse
than a small risk of acid attacks from individual nut cases.
wrote:
summery execution if they violated the rules, I think that's worse
than a small risk of acid attacks from individual nut cases.
Tim Merrigan
May 23, 2013, 7:51:56 PM5/23/13
to
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 23, 2013, 8:12:45 PM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:44:20 PM UTC-4, Frank McCoy wrote:
> No. We're arguing that such things are coming BACK, as we leave.
Ah. That's different. Unfortunately, I agree. We made the fundamental mistake in Afghanistan of not realizing that it's a fragmented country. The current leader of Afghanistan is more a power local to Kabul. What I think we should have done was instituted a Swiss-style confederation where each tribe is effectively their own state *and* not look all that close to how each tribe chooses the leader. That's closer to the reality of Afghanistan, and what they're used to.
> No. We're arguing that such things are coming BACK, as we leave.
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 23, 2013, 8:19:19 PM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:45:05 PM UTC-4, Frank McCoy wrote:
> Again: Line-by-line, or just overall?
First time I saw the post. Line-by-line, which in this case is topic-by-topic. My synopsis of the Gulf Wars, including action against the Iranians in the 1980s, is based on what I recall, which means news reports at the time. My assessment on why we picked the course we did after defeating Iraq is mostly opinion based on history, and offers more room for, well, opinion.
> Again: Line-by-line, or just overall?
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 23, 2013, 8:23:04 PM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:51:56 PM UTC-4, Tim Merrigan wrote:
> nearly all of it
And yet you don't give counter examples. Oh well.
Have a nice day.
> nearly all of it
And yet you don't give counter examples. Oh well.
Have a nice day.
Tim Merrigan
May 23, 2013, 8:39:10 PM5/23/13
to
as gospel troth, when in fact it was a fabric of lies. Even what they
seemed to believe themselves was largely based on self serving
fabrications on the part of their primary source.
Like I said, you bought their scam hook, line, and sinker.
Chris Zakes
May 23, 2013, 8:41:00 PM5/23/13
to
right, you make a greater profit than by raising the price.
If the eeevil oil companies just wanted to raise prices, why bother
invading Iraq at all? They could do that immediately, without having
to bribe, coerce or otherwise persuade the US and other governments to
mobilize their military for an invasion. (Not to mention the
improbability of those governments being bribed or coerced to that
degree and *nobody* blowing the whistle about it.)
"Like it was haunted, Dave said. He said the government hushed it up."
"Yeah, but your mate Dave says the government always hushes things up,
Nobby," said Fred.
"Well, they do."
"Except he always gets to hear about 'em, and *he* never gets hushed
up," said Fred.
-from "Thud" by Terry Pratchett
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
A properly balanced sword is the most versatile weapon for close quarters ever
devised... A sword never jams, never has to be reloaded, it is always ready.
-Oscar Gordon in "Glory Road" by Robert Heinlein
rincewind
May 23, 2013, 8:44:54 PM5/23/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4, Kim Jong un wrote:
> EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>
> treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>
> let this happen.
In order for Jane Fonda to be tried for treason. She would have to consort with the enemy during a time of war. (Unless she had access to secrets which she could pass on to "unfriendly" governments... which she didn't.)
We weren't at war. Jane's entire point of going over there was to point out that we were engaged in an unlawful aggression.
What she did was stupid, but if it had been treason, you can bet Dick Nixon would have grabbed her blonde ass as soon as she got back. He didn't because he knew it would be a media nightmare giving her a soapbox to continue to point out unlawful actions we were taking.
> EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>
> treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>
> let this happen.
In order for Jane Fonda to be tried for treason. She would have to consort with the enemy during a time of war. (Unless she had access to secrets which she could pass on to "unfriendly" governments... which she didn't.)
We weren't at war. Jane's entire point of going over there was to point out that we were engaged in an unlawful aggression.
