Funny dig at Bush
Steve Carroll
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
Steve
p.s. This site is proof that Bush is a war criminal!
Snit
I must say, it did get me to laugh. Good to see you accepting it as proof,
too. Glad we can put that nastiness aside. Whew.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Well, I think it's funny:
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
>
Faaar too common...
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
zurg
Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> > http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
> >
>
> Faaar too common...
True... Bush lies far too frequently.
Andrew J. Brehm
I meant the joke.
At some point one just gets used to certain jokes. I wish people would
come up with new jokes.
zurg
Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> At some point one just gets used to certain jokes. I wish people would
> come up with new jokes.
I wish Bush would come up with some new lies. He seems to get away with
telling the same ones over and over again.
Andrew J. Brehm
I do think we are talking about two different subjects.
As I said before, I was talking about the jokes. I am waiting for _new_
jokes, maybe a new subject. "Bush is dumb" will always get you laughs,
but it's cheap and boring and very often used by idiotic lefties who
can't offer any arguments against Bush nor a viable alternative to his
policies and thus resort to such jokes to hide their own incompetence.
There was a time when satire (not cheap jokes but intelligent satire)
was a method to point to drawbacks of certain policies or
inconsistencies in a position. But now it seems to have become a method
to hide one's own incompetence rather than to point out others'.
It's very very sad.
It's also bad for the left because the left is now making the same
stupid mistakes as the right did wrt Clinton, only much more agressive
and even more futile. Conservatives won't just change their opinion just
because the left refuses to provide alternatives or any argument besides
"Bush is dumb". It's only when the left gets it that there could be a
change of policy in the US. And it's very sad because Bush, for all the
good his foreign policy does, is, I believe, currently ruining the USA
internally and the Democrats use every chance they have to make sure the
focus remains on the war where the vast majority support Bush and not
the left-wing positions (and thank G-d for that).
I have been watching Rik Mayall in The New Statesman a lot recently just
to remind me that funny jokes about the right wing were still possible
just a few years ago.
Snit
> zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1g8sng0.ujo8ke1x1qflkN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J.
>> Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
>>
>>> At some point one just gets used to certain jokes. I wish people would
>>> come up with new jokes.
>>
>> I wish Bush would come up with some new lies. He seems to get away with
>> telling the same ones over and over again.
>
> I do think we are talking about two different subjects.
>
> As I said before, I was talking about the jokes. I am waiting for _new_
> jokes, maybe a new subject. "Bush is dumb" will always get you laughs,
> but it's cheap and boring and very often used by idiotic lefties who
> can't offer any arguments against Bush nor a viable alternative to his
> policies and thus resort to such jokes to hide their own incompetence.
While I am one who questions President Bush's intelligence myself, I agree -
if you are going to use his intelligence in a joke, it should be based on
some of his real errors or examples of where he shows his weak intellect.
Often people point to his verbal errors - even this is a bit cheap (though
they can be funny), but his lack of being a good off-the-cuff speaker does
not mean he is not a bright guy.
For a decent site on Bush's intellect, look at:
http://irregulartimes.com/stupid2.html
Another funny site on Bush... one that made me laugh out loud
http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.htm
It is funny because of the level of truth in it. Is it 100% true? Of
course not - it is meant to be funny. And, in my view, it is.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/7/04 8:21 PM:
>
> > zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1g8sng0.ujo8ke1x1qflkN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J.
> >> Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> At some point one just gets used to certain jokes. I wish people would
> >>> come up with new jokes.
> >>
> >> I wish Bush would come up with some new lies. He seems to get away with
> >> telling the same ones over and over again.
> >
> > I do think we are talking about two different subjects.
> >
> > As I said before, I was talking about the jokes. I am waiting for _new_
> > jokes, maybe a new subject. "Bush is dumb" will always get you laughs,
> > but it's cheap and boring and very often used by idiotic lefties who
> > can't offer any arguments against Bush nor a viable alternative to his
> > policies and thus resort to such jokes to hide their own incompetence.
>
> While I am one who questions President Bush's intelligence myself, I agree -
> if you are going to use his intelligence in a joke, it should be based on
> some of his real errors or examples of where he shows his weak intellect.
Exactly. That would be a beginning.
> Often people point to his verbal errors - even this is a bit cheap (though
> they can be funny), but his lack of being a good off-the-cuff speaker does
> not mean he is not a bright guy.
His verbal errors are funny for a while, not when you find that the same
quotes still circulate the 'net even after a year or so.
> For a decent site on Bush's intellect, look at:
>
> http://irregulartimes.com/stupid2.html
Yes, the direction is right. It's not remotely the quality of the satire
of a few years ago, but at least they point towards Bush's mistakes
rather than his successes (which one happens to disagree about).
> Another funny site on Bush... one that made me laugh out loud
>
> http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.htm
Too direct. The author seems to simply hate Bush and that's all he
sucecssfully brings across.
One of my favourite shows on TV is "Yes, Minister", a 1980s sitcom about
an incompetent but lovable minister of the Thatcher administration and
his battles with the civil service. The show is legendary for its
ironically accurate portrayal of how one imagines government to work (or
would imagine, had one the phantasy and creativity of the authors).
And even though they show made fun of Mrs Thatcher and her ministers it
was reportedly Mrs Thatcher's favourite TV show and she even appeared in
a talk show with the two main characters playing a sketch she wrote
herself (she playd the prime minister in the sketch).
THAT was excellent satire.
But I'm afraid today's left wing parodies seem to be mild and stupid
while today's conservatives are much softer and more moderate than their
predecessors on the political stage.
> It is funny because of the level of truth in it. Is it 100% true? Of
> course not - it is meant to be funny. And, in my view, it is.
It is funny but it gets tiresome, pretty quickly.
I still watch Yes, Minister even after twenty years the show still does
what current satire cannot do: portray the silliness of conservatism, of
government, of the whole establishment, without simply displaying open
hatred for the government, ignorance about the target of the satire, and
creating boredom among moderates and supporters of the targets rather
than causing some self-criticism.
Snit
True, but the first time I saw it I was caught off guard. It seemed to be
reasonable, at first, and then slipped into total Bush hatred. The level of
"real" critique or information is not high. But again, I did laugh out loud
when I saw it.
>
> One of my favourite shows on TV is "Yes, Minister", a 1980s sitcom about
> an incompetent but lovable minister of the Thatcher administration and
> his battles with the civil service. The show is legendary for its
> ironically accurate portrayal of how one imagines government to work (or
> would imagine, had one the phantasy and creativity of the authors).
>
> And even though they show made fun of Mrs Thatcher and her ministers it
> was reportedly Mrs Thatcher's favourite TV show and she even appeared in
> a talk show with the two main characters playing a sketch she wrote
> herself (she playd the prime minister in the sketch).
>
> THAT was excellent satire.
>
> But I'm afraid today's left wing parodies seem to be mild and stupid
> while today's conservatives are much softer and more moderate than their
> predecessors on the political stage.
Seems much of American thought is reduced to bumper sticker slogans. I
think what you are describing reflects that.
>
>> It is funny because of the level of truth in it. Is it 100% true? Of
>> course not - it is meant to be funny. And, in my view, it is.
>
> It is funny but it gets tiresome, pretty quickly.
Yes - it does. No disagreement here. And the number of similar jokes do
make this one seem trite. I just think it is done a bit better than many of
the similar ones.
>
> I still watch Yes, Minister even after twenty years the show still does
> what current satire cannot do: portray the silliness of conservatism, of
> government, of the whole establishment, without simply displaying open
> hatred for the government, ignorance about the target of the satire, and
> creating boredom among moderates and supporters of the targets rather
> than causing some self-criticism.
I am not familiar with the show. If I get a chance, I will watch an
episode. Thanks.
Franè…”is de Dardel
>Bush, for all the good his foreign policy doe
Yes, about as good, thoughtful and efficient as treading on an anthill.
François de Dardel
http:/mapage.noos.fr/dardelf
Faber est suae quisque fortunae
Remove fourteen to reply
Enlever le quatorze
zurg
Franè…”is de Dardel <dard...@noos.fr> wrote:
> >Bush, for all the good his foreign policy doe
>
> Yes, about as good, thoughtful and efficient as treading on an anthill.
I'd say giving Bush's foreign policy even that much credit is extremely
generous.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/7/04 11:36 PM:
>
> >> Another funny site on Bush... one that made me laugh out loud
> >>
> >> http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.htm
> >
> > Too direct. The author seems to simply hate Bush and that's all he
> > sucecssfully brings across.
>
> True, but the first time I saw it I was caught off guard. It seemed to be
> reasonable, at first, and then slipped into total Bush hatred. The level
> of "real" critique or information is not high. But again, I did laugh out
> loud when I saw it.
Yes, I think that description fits.
> > One of my favourite shows on TV is "Yes, Minister", a 1980s sitcom about
> > an incompetent but lovable minister of the Thatcher administration and
> > his battles with the civil service. The show is legendary for its
> > ironically accurate portrayal of how one imagines government to work (or
> > would imagine, had one the phantasy and creativity of the authors).
> >
> > And even though they show made fun of Mrs Thatcher and her ministers it
> > was reportedly Mrs Thatcher's favourite TV show and she even appeared in
> > a talk show with the two main characters playing a sketch she wrote
> > herself (she playd the prime minister in the sketch).
> >
> > THAT was excellent satire.
> >
> > But I'm afraid today's left wing parodies seem to be mild and stupid
> > while today's conservatives are much softer and more moderate than their
> > predecessors on the political stage.
>
> Seems much of American thought is reduced to bumper sticker slogans. I
> think what you are describing reflects that.
You are probably right.
> >> It is funny because of the level of truth in it. Is it 100% true? Of
> >> course not - it is meant to be funny. And, in my view, it is.
> >
> > It is funny but it gets tiresome, pretty quickly.
>
> Yes - it does. No disagreement here. And the number of similar jokes do
> make this one seem trite. I just think it is done a bit better than many
> of the similar ones.
Yes, it is indeed. But that's the problem, isn't it.
I wrote about that kind of problem here:
<http://homepage.mac.com/ajbrehm/iblog/B2040711210/C1262430134/E74543626
8/index.html>
This also explains how I came to watch British tv shows in Germany: I
have taken to ordering all I want to watch on DVD.
> > I still watch Yes, Minister even after twenty years the show still does
> > what current satire cannot do: portray the silliness of conservatism, of
> > government, of the whole establishment, without simply displaying open
> > hatred for the government, ignorance about the target of the satire, and
> > creating boredom among moderates and supporters of the targets rather
> > than causing some self-criticism.
>
> I am not familiar with the show. If I get a chance, I will watch an
> episode. Thanks.
The BBC have video clips:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/y/yesminister_7777145.shtml>
Andrew J. Brehm
> On 2004-02-08 04:21:41 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) said:
> >Bush, for all the good his foreign policy does
>
> Yes, about as good, thoughtful and efficient as treading on an anthill.
>
And there is the French stereotype. Welcome! We have been awaiting you.
You have, of course, brought with you an argument that would explain why
the president's foreign policy was of such qualities as you describe?
GreyCloud
> FranŸois de Dardel <dard...@noos.fr> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2004-02-08 04:21:41 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) said:
>>
>>>Bush, for all the good his foreign policy does
>>
>>Yes, about as good, thoughtful and efficient as treading on an anthill.
>>
>
>
> And there is the French stereotype. Welcome! We have been awaiting you.
>
> You have, of course, brought with you an argument that would explain why
> the president's foreign policy was of such qualities as you describe?
>
But does the public really know what the foreign policy is?
I'd say that if the public really knew what is going on there'd be a few
suicides.
Ever heard of Woods Hole Oceanographics?
Bob B.
I too am frustrated by much of the "criticism" from the left. Much of
the left's criticism of Bush consists of name calling - he is "stupid"
or a "war criminal" or a "deserter" - rather than any sort or reasoned
argument. Not the sort of thing that will convince anyone, and in fact
probably just puts most people off.
There are plenty of good reasons to be unhappy with Bush. But by going
for the most extreme - saying he is a war criminal, based on, well,
nothing really - or saying he is stupid based on misstatements from his
speeches - is counter productive. There are so many issues that would
resonate with voters if you want to convince them to not support Bush,
why focus on vague, unprovable charges?
The Democrats finally seem to have sensed this, and have rejected the
angry, somewhat paranoid Dean and Clark for someone who will focus on
issues, and not vague conspiracy theories.
Bob B.
John Q. Public
<bob...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> I too am frustrated by much of the "criticism" from the left. Much of
> the left's criticism of Bush consists of name calling - he is "stupid"
> or a "war criminal" or a "deserter" - rather than any sort or reasoned
> argument. Not the sort of thing that will convince anyone, and in fact
> probably just puts most people off.
>
> There are plenty of good reasons to be unhappy with Bush. But by going
> for the most extreme - saying he is a war criminal, based on, well,
> nothing really - or saying he is stupid based on misstatements from his
> speeches - is counter productive. There are so many issues that would
> resonate with voters if you want to convince them to not support Bush,
> why focus on vague, unprovable charges?
>
> The Democrats finally seem to have sensed this, and have rejected the
> angry, somewhat paranoid Dean and Clark for someone who will focus on
> issues, and not vague conspiracy theories.
>
> Bob B.
Yes, just tell me that President Bush is like Adolf Hitler and the
administration are Nazis. Then I know that you really have nothing
much to say.
Franè…”is de Dardel
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>
> > Fran?ois de Dardel <dard...@noos.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2004-02-08 04:21:41 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> > > Brehm) said:
> > >
> > > > Bush, for all the good his foreign policy does
> > >
> > > Yes, about as good, thoughtful and efficient as treading on an
> > > anthill.
> >
> > And there is the French stereotype. Welcome! We have been awaiting
> > you.
> >
> > You have, of course, brought with you an argument that would
> > explain why
> > the president's foreign policy was of such qualities as you
> > describe?
Plenty. For more than two years. See my pages below, or go directly to
http:/mapage.noos.fr/dardelf/reactions.html
--
zurg
Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> And there is the French stereotype. Welcome! We have been awaiting you.
Yeah, good thing there aren't any American stereotypes around here. You
know, people who dogmatically accept and defend anything President Bush
does. Good thing only French people against illegally invading
basically defenseless countries on shaky grounds are the real
stereotype.
Point one finger at others and you have three pointing back at you,
right?
Snit
> In article <1g8u8d3.uqe8st1bu1kjkN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J.
> Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
>
>> And there is the French stereotype. Welcome! We have been awaiting you.
>
> Yeah, good thing there aren't any American stereotypes around here. You
> know, people who dogmatically accept and defend anything President Bush
> does. Good thing only French people against illegally invading
> basically defenseless countries on shaky grounds are the real
> stereotype.
You mean... gasp... the war was illegal, immoral, and based on things other
than what the US government stated! Nooooooo.....!!!!
Sad that some many people are not able to see that.
zurg
> I too am frustrated by much of the "criticism" from the left. Much of
> the left's criticism of Bush consists of name calling - he is "stupid"
> or a "war criminal" or a "deserter" - rather than any sort or reasoned
> argument. Not the sort of thing that will convince anyone, and in fact
> probably just puts most people off.
If that's really your take on the "left" (which, in conservative-speak,
seems to encompass anyone who disagrees with the party line) then you
have not really bothered to go out and find out why exactly people are
moved to throw around such terms.
I'm left-leaning in my politics, but I would have given Bush very high
marks for his first year in office. But I no longer feel that way. I've
been watching the broken promises, the intentional deception, the
almost daily gearing switching, the finger pointing, the out-of-control
justice dept. (what happened to all you anti-Janet Reno types out
there? You think John Ashcroft is better?) and the bullheaded
insistence on invading Iraq against the overwhelming worldwide dissent
and despite the fact that everyone knew from the start exactly what was
really going on there.
THAT is why people like me who would have seriously entertained voting
for Bush after his first year in office have changed our tunes. He's
possibly the worst president in my lifetime, not even barring Richard
Nixon.
I'm not going to waste my time going over the information that's freely
available out there. If you're really interested to know why a lot of
reasonable people despise George W. Bush and his abhorrent policies,
then fire up your browser and start looking around. Frankly, most
people I encounter who talk like you actually don't care to know. Your
choice.
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1g8u8d3.uqe8st1bu1kjkN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J.
> Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
>
> > And there is the French stereotype. Welcome! We have been awaiting you.
>
> Yeah, good thing there aren't any American stereotypes around here. You
> know, people who dogmatically accept and defend anything President Bush
> does. Good thing only French people against illegally invading basically
> defenseless countries on shaky grounds are the real stereotype.
What exactly is the point of telling me your opinion about the legality
of the war? Even if you were right, do you really think I should value
legality over morality?
It was MORALLY WRONG to let Iraqis suffer under Saddam, whether it was
legally right or whether we were even obligated to allow Saddam to
torture his people is of no importance.
And it was GOOD that Iraq was defenseless. Because if it hadn't been,
more people would have died.
I understand neither why you value laws over lifes nor why you seem to
be upset that the tyrant wasn't able to defend himself.
> Point one finger at others and you have three pointing back at you,
> right?
What's that supposed to mean now?
Andrew J. Brehm
> If you're really interested to know why a lot of reasonable people despise
> George W. Bush and his abhorrent policies, then fire up your browser and
> start looking around.
http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
You and I clearly have very different definitions of "abhorrent".
B.B.
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
@zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
@
@> In article <1g8u8d3.uqe8st1bu1kjkN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J.
@> Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
@>
@> > And there is the French stereotype. Welcome! We have been awaiting you.
@>
@> Yeah, good thing there aren't any American stereotypes around here. You
@> know, people who dogmatically accept and defend anything President Bush
@> does. Good thing only French people against illegally invading basically
@> defenseless countries on shaky grounds are the real stereotype.
@
@What exactly is the point of telling me your opinion about the legality
@of the war? Even if you were right, do you really think I should value
@legality over morality?
@
@It was MORALLY WRONG to let Iraqis suffer under Saddam, whether it was
@legally right or whether we were even obligated to allow Saddam to
@torture his people is of no importance.
Umm, how many Iraqis have died since the war started? And how many
are malnourished/without water/without electricity/without shelter?
@And it was GOOD that Iraq was defenseless. Because if it hadn't been,
@more people would have died.
Though, if Iraq had some defenses we probably would ahve bombed them
instead of Baghdad, where all the civilians were.
@I understand neither why you value laws over lifes nor why you seem to
@be upset that the tyrant wasn't able to defend himself.
I believe the differences in opinion (in part) boil down to whether
you think Saddam actually was worse than Bush is. I do not.
More of the argument is probably a matter of if you think the US is
obligated to go around "fixing" other nations and making them
good--whatever definition of good you use. I don't believe that either.
And the remainder is likely how much of a threat y9ou think Saddam
presented to the rest of the world. I guess you didn't see him as a
threat since you refer to Iraq as "defenseless."
@> Point one finger at others and you have three pointing back at you,
@> right?
@
@What's that supposed to mean now?
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Iraq-LIES/LIES/britt.gif
David Fritzinger
BB, while I *really* want Bush out of office this year, I have to
disagree with your conention that he is worse than Saddam. Bush may be
one of the worst presidents of all time (IMHO), but he is not the
murderer that Saddam. I guess this means that, while I think the war
was a mistake, and the Bush administration was, at least to some
extent, dishonest in pushing for the war, the Middle East is probably
a better place without Saddam. Does that justify the war? Nope, not in
my opinion.
> More of the argument is probably a matter of if you think the US is
> obligated to go around "fixing" other nations and making them
> good--whatever definition of good you use. I don't believe that either.
Here, I agree with you.
> And the remainder is likely how much of a threat y9ou think Saddam
> presented to the rest of the world. I guess you didn't see him as a
> threat since you refer to Iraq as "defenseless."
Obviously, even though our troops are good, well trained, and have
powerful weapons at their disposal, the ease with which we defeated
the Iraqi army shows they were pretty defenseless.
Just my humble opinion
--
Dave Fritzinger
Bob B.
<DoNotSpamthegoat4-A...@library.airnews.net>,
"B.B." <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
Wow, you actually believe that Bush is worse than Saddam?
Do you think perhaps your hatred of George Bush has made you loose a bit
of perspective here? How many people have been found in mass graves as a
result of Bush? How many have been tortured?
Bob B.
Bob B.
zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
Thanks for demonstrating what I was talking about. Nowhere did I attempt
to defend Bush in my post, but that doesn't stop you from insinuating
that I must be a 'conservative', and that I 'dont care to know' about
Bush's abhorrent policies. That was my point - some people hate Bush so
much that they revert to name calling and just rant - and that isn't the
way to convince anyone of anything.
Bob B.
GreyCloud
> On 2004-02-08 18:28:35 +0100, GreyCloud <mi...@Cumulus.com> said:
>
>> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>>
>> > Fran?ois de Dardel <dard...@noos.fr> wrote:
>> > > > On 2004-02-08 04:21:41 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. >
>> > Brehm) said:
>> > > > > > Bush, for all the good his foreign policy does
>> > > > > Yes, about as good, thoughtful and efficient as treading on an
>> > > anthill.
>> > > And there is the French stereotype. Welcome! We have been awaiting
>> > you.
>> > > You have, of course, brought with you an argument that would >
>> explain why
>> > the president's foreign policy was of such qualities as you > describe?
>
>
> Plenty. For more than two years. See my pages below, or go directly to
> http:/mapage.noos.fr/dardelf/reactions.html
>
Can't read your language. Care to elaborate?
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1g8vrdf.lxheb918o3siqN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
> @zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> @
> @> In article <1g8u8d3.uqe8st1bu1kjkN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J.
> @> Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> @>
> @> > And there is the French stereotype. Welcome! We have been awaiting you.
> @>
> @> Yeah, good thing there aren't any American stereotypes around here. You
> @> know, people who dogmatically accept and defend anything President Bush
> @> does. Good thing only French people against illegally invading basically
> @> defenseless countries on shaky grounds are the real stereotype.
> @
> @What exactly is the point of telling me your opinion about the legality
> @of the war? Even if you were right, do you really think I should value
> @legality over morality?
> @
> @It was MORALLY WRONG to let Iraqis suffer under Saddam, whether it was
> @legally right or whether we were even obligated to allow Saddam to
> @torture his people is of no importance.
>
> Umm, how many Iraqis have died since the war started?
A few thousand.
> And how many are malnourished/without water/without electricity/without
> shelter?
Fewer than before the war.
> @And it was GOOD that Iraq was defenseless. Because if it hadn't been,
> @more people would have died.
>
> Though, if Iraq had some defenses we probably would ahve bombed them
> instead of Baghdad, where all the civilians were.
You have reason to believe that the US bombed Baghdad for fun?
> @I understand neither why you value laws over lifes nor why you seem to
> @be upset that the tyrant wasn't able to defend himself.
>
> I believe the differences in opinion (in part) boil down to whether
> you think Saddam actually was worse than Bush is. I do not.
Well, I know he was. Bush did not cause mass graves nor did he kill
children "because they were thieves". He also did not torture his
citizens nor did he cause more than a million to die in a war with a
neighbouring country or let thousands (or millions) starve.
> More of the argument is probably a matter of if you think the US is
> obligated to go around "fixing" other nations and making them
> good--whatever definition of good you use.
I think everybody has the obligation to help others. But I know that
only the US and UK have both the intention and capability to do
something about dictatorships.
> I don't believe that either. And the remainder is likely how much of a
> threat y9ou think Saddam presented to the rest of the world. I guess you
> didn't see him as a threat since you refer to Iraq as "defenseless."
A threat is not the same as a defence. Saddam was a threat because any
country that can develop WMDs can also give them to terrorists. Whether
Saddam already had such weapons is immaterial, the fact is that he was
trying to develop them (which is why he stalled inspections for 12
years).
> @> Point one finger at others and you have three pointing back at you,
> @> right?
> @
> @What's that supposed to mean now?
???
Steve
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> B.B. <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
> > More of the argument is probably a matter of if you think the US is
> > obligated to go around "fixing" other nations and making them
> > good--whatever definition of good you use.
>
> I think everybody has the obligation to help others. But I know that
> only the US and UK have both the intention and capability to do
> something about dictatorships.
Behaving just like them will spawn new generations of the same, which is
very immature and short sighted. Alienating our allies and creating
fear and distrust around the world will also retard our efforts to
combat terrorism and could cause escalation of weapons development
everywhere. With the doors technology is opening these days, combating
terrorism isn't child's play.
> > I don't believe that either. And the remainder is likely how much of a
> > threat y9ou think Saddam presented to the rest of the world. I guess you
> > didn't see him as a threat since you refer to Iraq as "defenseless."
>
> A threat is not the same as a defence. Saddam was a threat because any
> country that can develop WMDs can also give them to terrorists.
Almost every country in the world fits that description then. N. Korea
was and is further along as more of a threat than Iraq. Oh well....
>Whether
> Saddam already had such weapons is immaterial, the fact is that he was
> trying to develop them (which is why he stalled inspections for 12
> years).
Duping Americans into supporting the war effort is far from
"immaterial"; it's rather central for me. Apparently all the talk of
"restoring character" and "accountabililty" is lip service for
Republicans.
I don't blanket disagree with the invasion of Iraq; it's just we don't
have infinite resources to misappropriate and not prioritize. What
you're sending young people off to their deaths for is a very serious
moral issue to me.
Steve
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1g8wsyu.11p4g4o1lyekmsN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
> > B.B. <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
>
> > > More of the argument is probably a matter of if you think the US is
> > > obligated to go around "fixing" other nations and making them
> > > good--whatever definition of good you use.
> >
> > I think everybody has the obligation to help others. But I know that
> > only the US and UK have both the intention and capability to do
> > something about dictatorships.
>
> Behaving just like them will spawn new generations of the same, which is
> very immature and short sighted.
There is no evidence for that.
What we do have evidence for is that doing nothing spawns new
terrorists, hence the existence of terrorists.
> Alienating our allies
I have reviewed the military and political capabilities of France and
Germany. Trust me, the US need neither.
> and creating fear and distrust around the world will also retard our
> efforts to combat terrorism and could cause escalation of weapons
> development everywhere.
The evidence, in the form of Ghadafi giving up his ambitions to create
WMDs and allowing inspections, points the other way.
> With the doors technology is opening these days, combating terrorism isn't
> child's play.
So your point is that the current strategy is wrong because you don't
believe in the evidence that suggests it is right?
> > > I don't believe that either. And the remainder is likely how much of a
> > > threat y9ou think Saddam presented to the rest of the world. I guess you
> > > didn't see him as a threat since you refer to Iraq as "defenseless."
> >
> > A threat is not the same as a defence. Saddam was a threat because any
> > country that can develop WMDs can also give them to terrorists.
>
> Almost every country in the world fits that description then.
Most countries have better things to do than arm terrorists. It's not
very productive, unless you want to hurt people.
> N. Korea was and is further along as more of a threat than Iraq. Oh
> well....
Indeed. But NK can defend itself. Attacking NK would mean death for
millions of South Koreans (and North Koreans, obviously). I don't think
an attack would be in time, it's too late. China could pull it off
though.
> >Whether Saddam already had such weapons is immaterial, the fact is that
> >he was trying to develop them (which is why he stalled inspections for 12
> >years).
>
> Duping Americans into supporting the war effort is far from "immaterial";
> it's rather central for me. Apparently all the talk of "restoring
> character" and "accountabililty" is lip service for Republicans.
What do you mean "duping"? Every thought that Iraq had WMDs. Clinton
did. Germany did. The UN did. If it turns out that Iraq didn't, how do
you know that Bush lied? Did the others lie too? Or was everybody
mistaken except Bush, who iied?
> I don't blanket disagree with the invasion of Iraq; it's just we don't
> have infinite resources to misappropriate and not prioritize. What you're
> sending young people off to their deaths for is a very serious moral issue
> to me.
It is for me too, that's why I support it. Better few American deaths
now than many American deaths later. And better a few American and Iraqi
deaths now than many Iraqi deaths all the time, as it was when Saddam
was in power.
It doesn't come down to "alive" or "dead", it comes down to how much
death. And the sooner you act the better. I believe that was Mrs
Thatcher's point in 1991 when Bush Sr. failed to do what was right and
needed.
zurg
<bob...@charter.net> wrote:
> Thanks for demonstrating what I was talking about.
I demonstrated nothing that you were talking about.
What you seem puzzled by is the fact that there is real and rising
anger out there right now about Bush's awful policies and his
destructive behavior. Your post implied that the only arguments coming
from the left were name-calling and outlandish accusations, but that's
far from the truth. That is the result of the voices of a large number
of people in our society being utterly ignored by the Bush
administration. To focus on that while ignoring all of the amply
documented and reasonably stated arguments countering Bush's policies
tells me that you haven't really looked into what you're talking about.
B.B.
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
@B.B. <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
@
@> In article <1g8vrdf.lxheb918o3siqN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
@> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
@>
@> @zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
@> @
@> @> In article <1g8u8d3.uqe8st1bu1kjkN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J.
@> @> Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
@> @>
@> @> > And there is the French stereotype. Welcome! We have been awaiting you.
@> @>
@> @> Yeah, good thing there aren't any American stereotypes around here. You
@> @> know, people who dogmatically accept and defend anything President Bush
@> @> does. Good thing only French people against illegally invading basically
@> @> defenseless countries on shaky grounds are the real stereotype.
@> @
@> @What exactly is the point of telling me your opinion about the legality
@> @of the war? Even if you were right, do you really think I should value
@> @legality over morality?
@> @
@> @It was MORALLY WRONG to let Iraqis suffer under Saddam, whether it was
@> @legally right or whether we were even obligated to allow Saddam to
@> @torture his people is of no importance.
@>
@> Umm, how many Iraqis have died since the war started?
@
@A few thousand.
And now how many US citizens have died because of Iraq?
@> And how many are malnourished/without water/without electricity/without
@> shelter?
@
@Fewer than before the war.
How many fewer?
@> @And it was GOOD that Iraq was defenseless. Because if it hadn't been,
@> @more people would have died.
@>
@> Though, if Iraq had some defenses we probably would ahve bombed them
@> instead of Baghdad, where all the civilians were.
@
@You have reason to believe that the US bombed Baghdad for fun?
No, but we did bomb Baghdad, which was defenseless and full of
civilians.
@> @I understand neither why you value laws over lifes nor why you seem to
@> @be upset that the tyrant wasn't able to defend himself.
@>
@> I believe the differences in opinion (in part) boil down to whether
@> you think Saddam actually was worse than Bush is. I do not.
@
@Well, I know he was. Bush did not cause mass graves nor did he kill
@children "because they were thieves".
Yeah, he's doing it "because they were terrorists." Big difference.
@He also did not torture his
@citizens nor did he cause more than a million to die in a war with a
@neighbouring country or let thousands (or millions) starve.
Bush is keeping US citizens in prison right now, stripped of their
rights. There's also been a few stories about terrorist suspects being
deported to countries that use torture.
He started a war for no reason even remotely resembling what he
presented to congress or the US public, and he's eliminating social
programs in the US about as fast as physically possible.
@> More of the argument is probably a matter of if you think the US is
@> obligated to go around "fixing" other nations and making them
@> good--whatever definition of good you use.
@
@I think everybody has the obligation to help others. But I know that
@only the US and UK have both the intention and capability to do
@something about dictatorships.
Does Australia not count?
The US has done quite a lot about dictatorships over the years. For
example, they used to give Saddam chemical and biological weapons, some
of which he went on to use on the Kurds, causing mass graves and killing
children.
@> I don't believe that either. And the remainder is likely how much of a
@> threat y9ou think Saddam presented to the rest of the world. I guess you
@> didn't see him as a threat since you refer to Iraq as "defenseless."
@
@A threat is not the same as a defence. Saddam was a threat because any
@country that can develop WMDs can also give them to terrorists. Whether
@Saddam already had such weapons is immaterial, the fact is that he was
@trying to develop them (which is why he stalled inspections for 12
@years).
And? Just about any country in the world can develop WMD. In fact,
Iraq might have actually been one of the handful of countries incapable
of developing WMD.
And as the evidence keeps coming in, it seems more and more likely
that Saddam wasn't even trying to develop them anymore. So I really
don't buy that excuse for the war. Especially since right before the
war he was NOT stalling inspections in any capacity. Inspectors had
freedom to go wherever they wanted whenever they wanted and see whoever
they wanted.
@> @> Point one finger at others and you have three pointing back at you,
@> @> right?
@> @
@> @What's that supposed to mean now?
@
@???
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1g8wsyu.11p4g4o1lyekmsN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
> @B.B. <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
> @
> @> In article <1g8vrdf.lxheb918o3siqN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> @> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> @>
> @> @zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> @> @
> @> @> In article <1g8u8d3.uqe8st1bu1kjkN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J.