What she did was stupid, but if it had been treason, you can bet Dick Nixon would have grabbed her blonde ass as soon as she got back. He didn't because he knew it would be a media nightmare giving her a soapbox to continue to point out unlawful actions we were taking.
Tim Merrigan
May 23, 2013, 8:57:06 PM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:04:16 -0700 (PDT), kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 7:19:51 AM UTC-4, invalidd wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 7:19:51 AM UTC-4, invalidd wrote:
>> Afghanistan was about stopping terrorism.
>>
>> Iraq was about oil.
>
>>
>> Iraq was about oil.
>
>Ah, no. *Kuwait* was about oil, namely keeping it flowing through the Arabian Gulf. You may or may not remember it, but the US skirmished with Iran in the 1980s with the goal of keeping open the Straits of Hormuz. Iraq, well, Iraq was something else.
Probably at least partly true, except that it's the Persian Gulf.
>
>Am I the only one here who remembers when Bill Clinton tried to drum up public support for going back into Iraq? Members of his administration went around with how Saddam was breaking the sanctions. And sanction enforcement *was* a pathetic joke, so much so it even showed up in skits. UN inspectors were notifying Saddam *before* inspections and fly-overs.
>
>Anywho, the GOP invoked talk of "Wag the Dog," and even DNC support was rather cool. I remember listening to a live "town meeting" on NPR, where this was a pointed question by the audience, and I remember asking myself if I would support going back in if Clinton wasn't, well, Clinton. I remember thinking that enforcement was necessary, but wasn't comfortable with the idea. Neither were most Americans, and Clinton dropped it.
>
>Fast forward to the 21st Century. The US was hit on 9/11. If Saddam had been as smart as Arafat, he would have bent over backwards to appear to side with US against terrorism. He could have come out of it not only with no sanctions, but as a US ally. But no: Saddam rattles the saber harder. He plays up research in weapons of mass destruction, and engages in activity that looks like he has WMD. He flaunts UN inspection more than he ever had.
>
>It's a stupid thing to stand next to someone shooting at a cop. It's even stupider to wave a pistol at a cop someone's shot at. It's stupider still to wave a toy gun at a cop someone's shot at. Saddam did all of the above. And unfortunately for him, the US took him seriously.
>
>So we did what Clinton wanted to do way back when: Took him out. And we discovered the WMD were overblown.
>Know, however, we did find some chemical weapons, and there was rumors of Saddam sending them to Syria, and Syria has recently used chemical weapons.
>
>We could have handled it better. We could have partitioned the country between the Kurds and other groups, told them to "Play nice or you know what we'll do," and went home. We tried to rebuild Iraq like Japan and Germany, but without regard that it took a strong man to hold a lid on things.
>
>So no, we didn't go into Iraq because of oil; we went because he was violating the sanctions,
>because it looked like he had WMD
>and ties to terrorist groups,
Talliban, whom he considered enemies, he being a secularist and they
fundamentalist.
>and fear that he'd arm them.
>In retrospect we perhaps didn't need to return to Iraq,
>but I'm not certain of that, because Saddam was working to get his hands on WMD as fast as he could.
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 23, 2013, 10:55:47 PM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:57:06 PM UTC-4, Tim Merrigan wrote:
> Probably at least partly true, except that it's the Persian Gulf.
Good catch. Here's something else I remembered tonight: The US didn't get a great amount of oil from Kuwait or Iraq. However, our allies did. That, and the Persian Gulf isn't a huge body of water, and has those straits. I happened to remember this from debates in the run-up to military action.
> Probably at least partly true, except that it's the Persian Gulf.
> >Know, however, we did find some chemical weapons, and there was rumors of Saddam sending them to Syria, and Syria has recently used chemical weapons.
>
>
>
> Pure, unadulterated speculation.
The rumor part is speculation. It was never proven that Syria had Iraqi chemical weapons. It is speculation on my part that the chemical weapons Syria has used now are from Saddam's Iraq. If there's any samples from when Saddam used them against the Kurds, it would be interesting to compare them to samples from Syria.