> @> @> Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> @> @>
> @> @> Yeah, good thing there aren't any American stereotypes around here. You
> @> @> know, people who dogmatically accept and defend anything President Bush
> @> @> does. Good thing only French people against illegally invading basically
> @> @> defenseless countries on shaky grounds are the real stereotype.
> @> @
> @> @What exactly is the point of telling me your opinion about the legality
> @> @of the war? Even if you were right, do you really think I should value
> @> @legality over morality?
> @> @
> @> @It was MORALLY WRONG to let Iraqis suffer under Saddam, whether it was
> @> @legally right or whether we were even obligated to allow Saddam to
> @> @torture his people is of no importance.
> @>
> @> Umm, how many Iraqis have died since the war started?
> @
> @A few thousand.
>
> And now how many US citizens have died because of Iraq?
I assume you didn't get the point.
Iraq was a risk, not yet a participant in the war. There was a risk that
Iraq did (or could) harbour terrorists and that Iraq did (or could)
supply weapons to terrorists.
Bush said as much and I just assume you didn't know.
> @> And how many are malnourished/without water/without electricity/without
> @> shelter?
> @
> @Fewer than before the war.
>
> How many fewer?
I don't know. A few thousand I assume.
> @> @And it was GOOD that Iraq was defenseless. Because if it hadn't been,
> @> @more people would have died.
> @>
> @> Though, if Iraq had some defenses we probably would ahve bombed them
> @> instead of Baghdad, where all the civilians were.
> @
> @You have reason to believe that the US bombed Baghdad for fun?
>
> No, but we did bomb Baghdad, which was defenseless and full of
> civilians.
It was also full of the Republican Guard. The US military doesn't bomb
for fun, bombing Baghdad, to the extent it was done, was absolutely
necessary.
> @> @I understand neither why you value laws over lifes nor why you seem to
> @> @be upset that the tyrant wasn't able to defend himself.
> @>
> @> I believe the differences in opinion (in part) boil down to whether
> @> you think Saddam actually was worse than Bush is. I do not.
> @
> @Well, I know he was. Bush did not cause mass graves nor did he kill
> @children "because they were thieves".
>
> Yeah, he's doing it "because they were terrorists." Big difference.
I haven't heard of any children killed by Bush specifically because they
were terrorists. I also haven't heard of any Bush-created mass graves in
the US or elsewhere.
I assume you know what mass graves are (hint: not a mass of graves but a
grave of a mass of people, probably victims of murder).
> @He also did not torture his
> @citizens nor did he cause more than a million to die in a war with a
> @neighbouring country or let thousands (or millions) starve.
>
> Bush is keeping US citizens in prison right now, stripped of their
> rights.
I am actually sure that the US do not actually torture prison inmates.
> There's also been a few stories about terrorist suspects being
> deported to countries that use torture.
> He started a war for no reason even remotely resembling what he
> presented to congress or the US public, and he's eliminating social
> programs in the US about as fast as physically possible.
He's a Republican. So are most of the members of congress. They were
elected to cut social programs. That's what the voters wanted.
> @> More of the argument is probably a matter of if you think the US is
> @> obligated to go around "fixing" other nations and making them
> @> good--whatever definition of good you use.
> @
> @I think everybody has the obligation to help others. But I know that
> @only the US and UK have both the intention and capability to do
> @something about dictatorships.
>
> Does Australia not count?
Australia doesn't have the capability to do something alone. Only the US
and UK have. While the Australian military is most excellent, their
capacity for attacking in remote areas is minimal.
> The US has done quite a lot about dictatorships over the years. For
> example, they used to give Saddam chemical and biological weapons,
That's not true.
> some of which he went on to use on the Kurds, causing mass graves and
> killing children.
It's also not true that these weapons were provided by the US.
May I inquite where you found the information that the US sold chemical
and biological weapons to Iraq?
> @> I don't believe that either. And the remainder is likely how much of a
> @> threat you think Saddam presented to the rest of the world. I guess you
> @> didn't see him as a threat since you refer to Iraq as "defenseless."
> @
> @A threat is not the same as a defence. Saddam was a threat because any
> @country that can develop WMDs can also give them to terrorists. Whether
> @Saddam already had such weapons is immaterial, the fact is that he was
> @trying to develop them (which is why he stalled inspections for 12
> @years).
>
> And? Just about any country in the world can develop WMD.
There we go again.
First, it isn't true that "just about any country" can. You need a
certain level of technology to do so.
And even those countries who have WMDs do not usually give them to
terrorists, but some might.
> In fact, Iraq might have actually been one of the handful of countries
> incapable of developing WMD.
Of course it might have been. And Saddam had every chance in the world
to prove that over the course of 12 years. He decided to gamble instead.
And he lost.
> And as the evidence keeps coming in, it seems more and more likely that
> Saddam wasn't even trying to develop them anymore. So I really don't buy
> that excuse for the war.
I'm afraid that as long as you think that the US provided weapons to
Saddam (which isn't true) and as long as you simply don't know what Bush
actually said about the threat that was Iraq, your conclusions are not
really important, except in a very personal sense.
> Especially since right before the war he was NOT stalling inspections in
> any capacity.
Yes, he was. Read the report. Please. It gets tiresome to argue with
people who simply refuse to read about these things.
You just made this up as you went along, didn't you?
Anyway, here is what Hans Blix had to say about cooperation:
"While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed
at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during
inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has
refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are
fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in
Resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the
past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope
this attitude will change."
While it is true that cooperation was then much better than in the 12
years before (incidentally, cooperation was then getting better when
British and American troops were ready to invade), it is not true that
Iraq was "NOT stalling inspections", which I assume you simply made up
right then.
> Inspectors had freedom to go wherever they wanted whenever they wanted and
> see whoever they wanted.
Excellent. And it only took 12 years to get that far.
But seriously, I think you should look up a few of the things you seem
to believe about Iraq and the war.
1. A future risk has not necessarily killed people already.
2. American prisoners are not usually tortures and Bush Jr. did not
create mass graves.
(Just that you get an idea of what "mass graves" are:
<http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/>. Frankly, the last time I saw
pictures like that was when I looked through a book called "The Yellow
Star" which was about the holocaust.)
3. The US did not sell weapons to Iraq. All statistics (and the presence
of Russian tanks in the Iraqi army) rather point to Russia and France
(and Germany to a lesser extent).
(But I would love to know where you got your information or whether you
just made it up. I know it is a common claim. However:
<http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf>.)
4. It is not true that inspections did not find any WMDs (they did find
missiles as recently as during the last inspections just before the war)
and neither is it true that any country would have to undergo
inspections and prove it had no such weapons. It was the case in Iraq
because Saddam signed such a deal when he was beaten in the Kuwait war.
Have fun.
Snit
> Iraq was a risk, not yet a participant in the war. There was a risk that
> Iraq did (or could) harbour terrorists and that Iraq did (or could)
> supply weapons to terrorists.
>
> Bush said as much and I just assume you didn't know.
Of course there was a risk. There are risks all over the place. Why spend
hundreds of *b*illions of dollars, American lives, innocent Iraqi lives, and
offend much of the rest of the world to, in the long run, *increase* the
risk?
Makes no sense.
Andrew J. Brehm
Indeed it doesn't. Maybe you should rethink whether the risk was really
increased?
What do we have so far?
Iraq has now defintely no WMDs to give to terrorists.
Lybia gave up their WMD programs.
One source of money and support for terrorists in Israel has gone.
That's three risks that are gone.
OTOH there is no evidence, not even a hint that the action increased the
risk. Attacking dictatorships does not create terrorists, but failing to
act does. We know that because the US did not do anything about
terrorism before 911 and terrorism did grow stronger. But since the US
acted, terrorism became weaker.
So apparently the strategy is right.
The alternative was tried. The result was in increase in terrorism and
ultimately the events of the 11th of September. So why continue to do
what we know has failed?
Snit
Please offer evidence that the risk, in the long run, has been reduced.
When one country preemptively strikes another, as was the case with the US
and Iraq, it can be expected that a generation of Iraqis will grow up hating
the US (even more than before), and the seeds of greater terrorism will be
planted.
As far as "the" alternative... who says there are only two alternatives?
You briefly characterize the "alternative" to a pre-emptive and illegal war,
care to expand on it?
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/10/04 8:26 AM:
>
> >
> > Indeed it doesn't. Maybe you should rethink whether the risk was really
> > increased?
> >
> > What do we have so far?
> >
> > Iraq has now definitely no WMDs to give to terrorists.
> >
> > Lybia gave up their WMD programs.
> >
> > One source of money and support for terrorists in Israel has gone.
> >
> > That's three risks that are gone.
> >
> > OTOH there is no evidence, not even a hint that the action increased the
> > risk. Attacking dictatorships does not create terrorists, but failing to
> > act does. We know that because the US did not do anything about
> > terrorism before 911 and terrorism did grow stronger. But since the US
> > acted, terrorism became weaker.
> >
> > So apparently the strategy is right.
> >
> > The alternative was tried. The result was in increase in terrorism and
> > ultimately the events of the 11th of September. So why continue to do
> > what we know has failed?
> >
>
> Please offer evidence that the risk, in the long run, has been reduced.
I gave three pices of evidence above.
Iraq has now defintely no WMDs to give to terrorists.
Lybia gave up their WMD programs.
One source of money and support for terrorists in Israel has gone.
> When one country preemptively strikes another, as was the case with the US
> and Iraq, it can be expected that a generation of Iraqis will grow up
> hating the US (even more than before),
I don't think many Iraqis will hate the US for removing Saddam. You
don't know what life under a dictatorship was like.
Again: <http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/>
Incidentally, it doesn't seem to be the case that those who once fought
the US hate the US afterwards. Germany and Japan certainly don't. And
neither does Vietnam for that matter.
> and the seeds of greater terrorism will be planted.
The seeds of terrorism were planted not by US action but by US inaction.
Give the muslims some credit. They ACT, they do not just react. They
have free will, even though they might not believe in it.
There is simply no evidence, not even hints, that terrorism is caused by
what the US do. The idea that there is a connection came up AFTER the US
_reacted_ to terrorism, not before.
People who have better lifes because of losing a war against the US do
not hate the US afterwards. Trust me. I know. I have been growing up in
West Berlin. My parents told me how society evolved after the war.
> As far as "the" alternative... who says there are only two alternatives?
There is action and inaction. That's the two basic alternatives.
> You briefly characterize the "alternative" to a pre-emptive and illegal
> war, care to expand on it?
I cannot expand on an alternative to an illegal war because "illegal
war" is not a part of the scenario.
You will simply have to get used to the fact that I don't want to argue
with you unless you care enough about the issue to actually know some
basic facts about it.
First, I suggest you read up on the Iraq/Kuwait war and what Iraq
promised they would do in exchange for a cease-fire and whether anybody,
including the UN and Germany and France ever believed that Iraq had
fullfilled these obligations, thus upholding the cease-fire.
And attacking a country one is at war with, when there is no cease-fire,
is NOT illegal, no matter how you spin it.
What we had here was that the UN did not decide to act, but that doesn't
mean that no other parties may.
And even though I absolutely despise the UN for allowing the things
reported (see URL above) to happen, I think the UN were within their
privileges to decide not to act. But that doesn't mean that the US and
UK were somehow obligated not to.
I am sorry, but I simply don't see what good it is to argue about this
with you any more. You don't seem to want to argue whether justice
justifies war or whether saving lives is a good thing, you simply want
everybody to acknowledge that the war was illegal, a claim you simply
made but never supported. But that cannot be done. And no discussion is
needed for you to continue to want to believe that the war was illegal.
So what's the point?
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
When based solely on a preemptive attack,(like you just did above)
history shows otherwise.
> As far as "the" alternative... who says there are only two alternatives?
> You briefly characterize the "alternative" to a pre-emptive and illegal war,
> care to expand on it?
SH had failed to respond by any other method that was tried... to the
point where he broke over a decade of unanimously agreed upon
resolutions at great cost to the Iraqi people. You're the one that seems
to feel some untried alternative would have met with success. Why don't
you expand on that.
Steve
Bob B.
zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
Yeah, right. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must not of 'really
looked into it'.
But you mischaracterized what I said. My point was that name calling,
and wild accusations about Bush being a war criminal arent't productive.
More reasoned criticisms - like Bush is ignoring large numbers of people
in our society - might convince someone to reject Bush. Calling him a
deserter won't change anyone's mind.
Bob B.
lefty
people who are really, really, angry with him. when we swap presidents,
we swap sets of angry people.
from my position as a centrist, that in itself doesn't seem too impressive.
it's a demonstration of human nature more than anything else.
but you're right Bob, when they rant they feed their extreme group, but are
less likely to connect with people outside it.
Snit
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/10/04 8:26 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> Indeed it doesn't. Maybe you should rethink whether the risk was really
>>> increased?
>>>
>>> What do we have so far?
>>>
>>> Iraq has now definitely no WMDs to give to terrorists.
>>>
>>> Lybia gave up their WMD programs.
>>>
>>> One source of money and support for terrorists in Israel has gone.
>>>
>>> That's three risks that are gone.
>>>
>>> OTOH there is no evidence, not even a hint that the action increased the
>>> risk. Attacking dictatorships does not create terrorists, but failing to
>>> act does. We know that because the US did not do anything about
>>> terrorism before 911 and terrorism did grow stronger. But since the US
>>> acted, terrorism became weaker.
>>>
>>> So apparently the strategy is right.
>>>
>>> The alternative was tried. The result was in increase in terrorism and
>>> ultimately the events of the 11th of September. So why continue to do
>>> what we know has failed?
>>>
>>
>> Please offer evidence that the risk, in the long run, has been reduced.
>
> I gave three pices of evidence above.
>
> Iraq has now defintely no WMDs to give to terrorists.
What WMD? Where are they? Do they exist? If so, where are they? Who has
them and what might they use them for?
>
> Lybia gave up their WMD programs.
Which may or may not be a result of the war.
>
> One source of money and support for terrorists in Israel has gone.
We shall see over the next year or more how much this affects Israel. Far
to soon to say.
>
>> When one country preemptively strikes another, as was the case with the US
>> and Iraq, it can be expected that a generation of Iraqis will grow up
>> hating the US (even more than before),
>
> I don't think many Iraqis will hate the US for removing Saddam. You
> don't know what life under a dictatorship was like.
>
> Again: <http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/>
Please do not jump to that oft repeated straw man. I never claimed that
Iraqis would hate the US for removing Saddam. They will hate us for the
war.
>
> Incidentally, it doesn't seem to be the case that those who once fought
> the US hate the US afterwards. Germany and Japan certainly don't. And
> neither does Vietnam for that matter.
We shall see how this goes...
>
>> and the seeds of greater terrorism will be planted.
>
> The seeds of terrorism were planted not by US action but by US inaction.
> Give the muslims some credit. They ACT, they do not just react. They
> have free will, even though they might not believe in it.
>
> There is simply no evidence, not even hints, that terrorism is caused by
> what the US do. The idea that there is a connection came up AFTER the US
> _reacted_ to terrorism, not before.
Can you sp0ecify what you are talking about here?
>
> People who have better lifes because of losing a war against the US do
> not hate the US afterwards. Trust me. I know. I have been growing up in
> West Berlin. My parents told me how society evolved after the war.
>
>> As far as "the" alternative... who says there are only two alternatives?
>
> There is action and inaction. That's the two basic alternatives.
I do not see the world as that black and white. Not at all. There are all
sorts of action one can take, and, as a super power... *the* super power,
the US has not chosen inaction when dealing with world affairs for a long
time.
>
>> You briefly characterize the "alternative" to a pre-emptive and illegal
>> war, care to expand on it?
>
> I cannot expand on an alternative to an illegal war because "illegal
> war" is not a part of the scenario.
I thought we were talking about the war on Iraq. It is clearly illegal.
>
> You will simply have to get used to the fact that I don't want to argue
> with you unless you care enough about the issue to actually know some
> basic facts about it.
Oh, such deep analysis there. Insults are not intelligent commentary.
>
> First, I suggest you read up on the Iraq/Kuwait war and what Iraq
> promised they would do in exchange for a cease-fire and whether anybody,
> including the UN and Germany and France ever believed that Iraq had
> fullfilled these obligations, thus upholding the cease-fire.
>
> And attacking a country one is at war with, when there is no cease-fire,
> is NOT illegal, no matter how you spin it.
>
> What we had here was that the UN did not decide to act, but that doesn't
> mean that no other parties may.
>
> And even though I absolutely despise the UN for allowing the things
> reported (see URL above) to happen, I think the UN were within their
> privileges to decide not to act. But that doesn't mean that the US and
> UK were somehow obligated not to.
Other than by International treaty and US Law. And probably UK law, though
I am not as certain about that.
>
> I am sorry, but I simply don't see what good it is to argue about this
> with you any more.
At least we agree on that.
> You don't seem to want to argue whether justice justifies war or whether
> saving lives is a good thing,
You are right - I do not want to argue whether saving lives is a good thing,
I accept it almost as a given and have not seen anyone suggest otherwise.
Not even sure why you brought it up.
> you simply want everybody to acknowledge that the war was illegal,
Well, if we are going to talk about the war, that *is* a pretty big deal.
> a claim you simply made but never supported.
Ah, another lie. See:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Case
Snit
Steve, once you admitted that "reality" prevented *you* from refuting my
arguments, I would have thought that you would have stopped trying.
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
You can't refute what doesn't exist:)
Steve
Snit
Right - I can not refute what does not exist. And you can not refute what
does.
Here it is (again), by the way:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Case
Andrew J. Brehm
> >>
> >> Please offer evidence that the risk, in the long run, has been reduced.
> >
> > I gave three pices of evidence above.
> >
> > Iraq has now defintely no WMDs to give to terrorists.
>
> What WMD? Where are they? Do they exist? If so, where are they? Who has
> them and what might they use them for?
??? Are you actually following me? I said "Iraq has now definitely no
WMDs to give to terrorists." The threat is GONE.
> > Lybia gave up their WMD programs.
>
> Which may or may not be a result of the war.
That's ridiculous. Of course it is a result of the war. If it hadn't
been, it could have happened years ago, or Ghadagi could have contacted
the UN or France rather than the UK.
> > One source of money and support for terrorists in Israel has gone.
>
> We shall see over the next year or more how much this affects Israel. Far
> to soon to say.
Nope. We already _KNOW_ that the money is gone. How soon this will
affect the situation is Israel is another question.
> >> When one country preemptively strikes another, as was the case with the US
> >> and Iraq, it can be expected that a generation of Iraqis will grow up
> >> hating the US (even more than before),
> >
> > I don't think many Iraqis will hate the US for removing Saddam. You
> > don't know what life under a dictatorship was like.
> >
> > Again: <http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/>
>
> Please do not jump to that oft repeated straw man. I never claimed that
> Iraqis would hate the US for removing Saddam. They will hate us for the
> war.
The war == removing Saddam. Iraqis know that. Iraqis are not stupid.
> > Incidentally, it doesn't seem to be the case that those who once fought
> > the US hate the US afterwards. Germany and Japan certainly don't. And
> > neither does Vietnam for that matter.
>
> We shall see how this goes...
Just then you seemed to believe it was a well-known fact that Iraqis
would hate the US for the war...
> >> and the seeds of greater terrorism will be planted.
> >
> > The seeds of terrorism were planted not by US action but by US inaction.
> > Give the muslims some credit. They ACT, they do not just react. They
> > have free will, even though they might not believe in it.
> >
> > There is simply no evidence, not even hints, that terrorism is caused by
> > what the US do. The idea that there is a connection came up AFTER the US
> > _reacted_ to terrorism, not before.
>
> Can you specify what you are talking about here?
I am talking causality as observed by what happened when.
Terrorism grew when the US did nothing.
Thus, actions of the US are not needed for terrorism to grow.
Thus assuming that US actions somehow make terrorism appear is
empirically incorrect, as there is no evidence for it.
However, we have evidence that US action actually shrinks terrorism. The
evidence is that there was no major terrorist attack in the US any more
since the war began. The terrorists have since resorted to making
attacks in Kenia, Indonesia, Israel (as always), and Iraq.
So the observed facts simply disagree with your theory.
> > People who have better lifes because of losing a war against the US do
> > not hate the US afterwards. Trust me. I know. I have been growing up in
> > West Berlin. My parents told me how society evolved after the war.
> >
> >> As far as "the" alternative... who says there are only two alternatives?
> >
> > There is action and inaction. That's the two basic alternatives.
>
> I do not see the world as that black and white. Not at all. There are
> all sorts of action one can take, and, as a super power... *the* super
> power, the US has not chosen inaction when dealing with world affairs for
> a long time.
When it came to Arab affaird that is what the US have chosen. The US
acted in many regions, but not in Arabia. Incidentally, the regions
where the US did act did NOT become a source of terrorism, but Arabia
did.
What does this tell us about action and inaction?
It's very simple:
Action (Latin America, Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Japan) does not cause
terrorism.
But inaction (Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan) does.
And, yes, you do see the world as black and white. That is why you seem
to believe that the US taking action in region A (Vietnam or whatever)
is somehow relevant in region B (Arabia). You need less of a
black-and-white view of things.
> >> You briefly characterize the "alternative" to a pre-emptive and illegal
> >> war, care to expand on it?
> >
> > I cannot expand on an alternative to an illegal war because "illegal
> > war" is not a part of the scenario.
>
> I thought we were talking about the war on Iraq. It is clearly illegal.
It clearly isn't. And you have been told often enough. Saddam signed a
cease-fire and didn't fullfill his obligations. Thus the cease-fire is
gone and the war continued.
> > You will simply have to get used to the fact that I don't want to argue
> > with you unless you care enough about the issue to actually know some
> > basic facts about it.
>
> Oh, such deep analysis there. Insults are not intelligent commentary.
It is not an insult. I am simply telling you that you need to care more
about the issue if you want to discuss it. It is not insulting to demand
such from an opponent. If you consider that an insult, I cannot do
anything about it.
> > First, I suggest you read up on the Iraq/Kuwait war and what Iraq
> > promised they would do in exchange for a cease-fire and whether anybody,
> > including the UN and Germany and France ever believed that Iraq had
> > fullfilled these obligations, thus upholding the cease-fire.
> >
> > And attacking a country one is at war with, when there is no cease-fire,
> > is NOT illegal, no matter how you spin it.
> >
> > What we had here was that the UN did not decide to act, but that doesn't
> > mean that no other parties may.
> >
> > And even though I absolutely despise the UN for allowing the things
> > reported (see URL above) to happen, I think the UN were within their
> > privileges to decide not to act. But that doesn't mean that the US and
> > UK were somehow obligated not to.
>
> Other than by International treaty and US Law.
Don't you get tired of repeating what many have told you is simply not
true?
> And probably UK law, though I am not as certain about that.
I'll tell you this one last time.
Accept it or argue with it, but don't simply repeat your claim without
any evidence or I will simply stop arguing with you:
THE WAR WAS NOT ILLEGAL, NOT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, NOT UNDER AMERICAN
LAW, NOT UNDER UK LAW.
Get that into your head.
Whoever told you that the war was illegal was either misinformed or a
liar.
But do you want to know what I think?
I think noone even told you that. You simply ASSUMED it at some point
and refuse to let anything change that opinion. Is that true?
> > You don't seem to want to argue whether justice justifies war or whether
> > saving lives is a good thing,
>
> You are right - I do not want to argue whether saving lives is a good thing,
> I accept it almost as a given and have not seen anyone suggest otherwise.
> Not even sure why you brought it up.
Because you keep on arguing that the war was illegal as if this even was
an issue.
If you don't want to seem as if you didn't think saving lifes was a good
thing, don't pretend that some law is more important than lifes. It's
that simple.
> > you simply want everybody to acknowledge that the war was illegal,
>
> Well, if we are going to talk about the war, that *is* a pretty big deal.
It isn't. Whether the war saves lifes, removes a threat, brings liberty
to people is a big deal. Whether the war is against certain laws is not.
So unless you think the law (and the law of an organization made of
dictatorships, i.e. the UN) is more important than life, security, and
liberty, you can simply dismiss any thoughts about the legality of the
war.
But if you want to insist we discuss the legality you can simply accept
the fact that the war was legal and get over it.
I'm not an expert on the American constitution, but I have pointed you
to an article explaining the matter before. The fact that you ignored
the article and simply repeated your baseless claim doesn't prove the
article wrong. The fact seems to be that congress has the power to
declare war PERIOD. No treaty can take that power away from congress.
Thus it is very simple: the war was legal according to US law. Get that
into your head.
Next, the issue of "international law". Saddam signed a treaty stating
that there would be a cease-fire and that he must fullfill certain
obligations for the cease-fire to remain such. Saddam DID NOT fullfill
his obligations, thus the cease-fire was OFF. And that's it for
international law.
As for British law, I believe the PM is free to declare any war he
likes, without even asking the parliament. That's an oddity of the
British system and it's not usually used (Blair did ask the parliament
and got approval).
Now, I am pretty positive that your counter-"argument" will simply be
another repeating of your original claim, complete with no explanation
for why you believe in it or sources. And this means the while
discussion is kinda pointless, as I assumed before. Just drop me a line
if that changes.
> > a claim you simply made but never supported.
>
> Ah, another lie. See:
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Case
"Another lie"? What else was a lie? And why was this a lie?
You complain about me "insulting" you when I simply tell you that you
need to do more research and then you call me a liar?
The point is that your site DOESN'T make the case you think it does. I
remember having read it some time ago. Unless you added a lot, the point
is still missing. (The site in unavailable right now.)
But do make your case. Why doesn't congress have the power to declare
war? What international law says that cease-fire agreements become peace
treaties after 12 years with obligations unfullfilled? Since when does
the prime minister not have the power to declare war? Go on, make the
case.
But as I know you, you will simply go on claiming that the war was
illegal, without any argument or source, and that will be it. I will
simply see you arguing in another threat, insisting that the war was
illegal, pretending to be completely oblivious to the fact that you have
yet again been told why the war was not illegal.
And that is, of course, the sad part.
> > But that cannot be done. And no discussion is needed for you to continue to
> > want to believe that the war was illegal. So what's the point?
Snit
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Please offer evidence that the risk, in the long run, has been reduced.
>>>
>>> I gave three pices of evidence above.
>>>
>>> Iraq has now defintely no WMDs to give to terrorists.
>>
>> What WMD? Where are they? Do they exist? If so, where are they? Who has
>> them and what might they use them for?
>
> ??? Are you actually following me? I said "Iraq has now definitely no
> WMDs to give to terrorists." The threat is GONE.
What threat? Did they ever have them? If not, there was no threat, or at
least you seem to be exaggerating the thread. If there were WMD, then who
has them now? If you do not know, and nobody seems to, then the threat is
not reduced and quite possibly increased.
I did you the favor of removing your repeated garbage. If I accidentally
removed something of value, I am sure you will let me know.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/10/04 12:32 PM:
>
> > Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Please offer evidence that the risk, in the long run, has been reduced.
> >>>
> >>> I gave three pices of evidence above.
> >>>
> >>> Iraq has now defintely no WMDs to give to terrorists.
> >>
> >> What WMD? Where are they? Do they exist? If so, where are they? Who has
> >> them and what might they use them for?
> >
> > ??? Are you actually following me? I said "Iraq has now definitely no
> > WMDs to give to terrorists." The threat is GONE.
>
> What threat? Did they ever have them? If not, there was no threat, or at
> least you seem to be exaggerating the thread. If there were WMD, then who
> has them now? If you do not know, and nobody seems to, then the threat is
> not reduced and quite possibly increased.
I don't feel threatened by an Iraq that is occupied and has no WMDs. Do
you?
>
> I did you the favor of removing your repeated garbage. If I accidentally
> removed something of value, I am sure you will let me know.
That was somehow what I expected when I started typing all the reasons
for why your claim that the war was illegal was wrong.
And as I predicted, I am sure you will be using your claim as an
"argument" in the future too. But don't let the facts interfere with
your point, eh?
Andrew J. Brehm
>
> You can't refute what doesn't exist:)
Steve,
Snit just informed me that he erased my explanations for why his claim
about the legality of the war was wrong and I believe he didn't read
them.
I am confident that he will use his claim as an argument in all future
discussions about the subject, regardless of its merit and in spite of
of the fact that he has no sources for and no argument to support his
claim.
My telling him about the fact that the US congress has the power to
declare war and that using this power is not illegal (under US law), and
my reminding him that Saddam violated a cease-fire for 12 years was
"refuted" by him by refering to it as "repeated garbage"; and as before
he did not address the issues raised (even though he has formed an
opinion that relies on the truth values of these issues).
I'm not sure what he is trying to accomplish, but I am positive that his
opinion cannot be changed, since his axioms are too complicated (in the
sense that "the war was illegal" should be a theorem, but is an axiom in
his worldview).
zurg
<bob...@charter.net> wrote:
> But you mischaracterized what I said.
Maybe, and if that's the case, I apologize. I don't read CSMA with the
careful eye I might give other material. However, the tone of your post
simply struck me as another fake conservative attempt to sound
impartial and pass judgment on the liberal "name-calling." Any
conservative focusing on that (i.e., most of them) are simply admitting
that they aren't familiar with the actual arguments behind those names.
Steve Carroll
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
He has only one interest upon entering an argument... to be 'right'.
It's the only point he needs to make, regardless of the topic... the
point that he is 'right' and his opponent is wrong. He does this to the
exclusion of logic and common sense. I noticed that he finally did back
away from talking about the U.S. Constitution as it pertained to his
argument once he realized he was misinterpreting the Supremacy Clause.
He apparently forgot about it again, though... and regrouped with the
same old story.
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Are you going to expand with your alternatives?
Steve
zurg
<le...@bandaged.invalid> wrote:
> it seems a constant, that for any US President, there will be a number of
> people who are really, really, angry with him. when we swap presidents,
> we swap sets of angry people.
That's actually not the whole story in this case and FWIW, I don't
think liberals tend to be angry people, despite however Fox News or
Rush Limbaugh want to paint them. I know many left-leaning people who
were okay with Bush, including me, especially after his fairly deft
handling of the stem cell issue (excellent compromise, IMO) and the
then-seemingly effective response in Afghanistan in regard to 9/11. And
many of us were sick to death of the rancorous tone in Washington after
the Monica Lewinsky witch hunt and were simply trying to not become a
part of that. If you had asked me and a lot of my liberal friends at
the end of 2001, most of us would have said Bush was a good leader and
doing a good job. I would have said that. It's the nonstop corruption
and lies since then that have turned me against the guy. I'm not an
angry person by nature, but Bush and his cronies and their transparent
motives have really pissed me off.
To this day, it's amazing to me that a group of people on the right can
get so incensed about a president lying about a blow-job and yet they
can turn a blind eye on the endless deceptions going on now. That too
adds to the anger.
Snit
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/10/04 12:32 PM:
>>
>>> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please offer evidence that the risk, in the long run, has been reduced.
>>>>>
>>>>> I gave three pices of evidence above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Iraq has now defintely no WMDs to give to terrorists.
>>>>
>>>> What WMD? Where are they? Do they exist? If so, where are they? Who has
>>>> them and what might they use them for?
>>>
>>> ??? Are you actually following me? I said "Iraq has now definitely no
>>> WMDs to give to terrorists." The threat is GONE.
>>
>> What threat? Did they ever have them? If not, there was no threat, or at
>> least you seem to be exaggerating the thread. If there were WMD, then who
>> has them now? If you do not know, and nobody seems to, then the threat is
>> not reduced and quite possibly increased.
>
> I don't feel threatened by an Iraq that is occupied and has no WMDs. Do
> you?
So if the WMD did exist, which is in question, but, if they did, do you
believe the US is safer with them being in unknown hands in unknown
locations being used for unknown goals is a plus? You seem to be avoiding
this question.
>> I did you the favor of removing your repeated garbage. If I accidentally
>> removed something of value, I am sure you will let me know.
>
> That was somehow what I expected when I started typing all the reasons
> for why your claim that the war was illegal was wrong.
>
> And as I predicted, I am sure you will be using your claim as an
> "argument" in the future too. But don't let the facts interfere with
> your point, eh?
You have yet to even really comment on my argument, or, if you did, I missed
it in the skimming of all the garbage it was surrounded by. If you have an
argument, I am open to listening.
Snit
> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You can't refute what doesn't exist:)
>
> Steve,
>
> Snit just informed me that he erased my explanations for why his claim
> about the legality of the war was wrong and I believe he didn't read
> them.
>
> I am confident that he will use his claim as an argument in all future
> discussions about the subject, regardless of its merit and in spite of
> of the fact that he has no sources for and no argument to support his
> claim.