> >So no, we didn't go into Iraq because of oil; we went because he was violating the sanctions,
>
>
>
> As anyone in his position would.
> The Muslim Brotherhood and The Ba'ath Party, not al Qaida or the
>
> Talliban, whom he considered enemies, he being a secularist and they
>
> fundamentalist.
Why, you may ask, did I think that?
Because on 9/11 spontaneous celebrations broke out among Palestinians. Arafat, being no fool, put a quick stop to them. The next day, or the day after, there was a show of support *for* the US. And I remember thinking Arafat was a pretty smart dude.
Saddam had blundered once, with Kuwait. I thought he'd get a clue from Arafat and do something similar. It wouldn't have taken much not only to get sanctions lifted, but to wind up a US ally again. And Saddam could have still be reigning today.
> Only in the minds of the Allied powers that be.
> >In retrospect we perhaps didn't need to return to Iraq,
>
>
>
> No perhaps about it
David Simpson
May 24, 2013, 12:25:38 AM5/24/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:44:54 -0700 (PDT), rincewind
<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4, Kim Jong un wrote:
>> EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>>
>> treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>>
>> let this happen.
>
>In order for Jane Fonda to be tried for treason. She would have to consort with the enemy during a time of war. (Unless she had access to secrets which she could pass on to "unfriendly" governments... which she didn't.)
>
>We weren't at war. Jane's entire point of going over there was to point out that we were engaged in an unlawful aggression.
>
Except we were at war! It may have been undeclared on our side but
<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4, Kim Jong un wrote:
>> EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>>
>> treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>>
>> let this happen.
>
>In order for Jane Fonda to be tried for treason. She would have to consort with the enemy during a time of war. (Unless she had access to secrets which she could pass on to "unfriendly" governments... which she didn't.)
>
>We weren't at war. Jane's entire point of going over there was to point out that we were engaged in an unlawful aggression.
>
that didn't seem to bother the North Koreans.
--
David
No email replies please.
24/05/2013
An exotic journey in downtown Newark is in your future.
Frank McCoy
May 24, 2013, 1:18:59 AM5/24/13
to
David Simpson <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:44:54 -0700 (PDT), rincewind
><edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4, Kim Jong un wrote:
>>> EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>>>
>>> treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>>>
>>> let this happen.
>>
>>In order for Jane Fonda to be tried for treason. She would have to consort with the enemy during a time of war. (Unless she had access to secrets which she could pass on to "unfriendly" governments... which she didn't.)
>>
>>We weren't at war. Jane's entire point of going over there was to point out that we were engaged in an unlawful aggression.
>>
>Except we were at war! It may have been undeclared on our side but
>that didn't seem to bother the North Koreans.
Then we should have DECLARED war.
>On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:44:54 -0700 (PDT), rincewind
><edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4, Kim Jong un wrote:
>>> EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>>>
>>> treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>>>
>>> let this happen.
>>
>>In order for Jane Fonda to be tried for treason. She would have to consort with the enemy during a time of war. (Unless she had access to secrets which she could pass on to "unfriendly" governments... which she didn't.)
>>
>>We weren't at war. Jane's entire point of going over there was to point out that we were engaged in an unlawful aggression.
>>
>Except we were at war! It may have been undeclared on our side but
>that didn't seem to bother the North Koreans.
If we don't, we can't legitimately complain about citizens acting as
if we weren't at war.
Jette Goldie
May 24, 2013, 2:34:37 AM5/24/13
to
On 23/05/2013 22:15, invalidd wrote:
> Jessica wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:42:29 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Women in Afghanistan are worse off now than when they weren't allowed to
>>> leave their homes, or to get any education?
>>
>>
>> Now women are vulnerable to acid attacks and other similar crimes
>> which if they were ocurring to men there would be massive worldwide
>> outcry.