>
> My telling him about the fact that the US congress has the power to
> declare war and that using this power is not illegal (under US law), and
> my reminding him that Saddam violated a cease-fire for 12 years was
> "refuted" by him by refering to it as "repeated garbage"; and as before
> he did not address the issues raised (even though he has formed an
> opinion that relies on the truth values of these issues).
These claims have been repeated many times and have been fully, completely,
and entirely responded to. At least when I ignore your comments I am honest
about it.
>
> I'm not sure what he is trying to accomplish, but I am positive that his
> opinion cannot be changed, since his axioms are too complicated (in the
> sense that "the war was illegal" should be a theorem, but is an axiom in
> his worldview).
To respond in kind:
Blah balh yada blah yada blah balh yada yada yoda yada balh yada yoda yada
balh whatever whatever etc. Balh blah blah etc. yada etc. etc. um etc. blah
yoda blah yada balh yada yada whatever whatever yada yada. Blah balh yada
etc. yada blah etc. etc. Um etc. yada yoda blah blah etc. blah balh etc.
yada um etc. blah whatever yada yada etc. Blah yoda yada etc. yada um etc.
Blah yada yoda yoda yada yada um whatever yada yada yada um blah blah balh
yada whatever blah. Yoda yada yada etc. blah blah. Yada yada um whatever
um yada um. Um yada whatever etc. blah balh yoda yada. Yada whatever blah
etc. yada yada um etc. um etc. yada yada um. Um yada blah um yoda! Balh
yada whatever yada balh yada blah. Blah blah yoda blah yoda blah yoda yada
balh balh etc. um blah! Yoda blah balh yada balh etc. blah balh yada um
yada yada yada yada. Balh blah blah um yada whatever um whatever yada yada
yada blah balh balh yada blah yoda yoda blah yada etc. yada yada. Yoda yoda
etc. um balh whatever yada yoda yoda whatever etc. yada blah balh whatever
um blah yoda. Etc blah balh yada yada blah yada yada yada. Um um um blah
yada etc. yada balh blah yada um blah whatever yada um blah blah yada
whatever blah. Yoda yoda yoda etc. yoda um balh balh um yada etc. balh yada
blah whatever yada etc. yada yoda yada yada yada blah. Yada etc. yada yoda
yada yada yoda balh yada yoda yada blah. Yoda blah yada blah blah blah etc.
blah yoda balh blah yada blah blah yoda yada etc. blah blah um whatever yoda
balh. Etc yoda whatever yada blah yada balh yada yada whatever whatever
yoda. Blah balh yada blah etc. yada blah yada balh etc. yada etc. etc.
yoda! Blah whatever balh etc. whatever etc. yada yada yada yada blah um
blah um blah blah um balh um blah blah. Whatever whatever blah yada um
whatever. Yada whatever blah um yoda yoda blah yada yoda blah balh whatever
um? Balh balh yada yada um yada yoda blah blah whatever. Etc um yada blah
whatever blah yada etc. blah um yada etc. yada whatever blah blah blah yada
um yada yoda yoda? Yoda blah yada balh um yoda yada etc. blah etc. etc.
yada balh. Etc blah etc. yada whatever whatever blah blah etc. um yada yada
yada balh um yoda blah blah blah etc. blah yada balh? Yada balh yada blah
yoda balh yada blah blah yada yada um whatever yada balh blah etc. yada yada
yada blah yada blah. Yada blah yada balh yada balh blah yada yada blah um
um. Blah blah yada yada blah yada yada yada yada etc. yada um um yada etc.
yada yada whatever yada. Yada yoda blah yada yada yada blah um? Etc blah
yada yada yada yada whatever yada blah um balh etc. whatever. Balh whatever
blah blah whatever yada yada etc. blah blah etc. yada blah yoda! Yoda blah
yoda blah yada yada yada um etc. etc. blah yada yada balh um etc. whatever
whatever yada um. Um whatever um blah um whatever um! Etc um yada yada
blah blah yada yada whatever balh yada. Yoda yoda blah etc. balh balh um
yoda. Yada yada balh blah blah balh yada yada yada yada yada balh yada yada
whatever blah. Balh yada blah etc. etc. yada yada etc. blah um um yoda blah
yada? Etc yada yada yada blah whatever yada yada whatever yada yada blah
yada balh blah whatever yoda blah yada whatever whatever etc. Yada yoda
yada yada etc. balh whatever um balh um balh. Blah blah yada whatever blah
yada. Yada balh yoda balh blah blah blah balh um yada yoda etc. yoda yada
etc. yada yada blah yoda um balh yada um? Etc yada um yoda yada whatever
blah blah etc. Yoda yada yada balh blah etc. yada blah yada yada balh um
yoda um. Um um yada blah whatever yada yada blah blah balh. Yada yada
whatever blah etc. um um etc. blah yada etc. whatever um balh!
Snit
> In article <1g8yk8j.1fbs3vg1pqw23gN%and...@netneurotic.de>,
> and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
>
>> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You can't refute what doesn't exist:)
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Snit just informed me that he erased my explanations for why his claim
>> about the legality of the war was wrong and I believe he didn't read
>> them.
>>
>> I am confident that he will use his claim as an argument in all future
>> discussions about the subject, regardless of its merit and in spite of
>> of the fact that he has no sources for and no argument to support his
>> claim.
>>
>> My telling him about the fact that the US congress has the power to
>> declare war and that using this power is not illegal (under US law), and
>> my reminding him that Saddam violated a cease-fire for 12 years was
>> "refuted" by him by refering to it as "repeated garbage"; and as before
>> he did not address the issues raised (even though he has formed an
>> opinion that relies on the truth values of these issues).
>>
>> I'm not sure what he is trying to accomplish, but I am positive that his
>> opinion cannot be changed, since his axioms are too complicated (in the
>> sense that "the war was illegal" should be a theorem, but is an axiom in
>> his worldview).
>
> He has only one interest upon entering an argument... to be 'right'.
Another claim of yours which has been fully refuted. Seems your need to be
"right" overrides reason. Why is that Steve?
> It's the only point he needs to make, regardless of the topic... the
> point that he is 'right' and his opponent is wrong.
How do you explain all the counter examples to that, Steve?
> He does this to the exclusion of logic and common sense.
Like when I went out of my way to show that if A = B and B = C then A <> C.
Oh wait, that was you, Steve. LOL.
> I noticed that he finally did back away from talking about the U.S.
> Constitution as it pertained to his argument once he realized he was
> misinterpreting the Supremacy Clause. He apparently forgot about it again,
> though... and regrouped with the same old story.
The argument has never changed Steve. Your attempts at a refutation have
flip flopped all over the place, but the argument remains the same.
Snit
>>>> Steve, once you admitted that "reality" prevented *you* from refuting my
>>>> arguments, I would have thought that you would have stopped trying.
>>>
>>> You can't refute what doesn't exist:)
>>
>> Right - I can not refute what does not exist. And you can not refute what
>> does.
>>
>> Here it is (again), by the way:
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Case
>>
>
> Are you going to expand with your alternatives?
Alternatives to what?
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/10/04 12:43 PM:
>
> > Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/10/04 12:32 PM:
> >>
> >>> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please offer evidence that the risk, in the long run, has been
> >>>>>> reduced.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I gave three pices of evidence above.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Iraq has now defintely no WMDs to give to terrorists.
> >>>>
> >>>> What WMD? Where are they? Do they exist? If so, where are they? Who
> >>>> has
> >>>> them and what might they use them for?
> >>>
> >>> ??? Are you actually following me? I said "Iraq has now definitely no
> >>> WMDs to give to terrorists." The threat is GONE.
> >>
> >> What threat? Did they ever have them? If not, there was no threat, or at
> >> least you seem to be exaggerating the thread. If there were WMD, then who
> >> has them now? If you do not know, and nobody seems to, then the threat is
> >> not reduced and quite possibly increased.
> >
> > I don't feel threatened by an Iraq that is occupied and has no WMDs. Do
> > you?
>
> So if the WMD did exist, which is in question, but, if they did, do you
> believe the US is safer with them being in unknown hands in unknown
> locations being used for unknown goals is a plus? You seem to be avoiding
> this question.
Yet it doesn't seem to occur to you that these weapons could have moved
around for the past 12 years through any number of unknown hands. Funny
thing is, you actually expect people to believe you are not politicizing
this. It's quite comical.
> >> I did you the favor of removing your repeated garbage. If I accidentally
> >> removed something of value, I am sure you will let me know.
> >
> > That was somehow what I expected when I started typing all the reasons
> > for why your claim that the war was illegal was wrong.
> >
> > And as I predicted, I am sure you will be using your claim as an
> > "argument" in the future too. But don't let the facts interfere with
> > your point, eh?
>
> You have yet to even really comment on my argument, or, if you did, I missed
> it in the skimming of all the garbage it was surrounded by. If you have an
> argument, I am open to listening.
>
You're as open as a brick wall. He did comment on your argument, you
ignored it like you ignore anything that soundly obliterates your
position. Just because you fail to recognize it doesn't mean it hasn't
been done:)
Steve
David Fritzinger
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
Except, apparently, he *did* respond, and did destroy his WMD. You seem
to overlook that little bit of information
>
> Steve
--
Dave Fritzinger
Snit
Mind answering the question instead of throwing out unrelated insults?
>
>>>> I did you the favor of removing your repeated garbage. If I accidentally
>>>> removed something of value, I am sure you will let me know.
>>>
>>> That was somehow what I expected when I started typing all the reasons
>>> for why your claim that the war was illegal was wrong.
>>>
>>> And as I predicted, I am sure you will be using your claim as an
>>> "argument" in the future too. But don't let the facts interfere with
>>> your point, eh?
>>
>> You have yet to even really comment on my argument, or, if you did, I missed
>> it in the skimming of all the garbage it was surrounded by. If you have an
>> argument, I am open to listening.
>>
>
> You're as open as a brick wall.
Well, there are those decorative bricks.
> He did comment on your argument, you ignored it like you ignore anything that
> soundly obliterates your position. Just because you fail to recognize it
> doesn't mean it hasn't been done:)
This from someone who makes the arguments shown here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Steve
Including:
All of the following are 100% in context. These are things Steve has stated
in csma.
Snit: "For example, I once assumed [Steve was] sincere and honest. Time has
shown me to be wrong [about that assumption]."
Steve: "All too true..."
Here Steve is clearly admitting that he is not "sincere and honest". I was
surprised to see him admit to such a thing - not because it is not true,
but because, as even Steve has said, he is not "sincere and honest".
Perhaps the most telling thing about Steve's silliness is this quote
directly from him:
Refute what? That Bush IS legally guilty of breaking the laws that Snit
claims? Sorry... reality prevents me from doing so.
Even Steve decided that it was reality that was preventing him from refuting
my argument. I would agree that it seems clear reality prevents him from
refuting my argument, but there may be others who could someday do it - in
other words, there theoretically may be an argument to refute mine, but
Steve has shown he will not be the one to make that argument.
David Fritzinger
zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> In article <Mo-dnTxouPh...@adelphia.com>, lefty
> <le...@bandaged.invalid> wrote:
>
> > it seems a constant, that for any US President, there will be a number of
> > people who are really, really, angry with him. when we swap presidents,
> > we swap sets of angry people.
>
> That's actually not the whole story in this case and FWIW, I don't
> think liberals tend to be angry people, despite however Fox News or
> Rush Limbaugh want to paint them. I know many left-leaning people who
> were okay with Bush, including me, especially after his fairly deft
> handling of the stem cell issue (excellent compromise, IMO)
Actually, as Bush has done so often, he used wishful thinking instead of
facts in his stem-cell decision. He claimed there were >60 different
stem cell lines. The true number was far smaller than that. As a result,
a very promising area of research has been shut down in the US.
> and the
> then-seemingly effective response in Afghanistan in regard to 9/11.
I'll give him credit for this.
> And
> many of us were sick to death of the rancorous tone in Washington after
> the Monica Lewinsky witch hunt and were simply trying to not become a
> part of that. If you had asked me and a lot of my liberal friends at
> the end of 2001, most of us would have said Bush was a good leader and
> doing a good job. I would have said that. It's the nonstop corruption
> and lies since then that have turned me against the guy. I'm not an
> angry person by nature, but Bush and his cronies and their transparent
> motives have really pissed me off.
While I thought Bush did a good job in the aftermath of 9/11, I still
thought that, in general, he was not doing a good job as president. His
tax cuts were poorly directed, and were the same tax cuts he proposed
when we were supposed to have a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10
years. When the economy went down, he didn't change the nature of the
tax cut at all. Likewise, it was obvious by then that he was going to be
a disaster for the environment, and that, despite his promises to have a
humble foreign policy (His inaugration speech), he was going to ve very
arrogant in foreign policy. When Bush won in 2000, I naturally hoped he
would do well, since I live here too. However, to me at least, he made
it very clear, pretty quickly, that he was not what I wanted in a
president. Alas , my worst fears seem to have been realized.
>
> To this day, it's amazing to me that a group of people on the right can
> get so incensed about a president lying about a blow-job and yet they
> can turn a blind eye on the endless deceptions going on now. That too
> adds to the anger.
Too true.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Steve Carroll
David Fritzinger <dfri...@macNoSpam.com> wrote:
I'm not overlooking it, there just is no indication this is an
absolute(about the weapons destruction). For all we know WMD could have
spread far and wide from Iraq and it could have happened over a 12 year
period. If you think you can make an absolute statement to the contrary
I'd love to hear what you'll base it on.
Steve
David Fritzinger
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
I cannot dispute your statement. However, that doesn't make your
statement any more reasonable. If he had been giving weapons away, I
suspect we would have some evidence of the fact. We clearly do not.
>
> Steve
--
Dave Fritzinger
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
You mean the politically motivated question asked by someone who himself
questions, even after the Iraqis used them on their own people AND
declared them to the U.N., that such weapons ever did exist? Why would I
do that? Arguing these things with a person such as this is tantamount
to continually reinventing the wheel with every post- LOL! In any event,
my question was far more pertinent to reality than was yours. As it's
based on the simple misuse of your own logic, my question is obviously
not politically motivated. It's pretty evident your question can't make
either of these claims and that's why what I said was not an insult,
it's what I see as the truth. Need proof? Try giving mine an answer:)
Aw... but why snip away what followed while adding your own qualifying
text that wasn't in the original? And you said you weren't
disingenuous... for shame:)
Snit wrote the following closed sentence, which I took the opportunity
to dig at him and piss him off to the extent I have pissed him off(I
don't think that I don't love it):
"Time has shown me to be wrong."
To which I replied:
"All too true... of course, time has shown you to be wrong on just about
everything you have ever written in here."
See how I added my qualifying text that shows what the opening 3 words
of my statement were in reference to? Bet you wish you had done it
beforehand TOO, huh... instead of trying to disingenuously add
qualifying text for the reader AFTER the fact... you know, like you just
did when I busted you directly above - LOL!
For anyone that cares about the real truth(as opposed to Snit's truth):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=all+too+true+group:comp.sys.mac.advocac
y+author:steve+author:carroll&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=fretwizz-8
F6312.12230604022004%40netnews.comcast.net&rnum=3
> I was
> surprised to see him admit to such a thing - not because it is not true,
> but because, as even Steve has said, he is not "sincere and honest".
>
> Perhaps the most telling thing about Steve's silliness is this quote
> directly from him:
>
> Refute what? That Bush IS legally guilty of breaking the laws that Snit
> claims? Sorry... reality prevents me from doing so.
>
> Even Steve decided that it was reality that was preventing him from refuting
> my argument.
Of course. At the point in time I made the above statement you no longer
had an argument. It had already been refuted by... wait for it... YOU!
LOL! Can't refute what doesn't exist.
> I would agree that it seems clear reality prevents him from
> refuting my argument, but there may be others who could someday do it - in
> other words, there theoretically may be an argument to refute mine, but
> Steve has shown he will not be the one to make that argument.
Nothing left to refute... go ahead and ask anyone in here. Heck, you can
simply go to google and read where you refuted it yourself. Because you
did so, there was no argument left to refute. Pretty simple stuff here,
really. Anyway... is this now what the extent of your attacks on me
consist of? No wonder Nashton stopped responding... his hero turned out
to be a zero - LOL!
Steve
Snit
Let us assume the WMD exist and are spread "far and wide". How does the war
in Iraq make them safer? For that matter, how does Bush's lovely comments
such as "Bring'm on!" make me any safer?
Steve Carroll
David Fritzinger <dfri...@macNoSpam.com> wrote:
My statement isn't any less reasonable, either... and it's possibly just
as viable as any reason one could come up with. That's the problem... we
just didn't,(and still don't) know . The world can't have that with a
dictator that has used such weapons on his own people. Of course, you're
free to disagree with that as well. In any event, assuming there would
be evidence if others had the WMD is not a good way to proceed IMO
because it simply may not be the case. More importantly, it certainly
provides no grounds for a government like Iraq to cast off their
accountability to the world's demands.
Steve
Snit
I would assume you are in reference to me, though your comments do not apply
to me. Are you trying to place those views on me? If so, since I have
never suggested them, may I ask why?
> Why would I do that? Arguing these things with a person such as this is
> tantamount to continually reinventing the wheel with every post- LOL! In any
> event, my question was far more pertinent to reality than was yours. As it's
> based on the simple misuse of your own logic, my question is obviously not
> politically motivated. It's pretty evident your question can't make either of
> these claims and that's why what I said was not an insult, it's what I see as
> the truth. Need proof? Try giving mine an answer:)
Your question of my fear from a country that has been toppled. No. I do
not fear governments that no longer exist. I do fear the consequences of
the toppling.
There... now answer my question. Please.
I see you have snipped my comments completely out of context. I did not do
that with yours. May I ask why you do so with mine?
>
> To which I replied:
>
> "All too true... of course, time has shown you to be wrong on just about
> everything you have ever written in here."
Right - you responded with an "all to true, and then went on with
*unrelated* comments that I snipped.
Once again, you are lying. Steve, give it up. I am not buying into your
lies.
>
> See how I added my qualifying text that shows what the opening 3 words
> of my statement were in reference to? Bet you wish you had done it
> beforehand TOO, huh... instead of trying to disingenuously add
> qualifying text for the reader AFTER the fact... you know, like you just
> did when I busted you directly above - LOL!
Busted me - your quotes support what I stated. The fact that you missed it
the first time you stated it, and several times since, is not relevant.
>
> For anyone that cares about the real truth(as opposed to Snit's truth):
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=all+too+true+group:comp.sys.mac.advocac
> y+author:steve+author:carroll&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=fretwizz-8
> F6312.12230604022004%40netnews.comcast.net&rnum=3
>
>> I was
>> surprised to see him admit to such a thing - not because it is not true,
>> but because, as even Steve has said, he is not "sincere and honest".
>>
>> Perhaps the most telling thing about Steve's silliness is this quote
>> directly from him:
>>
>> Refute what? That Bush IS legally guilty of breaking the laws that Snit
>> claims? Sorry... reality prevents me from doing so.
>>
>> Even Steve decided that it was reality that was preventing him from refuting
>> my argument.
>
>
> Of course. At the point in time I made the above statement you no longer
> had an argument. It had already been refuted by... wait for it... YOU!
> LOL! Can't refute what doesn't exist.
Even assuming the argument was refuted, which it was not, a refuted argument
does not cease to exist.
Again, Steve, you are trying to twist words and lie. Again I am not buying
it.
>
>> I would agree that it seems clear reality prevents him from
>> refuting my argument, but there may be others who could someday do it - in
>> other words, there theoretically may be an argument to refute mine, but
>> Steve has shown he will not be the one to make that argument.
>
> Nothing left to refute... go ahead and ask anyone in here. Heck, you can
> simply go to google and read where you refuted it yourself. Because you
> did so, there was no argument left to refute. Pretty simple stuff here,
> really. Anyway... is this now what the extent of your attacks on me
> consist of? No wonder Nashton stopped responding... his hero turned out
> to be a zero - LOL!
Steve, you yourself later on made a reasoned attempt to refute my argument.
We never came to an agreement, but you were reasonable in the later debate.
Your flip flops have gotten old.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
The comments do apply to you and you suggested them, though, you are
likely unaware that you did (I've notice you have a serious language
problem):
"What threat? Did they ever have them? If not, there was no threat,"
and
"So if the WMD did exist, which is in question, but, if they did, ..."
I suggest you start actually reading what you write... others are (I
know... it makes no sense, does it?). BTW, you don't even need to go to
google as it's all still a few paragraphs up:)
> > Why would I do that? Arguing these things with a person such as this is
> > tantamount to continually reinventing the wheel with every post- LOL! In
> > any
> > event, my question was far more pertinent to reality than was yours. As
> > it's
> > based on the simple misuse of your own logic, my question is obviously not
> > politically motivated. It's pretty evident your question can't make either
> > of
> > these claims and that's why what I said was not an insult, it's what I see
> > as
> > the truth. Need proof? Try giving mine an answer:)
>
> Your question of my fear from a country that has been toppled. No. I do
> not fear governments that no longer exist. I do fear the consequences of
> the toppling.
>
> There... now answer my question. Please.
You didn't answer my question at all.
Uh...earth to Snit... I'm the guy who provided the google reference
here, remember? Why would I do that if I'm doing what you allude to? YOU
are the guy that added the phrase "[about that assumption]". Why did you
add qualifying text IN THE QUOTE for the reader AFTER the fact? Don't
you realize that's a NG no-no? Why didn't you quote a google reference
like I did? Never mind... it's already obvious... you're a revisionist
that doesn't realize google can contradict his non-reality:)
> > To which I replied:
> >
> > "All too true... of course, time has shown you to be wrong on just about
> > everything you have ever written in here."
>
> Right - you responded with an "all to true, and then went on with
> *unrelated* comments that I snipped.
>
> Once again, you are lying. Steve, give it up. I am not buying into your
> lies.
Hey, it's not my fault you wrote a closed sentence the way you did. If
you wanted to make it attack proof you shouldn't have written it that
way. I've already given it to you once, but I see the lesson didn't
take. Here it is again:
'For example, I once assumed you were sincere and honest but time has
shown me to be wrong. '
Now... if you had written it like this, I wouldn't have had the
opportunity to single out your statement the WAY I did. You're just
pissed you didn't think of it:)
> > See how I added my qualifying text that shows what the opening 3 words
> > of my statement were in reference to? Bet you wish you had done it
> > beforehand TOO, huh... instead of trying to disingenuously add
> > qualifying text for the reader AFTER the fact... you know, like you just
> > did when I busted you directly above - LOL!
>
> Busted me - your quotes support what I stated. The fact that you missed it
> the first time you stated it, and several times since, is not relevant.
Go take a piss... you're too pissed:)
> > For anyone that cares about the real truth(as opposed to Snit's truth):
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=all+too+true+group:comp.sys.mac.advocac
> > y+author:steve+author:carroll&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=fretwizz-8
> > F6312.12230604022004%40netnews.comcast.net&rnum=3
> >
> >> I was
> >> surprised to see him admit to such a thing - not because it is not true,
> >> but because, as even Steve has said, he is not "sincere and honest".
> >>
> >> Perhaps the most telling thing about Steve's silliness is this quote
> >> directly from him:
> >>
> >> Refute what? That Bush IS legally guilty of breaking the laws that Snit
> >> claims? Sorry... reality prevents me from doing so.
> >>
> >> Even Steve decided that it was reality that was preventing him from
> >> refuting
> >> my argument.
> >
> >
> > Of course. At the point in time I made the above statement you no longer
> > had an argument. It had already been refuted by... wait for it... YOU!
> > LOL! Can't refute what doesn't exist.
>
> Even assuming the argument was refuted, which it was not, a refuted argument
> does not cease to exist.
Correct. It exists as a -refuted argument-. For me to attemtpt to refute
a refuted argument would mean I would be refuting the refutation that
refuted it in the first place. Understand it all yet?
> Again, Steve, you are trying to twist words and lie. Again I am not buying
> it.
Of course you aren't... it's based on reality.
> >> I would agree that it seems clear reality prevents him from
> >> refuting my argument, but there may be others who could someday do it - in
> >> other words, there theoretically may be an argument to refute mine, but
> >> Steve has shown he will not be the one to make that argument.
> >
> > Nothing left to refute... go ahead and ask anyone in here. Heck, you can
> > simply go to google and read where you refuted it yourself. Because you
> > did so, there was no argument left to refute. Pretty simple stuff here,
> > really. Anyway... is this now what the extent of your attacks on me
> > consist of? No wonder Nashton stopped responding... his hero turned out
> > to be a zero - LOL!
>
> Steve, you yourself later on made a reasoned attempt to refute my argument.
> We never came to an agreement, but you were reasonable in the later debate.
> Your flip flops have gotten old.
So tell me about your use of the Supremacy Clause again:)
Steve
Snit
Where in the quotes that you pulled up do I state that there were no WMD
ever in Iraq? Oh. Nowhere.
Steve - *read* what you post. Please.
>
>>> Why would I do that? Arguing these things with a person such as this is
>>> tantamount to continually reinventing the wheel with every post- LOL! In any
>>> event, my question was far more pertinent to reality than was yours. As it's
>>> based on the simple misuse of your own logic, my question is obviously not
>>> politically motivated. It's pretty evident your question can't make either
>>> of these claims and that's why what I said was not an insult, it's what I
>>> see as the truth. Need proof? Try giving mine an answer:)
>>
>> Your question of my fear from a country that has been toppled. No. I do
>> not fear governments that no longer exist. I do fear the consequences of
>> the toppling.
>>
>> There... now answer my question. Please.
>
> You didn't answer my question at all.
Steve, you are clearly just trying to get into another marathon argument
with me - seeing how long I will post to such stupidity. You win ... post
all the stupidity you want.
I have no clue. Why did you? Lack of comprehension on your part?
> YOU are the guy that added the phrase "[about that assumption]". Why did you
> add qualifying text IN THE QUOTE for the reader AFTER the fact?
Because in the past you acted like you could not see this clear implication.
I am working against your word games. You do not like that, do you?
> Don't you realize that's a NG no-no? Why didn't you quote a google reference
> like I did? Never mind... it's already obvious... you're a revisionist that
> doesn't realize google can contradict his non-reality:)
Reality: http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Steve
Do not forget to follow the Google links.
>
>>> To which I replied:
>>>
>>> "All too true... of course, time has shown you to be wrong on just about
>>> everything you have ever written in here."
>>
>> Right - you responded with an "all to true, and then went on with
>> *unrelated* comments that I snipped.
>>
>> Once again, you are lying. Steve, give it up. I am not buying into your
>> lies.
>
> Hey, it's not my fault you wrote a closed sentence the way you did. If
> you wanted to make it attack proof you shouldn't have written it that
> way. I've already given it to you once, but I see the lesson didn't
> take. Here it is again:
>
> 'For example, I once assumed you were sincere and honest but time has
> shown me to be wrong. '
>
> Now... if you had written it like this, I wouldn't have had the
> opportunity to single out your statement the WAY I did. You're just
> pissed you didn't think of it:)
My statement was clear. Even you, here, show you understood it. Here, let
me update my website for you...
>
>>> See how I added my qualifying text that shows what the opening 3 words
>>> of my statement were in reference to? Bet you wish you had done it
>>> beforehand TOO, huh... instead of trying to disingenuously add
>>> qualifying text for the reader AFTER the fact... you know, like you just
>>> did when I busted you directly above - LOL!
>>
>> Busted me - your quotes support what I stated. The fact that you missed it
>> the first time you stated it, and several times since, is not relevant.
>
> Go take a piss... you're too pissed:)
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Steve
>
>>> For anyone that cares about the real truth(as opposed to Snit's truth):
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=all+too+true+group:comp.sys.mac.advocac
>>> y+author:steve+author:carroll&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=fretwizz-8
>>> F6312.12230604022004%40netnews.comcast.net&rnum=3
>>>
>>>> I was
>>>> surprised to see him admit to such a thing - not because it is not true,
>>>> but because, as even Steve has said, he is not "sincere and honest".
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the most telling thing about Steve's silliness is this quote
>>>> directly from him:
>>>>
>>>> Refute what? That Bush IS legally guilty of breaking the laws that Snit
>>>> claims? Sorry... reality prevents me from doing so.
>>>>
>>>> Even Steve decided that it was reality that was preventing him from
>>>> refuting
>>>> my argument.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course. At the point in time I made the above statement you no longer
>>> had an argument. It had already been refuted by... wait for it... YOU!
>>> LOL! Can't refute what doesn't exist.
>>
>> Even assuming the argument was refuted, which it was not, a refuted argument
>> does not cease to exist.
>
> Correct. It exists as a -refuted argument-. For me to attemtpt to refute
> a refuted argument would mean I would be refuting the refutation that
> refuted it in the first place. Understand it all yet?
Yes, you are attempting, again, to flip flop and play semantic games. Oh,
and use logical fallacies.
If an argument is refuted, to attempt to refute it does not mean you are
refuting the refutation. But, just assume it did. You later made reasoned
attempts to refute it - which, by your new logical fallacies, means you must
have refuted your own refutation!
Steve, clearly you can not keep track of your own silly games.
>
>> Again, Steve, you are trying to twist words and lie. Again I am not buying
>> it.
>
> Of course you aren't... it's based on reality.
Yes, the fact that you are trying to twist words and lie is based on
reality.
If you want to word it a bit more clearly I can add it to my favorite Steve
quotes. :)
>
>>>> I would agree that it seems clear reality prevents him from
>>>> refuting my argument, but there may be others who could someday do it - in
>>>> other words, there theoretically may be an argument to refute mine, but
>>>> Steve has shown he will not be the one to make that argument.
>>>
>>> Nothing left to refute... go ahead and ask anyone in here. Heck, you can
>>> simply go to google and read where you refuted it yourself. Because you
>>> did so, there was no argument left to refute. Pretty simple stuff here,
>>> really. Anyway... is this now what the extent of your attacks on me
>>> consist of? No wonder Nashton stopped responding... his hero turned out
>>> to be a zero - LOL!
>>
>> Steve, you yourself later on made a reasoned attempt to refute my argument.
>> We never came to an agreement, but you were reasonable in the later debate.
>> Your flip flops have gotten old.
>
> So tell me about your use of the Supremacy Clause again:)
Article VI. Read it.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Blah balh yada blah yada blah balh yada yada yoda yada balh yada yoda yada
> balh whatever whatever etc. Balh blah blah etc. yada etc. etc. um etc. blah
> yoda blah yada balh yada yada whatever whatever yada yada. Blah balh yada
Thank you for the quick summary. Now if you would care to elaborate...
1. Why does congress lose the power to declare war because of a treaty?
2. Why does a cease-fire become a peace treaty when its obligations are
not fullfilled?
Snit
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> Blah balh yada blah yada blah balh yada yada yoda yada balh yada yoda yada
>> balh whatever whatever etc. Balh blah blah etc. yada etc. etc. um etc. blah
>> yoda blah yada balh yada yada whatever whatever yada yada. Blah balh yada
>
> Thank you for the quick summary. Now if you would care to elaborate...
>
> 1. Why does congress lose the power to declare war because of a treaty?
Since Congress did not do so, how is this even relevant? In any case, even
Congress has to follow laws.
>
> 2. Why does a cease-fire become a peace treaty when its obligations are
> not fullfilled?
Nobody claimed it does.
These questions are not even remotely relevant.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 1:04 AM:
>
> > Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Blah balh yada blah yada blah balh yada yada yoda yada balh yada yoda
> >> yada balh whatever whatever etc. Balh blah blah etc. yada etc. etc. um
> >> etc. blah yoda blah yada balh yada yada whatever whatever yada yada.
> >> Blah balh yada
> >
> > Thank you for the quick summary. Now if you would care to elaborate...
> >
> > 1. Why does congress lose the power to declare war because of a treaty?
>
> Since Congress did not do so, how is this even relevant?
So I assume you simply didn't know that war was declared? Your position
becomes weaker whenever you do say something new. I suggest you continue
your earlier strategy of repeating your claims rather than try to
support them.
> In any case, even Congress has to follow laws.
No, they don't, not if the constitution is involved. In such cases the
constitution is what is valid, not a law.
> > 2. Why does a cease-fire become a peace treaty when its obligations are
> > not fullfilled?
>
> Nobody claimed it does.
So what did happen to the cease-fire?
> These questions are not even remotely relevant.
Whether you consider them relevant or not is immaterial. They come up
when one considers your claims about the war.
Snit
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 1:04 AM:
>>
>>> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Blah balh yada blah yada blah balh yada yada yoda yada balh yada yoda
>>>> yada balh whatever whatever etc. Balh blah blah etc. yada etc. etc. um
>>>> etc. blah yoda blah yada balh yada yada whatever whatever yada yada.