>> <http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/world/meast/cnnheroes-jan-afghan-school>
>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/22/afghanistan-gender-women-
>> taliban>
>
> I disagree with that last part.
>
> Love them or loathe them, men have evolved to be protective towards
> women.
Umm, nope.
> Jessica wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:42:29 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Women in Afghanistan are worse off now than when they weren't allowed to
>>> leave their homes, or to get any education?
>>
>>
>> Now women are vulnerable to acid attacks and other similar crimes
>> which if they were ocurring to men there would be massive worldwide
>> outcry.
>> <http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/world/meast/cnnheroes-jan-afghan-school>
>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/22/afghanistan-gender-women-
>> taliban>
>
> I disagree with that last part.
>
> Love them or loathe them, men have evolved to be protective towards
> women.
>That's why people are so appalled when a man hits a woman but not
> so much when it's the other way around. I think the same applies to acid
> attacks - the public regards men on men or women on men as less
> abhorrent than men on women.
>
property" Do you advocate randomly attacking random males in the
street? No? Then why do you consider it special to "protect" women?
--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com
Living in the Future!
Tim Merrigan
May 24, 2013, 5:31:42 AM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 00:18:59 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:
>David Simpson <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:44:54 -0700 (PDT), rincewind
>><edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4, Kim Jong un wrote:
>>>> EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>>>>
>>>> treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>>>>
>>>> let this happen.
>>>
>>>In order for Jane Fonda to be tried for treason. She would have to consort with the enemy during a time of war. (Unless she had access to secrets which she could pass on to "unfriendly" governments... which she didn't.)
>>>
>>>We weren't at war. Jane's entire point of going over there was to point out that we were engaged in an unlawful aggression.
>>>
>>Except we were at war! It may have been undeclared on our side but
>>that didn't seem to bother the North Koreans.
What did the North Koreans have to do with it.
wrote:
>David Simpson <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:44:54 -0700 (PDT), rincewind
>><edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4, Kim Jong un wrote:
>>>> EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>>>>
>>>> treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>>>>
>>>> let this happen.
>>>
>>>In order for Jane Fonda to be tried for treason. She would have to consort with the enemy during a time of war. (Unless she had access to secrets which she could pass on to "unfriendly" governments... which she didn't.)
>>>
>>>We weren't at war. Jane's entire point of going over there was to point out that we were engaged in an unlawful aggression.
>>>
>>Except we were at war! It may have been undeclared on our side but
>>that didn't seem to bother the North Koreans.
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 24, 2013, 7:11:17 AM5/24/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:34:37 AM UTC-4, Jette wrote:
> Even the "protective towards women" myth is part of the "women are men's
>
> property" Do you advocate randomly attacking random males in the
>
> street? No? Then why do you consider it special to "protect" women?
You might want to reflect on the dimorphism of the species and perhaps why men tend to be larger than women. You might want to reflect that men tend to defend their loved ones to the point of giving their lives. Here is where your assertion breaks down: If a protectiveness toward women is a function of treating women as property, it would not extend to giving one's own life, nor would it account for men giving their lives for those they do not know. Like it or not, we may be hardwired along these lines.
> Even the "protective towards women" myth is part of the "women are men's
>
> property" Do you advocate randomly attacking random males in the
>
> street? No? Then why do you consider it special to "protect" women?
kevi...@yahoo.com
May 24, 2013, 7:27:51 AM5/24/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:18:59 AM UTC-4, Frank McCoy wrote:
> Then we should have DECLARED war.
>
> If we don't, we can't legitimately complain about citizens acting as
>
> if we weren't at war.