>>>> Blah balh yada
>>>
>>> Thank you for the quick summary. Now if you would care to elaborate...
>>>
>>> 1. Why does congress lose the power to declare war because of a treaty?
>>
>> Since Congress did not do so, how is this even relevant?
>
> So I assume you simply didn't know that war was declared? Your position
> becomes weaker whenever you do say something new. I suggest you continue
> your earlier strategy of repeating your claims rather than try to
> support them.
I'll bite - when did Congress declare an official war against Iraq?
here are some links that may help you to answer:
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/antle/qtr3/0903.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,769066,00.html
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/09/Rumsfeld_Iraq030709
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/law-f27.shtml
>
>> In any case, even Congress has to follow laws.
>
> No, they don't, not if the constitution is involved. In such cases the
> constitution is what is valid, not a law.
Congress does not have to follow the law? Since when? And since when is
the Constitution not a part of the law?
Well, I mean theoretically - they get away with breaking it all the time.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
You said you never even suggested such an idea. This question you asked
of Andrew makes such a suggestion:
"What threat? Did they ever have them? If not, there was no threat,"
When asked in the form of a question, do you honestly not understand
what your words can convey? Your language, devoid of a specific
timeframe, coupled with what you wrote to me, CAN appear like you may
hold a belief that Iraq never had any WMD. Why not clear this up right
now... Do you believe that Iraq did have WMD at some point in time?
> >>> Why would I do that? Arguing these things with a person such as this is
> >>> tantamount to continually reinventing the wheel with every post- LOL! In
> >>> any
> >>> event, my question was far more pertinent to reality than was yours. As
> >>> it's
> >>> based on the simple misuse of your own logic, my question is obviously
> >>> not
> >>> politically motivated. It's pretty evident your question can't make
> >>> either
> >>> of these claims and that's why what I said was not an insult, it's what I
> >>> see as the truth. Need proof? Try giving mine an answer:)
> >>
> >> Your question of my fear from a country that has been toppled. No. I do
> >> not fear governments that no longer exist. I do fear the consequences of
> >> the toppling.
> >>
> >> There... now answer my question. Please.
> >
> > You didn't answer my question at all.
>
> Steve, you are clearly just trying to get into another marathon argument
> with me - seeing how long I will post to such stupidity. You win ... post
> all the stupidity you want.
No. You simply didn't answer my question.
No. I did it to show how you added text to a quote. In case you are
unaware, people generally look down on such an activity and see it as
the pinnacle of dishonesty.
> > YOU are the guy that added the phrase "[about that assumption]". Why did
> > you
> > add qualifying text IN THE QUOTE for the reader AFTER the fact?
>
> Because in the past you acted like you could not see this clear implication.
> I am working against your word games. You do not like that, do you?
You're working MY words games by adding qualifying text to quotes -after
the fact- and not providing a google reference? I fail to see how as
I'm the one providing the google reference of unaltered quotes. If you
see the two as comparable, though, go for it.
> > Don't you realize that's a NG no-no? Why didn't you quote a google
> > reference
> > like I did? Never mind... it's already obvious... you're a revisionist that
> > doesn't realize google can contradict his non-reality:)
>
> Reality: http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/bush-defenders/#Steve
>
> Do not forget to follow the Google links.
I know I've done my job well when I am such a focal point of your site -
LOL!
> >>> To which I replied:
> >>>
> >>> "All too true... of course, time has shown you to be wrong on just about
> >>> everything you have ever written in here."
> >>
> >> Right - you responded with an "all to true, and then went on with
> >> *unrelated* comments that I snipped.
> >>
> >> Once again, you are lying. Steve, give it up. I am not buying into your
> >> lies.
> >
> > Hey, it's not my fault you wrote a closed sentence the way you did. If
> > you wanted to make it attack proof you shouldn't have written it that
> > way. I've already given it to you once, but I see the lesson didn't
> > take. Here it is again:
> >
> > 'For example, I once assumed you were sincere and honest but time has
> > shown me to be wrong. '
> >
> > Now... if you had written it like this, I wouldn't have had the
> > opportunity to single out your statement the WAY I did. You're just
> > pissed you didn't think of it:)
>
> My statement was clear. Even you, here, show you understood it. Here, let
> me update my website for you...
Yeah... humorous as your lies were, they did get a bit stale:)
You failed, again. LOL! Reread it. When you refute an argument, it can
be said that it is now a 'refuted argument'. The action that would
refute a 'refuted argument' would be an attempt to refute the refutation
that initially rendered it a 'refuted argument'. You still don't get it,
do you? Anyway, I didn't make any attempts to refute it later, I pointed
out your misuse of the Supremacy Clause when Andrew gave you his
information that you didn't read. Doing this was only an attempt at a
refutation in YOUR mind. Everyone else already knew your argument had
long since been refuted... by YOU:)
> >> Again, Steve, you are trying to twist words and lie. Again I am not
> >> buying
> >> it.
> >
> > Of course you aren't... it's based on reality.
>
> Yes, the fact that you are trying to twist words and lie is based on
> reality.
>
> If you want to word it a bit more clearly I can add it to my favorite Steve
> quotes. :)
Perhaps you should put it in farm animal form... it IS what you're best
at - LOL!
> >>>> I would agree that it seems clear reality prevents him from
> >>>> refuting my argument, but there may be others who could someday do it -
> >>>> in
> >>>> other words, there theoretically may be an argument to refute mine, but
> >>>> Steve has shown he will not be the one to make that argument.
> >>>
> >>> Nothing left to refute... go ahead and ask anyone in here. Heck, you can
> >>> simply go to google and read where you refuted it yourself. Because you
> >>> did so, there was no argument left to refute. Pretty simple stuff here,
> >>> really. Anyway... is this now what the extent of your attacks on me
> >>> consist of? No wonder Nashton stopped responding... his hero turned out
> >>> to be a zero - LOL!
> >>
> >> Steve, you yourself later on made a reasoned attempt to refute my
> >> argument.
> >> We never came to an agreement, but you were reasonable in the later
> >> debate.
> >> Your flip flops have gotten old.
> >
> > So tell me about your use of the Supremacy Clause again:)
>
> Article VI. Read it.
I did, with the difference from your reading being that I actually
understand what it says. You obviously don't or you wouldn't have
attemtpted to use it in your argument the way you once did... you know,
with a treaty possessing the ability to suboordinate the Constitution.
Andrew graciously provided you with the case that has already ruled
against such an action. I suggest you read it to see where you went
wrong. Or is it your position that your theory supercedes a SC ruling,
too?
Steve
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 7:57 AM:
>
> > Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 1:04 AM:
> >>
> >>> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Blah balh yada blah yada blah balh yada yada yoda yada balh yada yoda
> >>>> yada balh whatever whatever etc. Balh blah blah etc. yada etc. etc. um
> >>>> etc. blah yoda blah yada balh yada yada whatever whatever yada yada.
> >>>> Blah balh yada
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for the quick summary. Now if you would care to elaborate...
> >>>
> >>> 1. Why does congress lose the power to declare war because of a treaty?
> >>
> >> Since Congress did not do so, how is this even relevant?
> >
> > So I assume you simply didn't know that war was declared? Your position
> > becomes weaker whenever you do say something new. I suggest you continue
> > your earlier strategy of repeating your claims rather than try to
> > support them.
>
> I'll bite - when did Congress declare an official war against Iraq?
You know, I really think you should look these things up before you form
an opinion. It doesn't bode well when after months of repeating a claim
you finally admitt you never even knew what was going on.
Look for a bill starting with "This joint resolution may be cited as the
'Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'." approved in
and by congress on the 10th of October 2002.
> here are some links that may help you to answer:
_I_ really don't need the help, as I have read the bill many months ago.
> http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/antle/qtr3/0903.htm
This is an article from the 3rd of September 2002 (a month before the
bill was passed) arguing that war must be authorized by congress.
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,769066,00.html
This article isn't about the US congress.
> http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/09/Rumsfeld_Iraq030709
This article is about Mr Rumsfeld refering to a US declaration of war
several month after the bill was passed.
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/law-f27.shtml
And this article is about a few "legal experts" who are apparently not
expert enough to know that the Geneva convention covers not wars between
powers who do not both accept the Geneva convention (and Saddam didn't).
It is legal to not know what the Geneva convention is about but it has
nothing to do with expertise.
So you have apparently nailed it down to one article that says war must
be declared and another, a few months later, talking about how war was
declared. And you never took to looking up what happened in between?
> >> In any case, even Congress has to follow laws.
> >
> > No, they don't, not if the constitution is involved. In such cases the
> > constitution is what is valid, not a law.
>
> Congress does not have to follow the law?
No. Congress make the law. Your method would make the passing of new
laws impossible since all new laws contradict at least one old law.
> Since when?
I don't know exactly. 1785, I think.
> And since when is the Constitution not a part of the law?
Also since 1785 or whenever it was first established that the
constitution is superior to the law.
> Well, I mean theoretically - they get away with breaking it all the time.
Let me summarize what we have now:
1. You didn't know war was declared, by congress, on the 10th of October
2002.
2. Somehow you got the idea that it wasn't and that the war was thus
against American law.
3. You have ignored people telling you that your claim was wrong for
months until you finally admitt that you didn't know when congress
declared war.
4. You have found one article from September 2002 talking about how war
must be declared and you have found one article from, what was it,
August 2003 talking how war was declared, but it didn't occur to you to
look up whether war was declared in between.
5. You didn't know that congress makes laws.
6. You didn't know that the constitution was and is superior to any law
congress can pass?
Do you know understand why so many people don't agree with your analysis
of the legality of the war?
Will we talk about international law next, now that we have covered
American law?
Andrew J. Brehm
> I did, with the difference from your reading being that I actually
> understand what it says. You obviously don't or you wouldn't have
> attemtpted to use it in your argument the way you once did... you know,
> with a treaty possessing the ability to suboordinate the Constitution.
> Andrew graciously provided you with the case that has already ruled
> against such an action. I suggest you read it to see where you went wrong.
> Or is it your position that your theory supercedes a SC ruling, too?
I am not the best person to explain these things as I have little
knowledge of American law, not being a lawyer, or an American even. But
I can look things up on the Web and I can read.
The US department of state appear to have a Web site where you can look
up these things. Court decisions and the US constitution are also
available for reading, as is most of the material about Iraq that was
ever published by the UN.
Now that Snit has informed us that he simply didn't know about what
congress did between "Congress Must Declare Iraq War" (the first article
he pointed me to[0]) and "the U.S. declared war" (from the third[1]),
even though my money would have been on "declare" as the logical link
between "must declare" and "declared", it has become much clearer what
this discussion is really about.
And since we have been through this before, I believe that Snit will
simply repeat his claim (that the war was illegal) and insist that it be
treated as fact in every discussion about the war he participates in.
It is very sad but at least now we know that his opinions were based on
very selective reading and a simple misunderstanding of events between a
"must happen" and "did happen". :-)
[0]<http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/antle/qtr3/0903.htm>
[1]<http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/09/Rumsfeld_Iraq030709>
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 7:57 AM:
>
> > Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 1:04 AM:
> >>
> >>> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Blah balh yada blah yada blah balh yada yada yoda yada balh yada yoda
> >>>> yada balh whatever whatever etc. Balh blah blah etc. yada etc. etc. um
> >>>> etc. blah yoda blah yada balh yada yada whatever whatever yada yada.
> >>>> Blah balh yada
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for the quick summary. Now if you would care to elaborate...
> >>>
> >>> 1. Why does congress lose the power to declare war because of a treaty?
> >>
> >> Since Congress did not do so, how is this even relevant?
> >
> > So I assume you simply didn't know that war was declared? Your position
> > becomes weaker whenever you do say something new. I suggest you continue
> > your earlier strategy of repeating your claims rather than try to
> > support them.
>
> I'll bite - when did Congress declare an official war against Iraq?
Then I guess Bush isn't a 'WAR' criminal then, is he? LOL!
> here are some links that may help you to answer:
>
> http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/antle/qtr3/0903.htm
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,769066,00.html
> http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/09/Rumsfeld_Iraq030709
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/law-f27.shtml
> >
> >> In any case, even Congress has to follow laws.
> >
> > No, they don't, not if the constitution is involved. In such cases the
> > constitution is what is valid, not a law.
>
> Congress does not have to follow the law? Since when? And since when is
> the Constitution not a part of the law?
He's telling you the Constitution isn't suboordinate to any law...
something you don't seem to understand.
Steve
Steve Carroll
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
I can hardly wait for that conversation... LOL!
Steve
Andrew J. Brehm
> > Will we talk about international law next, now that we have covered
> > American law?
>
> I can hardly wait for that conversation... LOL!
I won't be too good. I'm not an expert on international law either.
Steve Carroll
and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>
> > I did, with the difference from your reading being that I actually
> > understand what it says. You obviously don't or you wouldn't have
> > attemtpted to use it in your argument the way you once did... you know,
> > with a treaty possessing the ability to suboordinate the Constitution.
> > Andrew graciously provided you with the case that has already ruled
> > against such an action. I suggest you read it to see where you went wrong.
> > Or is it your position that your theory supercedes a SC ruling, too?
>
> I am not the best person to explain these things as I have little
> knowledge of American law, not being a lawyer, or an American even. But
> I can look things up on the Web and I can read.
>
> The US department of state appear to have a Web site where you can look
> up these things. Court decisions and the US constitution are also
> available for reading, as is most of the material about Iraq that was
> ever published by the UN.
>
> Now that Snit has informed us that he simply didn't know about what
> congress did between "Congress Must Declare Iraq War" (the first article
> he pointed me to[0]) and "the U.S. declared war" (from the third[1]),
> even though my money would have been on "declare" as the logical link
> between "must declare" and "declared", it has become much clearer what
> this discussion is really about.
I had previously cited the exact same Conressional material to Snit
prior to his conversation here with you. IOW, he's aware... he just
remains in denial.
> And since we have been through this before, I believe that Snit will
> simply repeat his claim (that the war was illegal) and insist that it be
> treated as fact in every discussion about the war he participates in.
You could set your clock by it:)
> It is very sad but at least now we know that his opinions were based on
> very selective reading and a simple misunderstanding of events between a
> "must happen" and "did happen". :-)
>
> [0]<http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/antle/qtr3/0903.htm>
> [1]<http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/09/Rumsfeld_Iraq030709>
Steve
fibercut
> In article <1g8u8d3.uqe8st1bu1kjkN%and...@netneurotic.de>, Andrew J.
> Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
>
>> And there is the French stereotype. Welcome! We have been awaiting you.
>
> Yeah, good thing there aren't any American stereotypes around here. You
> know, people who dogmatically accept and defend anything President Bush
> does. Good thing only French people against illegally invading
> basically defenseless countries on shaky grounds are the real
> stereotype.
>
> Point one finger at others and you have three pointing back at you,
> right?
Yea, but the problem is Europeans (and Canadians) lumping their hatred
of Bush to every American they meet on the net or in real life. I have
traveled abroad and I have seen up close the REAL bias europeans have
against all Americans. They don't seem to care that I don't
particularly like Bush's policies. Europeans have become really poor
sports about this whole Anti-American thing!
Snit
> In article <BC4F93C3.3DBC4%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 7:57 AM:
>>
>>> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 1:04 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Blah balh yada blah yada blah balh yada yada yoda yada balh yada yoda
>>>>>> yada balh whatever whatever etc. Balh blah blah etc. yada etc. etc. um
>>>>>> etc. blah yoda blah yada balh yada yada whatever whatever yada yada.
>>>>>> Blah balh yada
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the quick summary. Now if you would care to elaborate...
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Why does congress lose the power to declare war because of a treaty?
>>>>
>>>> Since Congress did not do so, how is this even relevant?
>>>
>>> So I assume you simply didn't know that war was declared? Your position
>>> becomes weaker whenever you do say something new. I suggest you continue
>>> your earlier strategy of repeating your claims rather than try to
>>> support them.
>>
>> I'll bite - when did Congress declare an official war against Iraq?
>
> Then I guess Bush isn't a 'WAR' criminal then, is he? LOL!
Oh. I get it. More silly word games. Ha.
>
>> here are some links that may help you to answer:
>>
>> http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/antle/qtr3/0903.htm
>> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,769066,00.html
>> http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/09/Rumsfeld_Iraq030709
>> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/law-f27.shtml
>>>
>>>> In any case, even Congress has to follow laws.