There's much to be said for this point of view. Our founders feared an army that operated at the pleasure of the ruler. Hence small standing armies and congressional declarations of war. We've always bent it somewhat: Washington himself led troops in the Whiskey Rebellion, yet it was never declared as a war; I don't think there was a declaration of war for any of the Indian Wars, but could be wrong. Our biggest war in terms of casualties per capita was the Civil War, and that was undeclared for a huge political reason.* I don't think we declared war when we sent troops to Latin America, or into Western Russia (in the little known expedition against the revolution**). Did we declare war against the pirates of Tripoli?
> Then we should have DECLARED war.
>
> If we don't, we can't legitimately complain about citizens acting as
>
> if we weren't at war.
Usually, though, the Marines were traditionally the President's troops, which h deployed as he saw fit, and actions involving the Army traditionally required declarations of war. Getting declarations can be politically iffy, and when your unfriendly neighborhood nuclear power is backing the opposing faction, it's comforting to use the term "police action" instead of war.*** Yet there's a reason for the declaration of war, one we've seem to have forgotten as a nation.
*It would have acknowledged the independence of the Confederate States. It's why the North was uneasy about bringing Jefferson Davis to trial, and why the US Army had a heck of a time disposing of property it seized in Macon, Georgia, near the end of the war. A Georgia court finally ruled that it was seized though the invasion of a foreign country, and the Army, happy to be able to dispose of the white elephant, didn't quibble.
**Not much is said of this unsuccessful expedition. We might have forgotten about it, but the Soviets didn't.
***To this day China has a treaty with North Korea to defend her from attack. So does Russia, then the USSR. Russia made it a point years ago of reminding everyone the treaty was still in effect. They may not like Dear Leader II anymore than anyone else, but they like a strong US ally on their borders even less. Police actions are undeclared wars by any other name, but politicians and diplomats will grab whatever fig leaf they can, no matter how small it may be.
invalidd
May 24, 2013, 7:42:32 AM5/24/13
to
Jette Goldie wrote:
> On 23/05/2013 22:15, invalidd wrote:
>
>> Love them or loathe them, men have evolved to be protective towards
>> women.
>
>
> Umm, nope.
You don't think it was in men's interests to protect their wives, the
> On 23/05/2013 22:15, invalidd wrote:
>
>> Love them or loathe them, men have evolved to be protective towards
>> women.
>
>
> Umm, nope.
mothers of their families? You think men who impregnated women then
buggered off gave their offspring an equal or better chance in life?
>
>> That's why people are so appalled when a man hits a woman but not
>> so much when it's the other way around. I think the same applies to acid
>> attacks - the public regards men on men or women on men as less
>> abhorrent than men on women.
>>
>
>
> Even the "protective towards women" myth is part of the "women are men's
> property"
I saw two men in a fight I'd probably leave them alone and call the
police. Where have I said that I think "women are men's property"?
> Do you advocate randomly attacking random males in the
> street? No?
attacking anyone in the street. What have I said that makes you think
otherwise?
> Then why do you consider it special to "protect" women?
inherently unfair. Because they have the most responsibility for the
next generation - giving birth and nurturing and caring through
childhood - so any attack on women is an attack on our future.
Chris Zakes
May 24, 2013, 9:23:38 AM5/24/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:57:06 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:04:16 -0700 (PDT), kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
(snip)
caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:04:16 -0700 (PDT), kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>but I'm not certain of that, because Saddam was working to get his hands on WMD as fast as he could.
>
>With little or no success.
*did* use poison gas against the Kurds in the 1980s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
Chris Zakes
May 24, 2013, 9:26:32 AM5/24/13
to
Union) declaring war on the US. Ugly as the situation was, I can see
why the US government didn't want to do that.
rincewind
May 24, 2013, 10:39:07 AM5/24/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:25:38 AM UTC-4, David Simpson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:44:54 -0700 (PDT), rincewind
>
> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4, Kim Jong un wrote:
>
> >> EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>
> >>
>
> >> treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>
> >>
>
> >> let this happen.
>
> >
>
> >In order for Jane Fonda to be tried for treason. She would have to consort with the enemy during a time of war. (Unless she had access to secrets which she could pass on to "unfriendly" governments... which she didn't.)
>
> >
>
> >We weren't at war. Jane's entire point of going over there was to point out that we were engaged in an unlawful aggression.
>
> >
>
> Except we were at war! It may have been undeclared on our side but
>
> that didn't seem to bother the North Koreans.
"War" is a legal state. It has to be declared. We didn't declare war. We went over supposedly to aid the Vietnamese in their battle against the Viet Cong. When that didn't work out and we started getting shot at, we shot back. Then it escalated. But we were never "at war" as it was never declared.
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:44:54 -0700 (PDT), rincewind
>
> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:27:30 PM UTC-4, Kim Jong un wrote:
>
> >> EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REPOST THIS! EVERYBODY! Jane Fonda committed
>
> >>
>
> >> treason and now OBAMA wants to honor her for her actions. We can not
>
> >>
>
> >> let this happen.
>
> >
>
> >In order for Jane Fonda to be tried for treason. She would have to consort with the enemy during a time of war. (Unless she had access to secrets which she could pass on to "unfriendly" governments... which she didn't.)
>
> >
>
> >We weren't at war. Jane's entire point of going over there was to point out that we were engaged in an unlawful aggression.
>
> >
>
> Except we were at war! It may have been undeclared on our side but
>
> that didn't seem to bother the North Koreans.
rincewind
May 24, 2013, 10:55:38 AM5/24/13
to
> >>>We weren't at war. Jane's entire point of going over there was to point out that we were engaged in an unlawful aggression.
>
> >>Except we were at war! It may have been undeclared on our side but
> >>that didn't seem to bother the North Koreans.
>
> >Then we should have DECLARED war.
> >If we don't, we can't legitimately complain about citizens acting as
> >if we weren't at war.
>
> Which probably would have resulted in China (and possibly the Soviet
> Union) declaring war on the US. Ugly as the situation was, I can see
> why the US government didn't want to do that.
Say what you will about "stupid politicians," (and I have, at length) there's a reason why not just ANYBODY can make these decisions. Not everybody works out the consequences. (For that matter, neither Kennedy, Johnson nor Nixon worked out the consequences of continuing to pour men and arms into this situation. Vietnam was not Korea and the outcome wasn't properly considered.)
Frank McCoy
May 24, 2013, 5:03:32 PM5/24/13
to
kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:34:37 AM UTC-4, Jette wrote:
>> Even the "protective towards women" myth is part of the "women are men's
>>
>> property" Do you advocate randomly attacking random males in the
>>
>> street? No? Then why do you consider it special to "protect" women?
>
>You might want to reflect on the dimorphism of the species and perhaps why men tend to be larger than women.
>You might want to reflect that men tend to defend their loved ones to the point of giving their lives.
s/loved one/property
>On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:34:37 AM UTC-4, Jette wrote:
>> Even the "protective towards women" myth is part of the "women are men's
>>
>> property" Do you advocate randomly attacking random males in the
>>
>> street? No? Then why do you consider it special to "protect" women?
>
>You might want to reflect on the dimorphism of the species and perhaps why men tend to be larger than women.
>You might want to reflect that men tend to defend their loved ones to the point of giving their lives.
>Here is where your assertion breaks down: If a protectiveness toward women is a function of treating women as property, it would not extend to giving one's own life, nor would it account for men giving their lives for those they do not know. Like it or not, we may be hardwired along these lines.
Frank McCoy
May 24, 2013, 5:06:31 PM5/24/13
to
My computer is going ....
Something, somewhere is turning off ALL of my windows' services; and
there's no easy way to turn them back on again except service by
service.
And, I'm not even sure WHICH of those 200+ "services" I really want.
I feel like a cow being "serviced" by a bull ... but without the fun.