>>>
>>> No, they don't, not if the constitution is involved. In such cases the
>>> constitution is what is valid, not a law.
>>
>> Congress does not have to follow the law? Since when? And since when is
>> the Constitution not a part of the law?
>
> He's telling you the Constitution isn't suboordinate to any law...
> something you don't seem to understand.
It is also something I never claimed... so why bring it up?
Snit
I am still waiting for evidence of this official declaration of war. What
date was it on.
Andrew J. Brehm
I think the main point here, what with my posting and the reply about
the finger-pointing, is that _I_ am _not_ an American.
Andrew J. Brehm
> > I had previously cited the exact same Conressional material to Snit
> > prior to his conversation here with you. IOW, he's aware... he just
> > remains in denial.
>
> I am still waiting for evidence of this official declaration of war. What
> date was it on.
Oh boy.
Snit
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>> I had previously cited the exact same Conressional material to Snit
>>> prior to his conversation here with you. IOW, he's aware... he just
>>> remains in denial.
>>
>> I am still waiting for evidence of this official declaration of war. What
>> date was it on.
>
> Oh boy.
Here are some more links to help you understand. All recent news items
(from the last few days):
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/index.php?ID=3007
"The second piece of legislation is the resolution giving Bush a blank check
to wage war in Iraq. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes the
Congress to declare war, not delegate the responsibility to the president to
do as he feels. Nowhere in H.J.R. 114 ‹ Congress¹ authorization for the use
of military force in Iraq ‹ does it say the United States is declaring war,
only vague language giving the executive overly broad power."
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/02/far04003.html
"The Founder's intentions in giving Congress the power to declare war were
basic -- they wanted to protect Americans from tyrannical whims.
James Madison explained the framers' reasoning this way: "The constitution
supposes, what the History of all [governments] demonstrates, that the
[executive] is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone
to it." One hundred years later, Abraham Lincoln reiterated this
view. "Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people
in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people
was the object," he said, and so, war powers were delegated to Congress
to keep us free from "the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions."
Today, however, we have a situation where, as Irving Kristol laid out,
the president wrapped "himself in the American flag," let Congress "wrap
itself in the white flag of surrender" while the people were fed a "phony"
reason for war and "had no idea what was going on." But as "always,"
they "backed the president" anyway. This attitude is not only a diversion
from the Founders' intent, but it's also quite troubling."
-----
There has been no *official* declaration of war by the US Congress. Your
ignorance of this fact shows a lot about your understanding, or lack
thereof, of this war. Both you and Steve seem to be missing this piece of
information.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Yeah... we don't understand these things as deeply as you do:) I'll now
tell you what information I'm not missing...
Realistically, it's with a strong legal precedent that the U.S. wouldn't
have *officially* declared war on the entire nation of Iraq when the
target was the removal of a dictator believed to possess WMD. There are,
I suppose, some justifiable diplomatic reasons for this, even if the
entire U.N. was going to go into Iraq with us. I'm not saying I agree
but that is the current state of legality with this issue in our
country... it has yet to be challenged. I doubt it will happen but this
may very well be the case where the constitutionality of the War Powers
Resolution (Public Law 93-148) is put to task. We didn't *officially*
declare the Korean war, the Vietnam war, Operation Enduring Freedom or
the long-lasting Gulf war(in 1991 or 2003). I believe the last
*official* war was WWII and, if I'm not mistaken, it's one of only 5 or
6 wars to hold that distinction in our entire history. Given the face of
the likely modern opponent, I doubt this will change any time soon.
Another piece of the Constitution slipping away. Hell, we might as well
be arguing about what happened to the money in this country from a
constitutional standpoint... now THERE'S a topic!
Steve
Snit
fretwizz-7F42A4...@netnews.comcast.net on 2/11/04 8:23 PM:
> In article <BC5001D3.3DCF6%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 12:27 PM:
>>
>>> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I had previously cited the exact same Conressional material to Snit
>>>>> prior to his conversation here with you. IOW, he's aware... he just
>>>>> remains in denial.
>>>>
>>>> I am still waiting for evidence of this official declaration of war. What
>>>> date was it on.
>>>
>>> Oh boy.
>>
>>
>> Here are some more links to help you understand. All recent news items
>> (from the last few days):
>>
>> http://www.collegiatetimes.com/index.php?ID=3007
>>
>> "The second piece of legislation is the resolution giving Bush a blank check
>> to wage war in Iraq. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes the
>> Congress to declare war, not delegate the responsibility to the president to
>> do as he feels. Nowhere in H.J.R. 114 ‹ Congressą authorization for the use
At least here you flip flop to a place where you make sense - and, wow, you
now agree with my point that we never declared war on Iraq. And, yes, I
believe you are right, WWII was the last declared war (in the USA).
David Fritzinger
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
> In article <dfritzin-02EEF2...@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com>,
> David Fritzinger <dfri...@macNoSpam.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <fretwizz-6EDB0A...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> > Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
[big snip-I hope I didn't lose anything important]
> > > > Except, apparently, he *did* respond, and did destroy his WMD. You seem
> > > > to overlook that little bit of information
> > >
> > > I'm not overlooking it, there just is no indication this is an
> > > absolute(about the weapons destruction). For all we know WMD could have
> > > spread far and wide from Iraq and it could have happened over a 12 year
> > > period. If you think you can make an absolute statement to the contrary
> > > I'd love to hear what you'll base it on.
> >
> > I cannot dispute your statement. However, that doesn't make your
> > statement any more reasonable. If he had been giving weapons away, I
> > suspect we would have some evidence of the fact. We clearly do not.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Steve
>
>
> My statement isn't any less reasonable, either... and it's possibly just
> as viable as any reason one could come up with. That's the problem... we
> just didn't,(and still don't) know . The world can't have that with a
> dictator that has used such weapons on his own people. Of course, you're
> free to disagree with that as well. In any event, assuming there would
> be evidence if others had the WMD is not a good way to proceed IMO
> because it simply may not be the case. More importantly, it certainly
> provides no grounds for a government like Iraq to cast off their
> accountability to the world's demands.
>
> Steve
What about *our* accountablility to the world's demands? It seems most
of the world was against the Iraqi war.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 12:27 PM:
>
> > Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> I had previously cited the exact same Conressional material to Snit
> >>> prior to his conversation here with you. IOW, he's aware... he just
> >>> remains in denial.
> >>
> >> I am still waiting for evidence of this official declaration of war. What
> >> date was it on.
> >
> > Oh boy.
>
>
> Here are some more links to help you understand. All recent news items
> (from the last few days):
You are still not getting it, are you? War was declared on the 10th of
October 2002. "Recent news" have nothing to do with it.
Snit
1g91dxq.1u2g7b41g27if8N%and...@netneurotic.de on 2/12/04 1:20 AM:
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 12:27 PM:
>>
>>> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I had previously cited the exact same Conressional material to Snit
>>>>> prior to his conversation here with you. IOW, he's aware... he just
>>>>> remains in denial.
>>>>
>>>> I am still waiting for evidence of this official declaration of war. What
>>>> date was it on.
>>>
>>> Oh boy.
>>
>>
>> Here are some more links to help you understand. All recent news items
>> (from the last few days):
>
> You are still not getting it, are you? War was declared on the 10th of
> October 2002. "Recent news" have nothing to do with it.
So you still hold to the idea that an official war has been declared. Care
to offer any support.
As a hint: the last officially declared war was WWII.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in
> 1g91dxq.1u2g7b41g27if8N%and...@netneurotic.de on 2/12/04 1:20 AM:
>
> > Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote on 2/11/04 12:27 PM:
> >>
> >>> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> I had previously cited the exact same Conressional material to Snit
> >>>>> prior to his conversation here with you. IOW, he's aware... he just
> >>>>> remains in denial.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am still waiting for evidence of this official declaration of war.
> >>>> What
> >>>> date was it on.
> >>>
> >>> Oh boy.
> >>
> >>
> >> Here are some more links to help you understand. All recent news items
> >> (from the last few days):
> >
> > You are still not getting it, are you? War was declared on the 10th of
> > October 2002. "Recent news" have nothing to do with it.
>
> So you still hold to the idea that an official war has been declared. Care
> to offer any support.
>
> As a hint: the last officially declared war was WWII.
>
Snit, where do you think you can go with this argument?
Steve
Snit
Well, apparently not to an answer from you. LOL. Your implication is 100%
correct: asking you to support your claims is not likely to go anywhere.
us...@domain.invalid
Hoot baaah grrrr brawk moooo. Oink tweet quack steve brawk whinnie moooo
quack meow quack meow maaah growl grrrr hoot. Maaah tweet brock moo grrrr
chirp quack! Tweet growl quack tweet tweet snort steve grunt brawk brawk
brooock grunt brock brawk cluck tweet bark grunt hoot snort quack. Moo
moooo grunt maaah chirp grunt grunt snort grrrr moooo baaah snort. Hoot
grrrr meow moooo moo baaah snort moooo grunt tweet steve brawk. Grunt moooo
moo brawk snort grunt cluck chirp brock steve baaah moooo quack tweet brock
grunt bark snort moooo growl quack brawk brooock! Brooock chirp brooock
baaah meow bark growl moooo brock brawk hoot grunt quack baaah bark. Brawk
meow oink whinnie grunt quack brawk baaah quack steve moo steve! Brawk
baaah hoot moo snort brooock growl tweet oink oink grrrr hoot moooo! Baaah
oink grrrr grrrr grrrr brooock whinnie chirp hoot quack growl grunt meow
bark grrrr growl cluck grunt maaah. Grrrr snort grunt grunt hoot bark brawk
maaah bark brooock grunt. Chirp moooo brawk moo grrrr whinnie. Brooock
chirp grunt oink brawk bark. Tweet chirp baaah chirp maaah brooock snort
snort grunt. Snort chirp brooock baaah cluck steve brawk brawk brooock
snort whinnie chirp tweet steve snort brock bark. Quack moooo cluck quack
brock whinnie growl baaah brawk oink maaah moooo chirp snort? Moooo moooo
grunt oink baaah brooock maaah meow baaah brawk moooo whinnie. Brock growl
quack chirp oink quack steve maaah oink cluck steve chirp brawk grunt
brooock brawk. Brawk brooock baaah snort steve quack maaah steve bark quack
moooo chirp cluck maaah hoot baaah cluck steve moo. Grunt tweet grrrr grunt
brock meow grunt meow steve grunt moooo. Brock tweet steve grrrr meow meow
brawk moo oink meow meow moo moooo grunt moo oink. Brock whinnie chirp
snort cluck tweet cluck brooock grunt moooo grunt chirp brooock baaah.
Grunt grrrr brawk grrrr maaah baaah cluck snort snort meow snort moo baaah
chirp moooo meow brawk cluck quack baaah brock cluck snort? Snort maaah
baaah snort steve hoot tweet. Brock quack maaah brawk meow grunt quack
tweet steve tweet snort growl bark moo hoot. Snort meow tweet snort cluck
brock quack cluck maaah whinnie. Oink meow meow steve grunt growl meow bark
bark maaah maaah chirp moo tweet baaah oink meow tweet. Grrrr brawk oink
bark oink moo brawk baaah maaah brock grunt grunt oink bark moo quack steve
grunt brock quack brawk? Cluck quack tweet quack baaah meow baaah brawk
snort brawk whinnie quack chirp meow brock snort chirp? Chirp brooock grunt
grunt brawk quack snort maaah snort grrrr snort chirp moooo grunt brooock.
Brawk growl grunt tweet baaah grrrr moo quack brock snort quack chirp growl
chirp growl grunt grunt moo grunt hoot meow brawk grunt. Grunt quack
whinnie moooo growl moo cluck quack bark whinnie. Growl quack grunt brooock
bark steve growl growl brock moo brooock. Quack growl quack tweet hoot
grunt bark grrrr growl snort grunt whinnie brock brawk snort moo. Quack
moooo moo meow snort brawk grunt quack growl brawk. Baaah quack bark snort
whinnie grrrr snort quack moooo tweet snort meow cluck grunt bark chirp.
Grrrr grrrr brooock oink grunt grunt snort steve hoot meow snort brawk
brooock tweet brawk brock whinnie grrrr brooock maaah moooo snort. Moooo
brooock brawk whinnie maaah grrrr moo hoot brawk bark brawk brock. Grunt
meow grunt brawk maaah chirp steve steve chirp moooo steve moo chirp grunt
meow growl. Grrrr bark quack chirp brawk grunt snort snort baaah brawk
quack meow moooo brawk moo cluck brawk maaah bark grunt cluck snort brawk.
Moooo baaah cluck hoot whinnie maaah cluck whinnie chirp brawk grrrr. Chirp
snort brawk quack oink growl whinnie meow brawk quack growl brawk brooock
chirp snort snort brawk grrrr grrrr quack. Grunt grrrr hoot brooock tweet.
Meow bark brooock oink grrrr meow hoot brooock grunt brawk meow brawk meow
steve maaah snort growl. Cluck grrrr grrrr grunt quack. Chirp quack growl
grrrr hoot oink baaah hoot snort! Moooo bark quack brawk moooo grrrr moooo
grunt growl chirp steve quack quack tweet quack quack meow! Maaah brawk
bark cluck bark snort cluck brawk quack snort cluck. Meow maaah grunt quack
grrrr whinnie grunt. Hoot cluck chirp growl growl baaah bark moooo snort
baaah growl snort brock? Quack brooock cluck snort quack grunt hoot grrrr
oink brock moooo baaah brock whinnie steve brooock snort steve. Snort grunt
brawk snort meow hoot moo chirp brooock hoot brock brock steve meow baaah
brooock bark maaah. Growl brock grrrr whinnie moo brawk oink grunt whinnie
meow quack chirp grunt oink. Maaah brock grrrr chirp quack bark quack grrrr
growl brock quack grunt oink baaah maaah brawk grrrr maaah growl grrrr brawk
tweet grunt. Steve moo snort snort hoot grunt. Brooock hoot whinnie growl
snort cluck quack quack. Quack grunt chirp moo steve grunt moooo moooo
grunt hoot brock snort moooo steve snort. Maaah cluck moo meow quack cluck
growl snort moooo moo snort brock chirp baaah cluck baaah cluck! Grrrr
snort whinnie snort moo whinnie bark grrrr. Baaah hoot oink bark grrrr
whinnie moooo whinnie quack baaah. Baaah grunt tweet brawk grunt moo quack
moo cluck bark brawk maaah maaah. Chirp steve quack brooock snort brooock!
Brooock maaah hoot moooo whinnie growl quack hoot grunt brawk growl brawk
whinnie tweet moo bark bark moooo brock grunt quack. Whinnie brock bark
grunt maaah whinnie cluck bark brawk. Quack meow quack moo grunt quack
quack brawk baaah steve brock brock whinnie meow brawk snort grrrr whinnie?
Moo cluck baaah grunt moo brooock brawk grrrr chirp grrrr moooo moo snort
moooo brock bark snort moo brawk snort snort brooock moo? Maaah chirp snort
moo grrrr moo. Moooo moooo grrrr steve moo growl brooock whinnie meow brawk
chirp grrrr brawk moo bark. Whinnie brooock hoot snort baaah bark growl
snort quack snort hoot whinnie grrrr grunt maaah cluck quack. Grunt bark
moooo quack tweet brooock whinnie snort whinnie grunt whinnie baaah hoot
grunt baaah tweet snort quack quack grunt oink steve. Tweet bark grunt
chirp quack moooo grunt cluck brawk brock oink brawk brooock chirp brawk
snort brooock. Brawk moo grrrr brock grunt quack hoot quack moooo brock
quack steve moo meow grunt. Grrrr quack moo whinnie brawk grunt oink tweet
grunt brawk moooo whinnie tweet grrrr snort growl moooo hoot grrrr. Snort
bark cluck growl cluck steve bark oink oink snort grrrr quack grrrr meow
quack maaah bark grunt chirp chirp quack brawk. Grunt grunt cluck brock
brawk grunt maaah meow whinnie steve whinnie hoot brawk grrrr quack. Meow
steve meow maaah baaah moo grunt maaah hoot growl snort chirp quack.
Brooock bark whinnie snort moo brock steve growl cluck quack brawk grunt
quack brock brooock moo steve moooo quack grunt brock oink. Bark whinnie
snort hoot chirp bark grrrr tweet meow grunt maaah baaah baaah tweet quack
quack baaah snort