Frank McCoy
May 24, 2013, 5:08:14 PM5/24/13
to
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:57:06 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>
>>On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:04:16 -0700 (PDT), kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>>but I'm not certain of that, because Saddam was working to get his hands on WMD as fast as he could.
>>
>>With little or no success.
>
>Depends on how you define "little or no success." Remember that Saddam
>*did* use poison gas against the Kurds in the 1980s.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
>
Yes, but he said, correctly, that he'd gotten rid of them all.
>On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:57:06 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>
>>On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:04:16 -0700 (PDT), kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>>but I'm not certain of that, because Saddam was working to get his hands on WMD as fast as he could.
>>
>>With little or no success.
>
>Depends on how you define "little or no success." Remember that Saddam
>*did* use poison gas against the Kurds in the 1980s.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
>
We LOOKED desperately to find any to help justify attacking him.
All they ever found were a few empty/dead shells buried in the desert.
Jette Goldie
May 24, 2013, 5:38:48 PM5/24/13
to
On 24/05/2013 03:55, kevi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:57:06 PM UTC-4, Tim Merrigan wrote:
>> Probably at least partly true, except that it's the Persian Gulf.
>
> Good catch. Here's something else I remembered tonight: The US didn't get a great amount of oil from Kuwait or Iraq. However, our allies did. That, and the Persian Gulf isn't a huge body of water, and has those straits. I happened to remember this from debates in the run-up to military action.
>
>>> Know, however, we did find some chemical weapons, and there was rumors of Saddam sending them to Syria, and Syria has recently used chemical weapons.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pure, unadulterated speculation.
>
> The chemical weapons weren't. I remember seeing photos of the shells, which, curiously, wasn't reported on the nightly news. Odd thing that. IIRC, some of the equipment Saddam wasn't supposed to have was from France and Germany. France wasn't a big surprise: There's long been trade ties in the Middle East with France. Germany was.
>
wasn't reported on the nightly news because it didn't happen. faked,
> On Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:57:06 PM UTC-4, Tim Merrigan wrote:
>> Probably at least partly true, except that it's the Persian Gulf.
>
> Good catch. Here's something else I remembered tonight: The US didn't get a great amount of oil from Kuwait or Iraq. However, our allies did. That, and the Persian Gulf isn't a huge body of water, and has those straits. I happened to remember this from debates in the run-up to military action.
>
>>> Know, however, we did find some chemical weapons, and there was rumors of Saddam sending them to Syria, and Syria has recently used chemical weapons.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pure, unadulterated speculation.
>
> The chemical weapons weren't. I remember seeing photos of the shells, which, curiously, wasn't reported on the nightly news. Odd thing that. IIRC, some of the equipment Saddam wasn't supposed to have was from France and Germany. France wasn't a big surprise: There's long been trade ties in the Middle East with France. Germany was.
>
fraud, forged.
David Simpson
May 24, 2013, 5:46:19 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT), rincewind
The fact that we were shot at is tantamount to a declaration of war in
my book. We didn't need to declare an existent state,
%
my book. We didn't need to declare an existent state,
--
David
No email replies please.
25/05/2013
David
No email replies please.
%
David Simpson
May 24, 2013, 5:49:51 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:06:31 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:
Read
http://www.jasonn.com/turning_off_unnecessary_services_on_windows_xp
wrote:
http://www.jasonn.com/turning_off_unnecessary_services_on_windows_xp
Jim Hetley
May 24, 2013, 5:54:18 PM5/24/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 5:46:19 PM UTC-4, David Simpson wrote:
>
>
>
> The fact that we were shot at is tantamount to a declaration of war in
>
> my book. We didn't need to declare an existent state,
>
>
The VC and NVA shot at us because we sent armed forces into their country. If we hadn't been there, they wouldn't have shot at us.
>
>
>
> The fact that we were shot at is tantamount to a declaration of war in
>
> my book. We didn't need to declare an existent state,
>
>
Jim
(Army veteran of that little unpleasantness.)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages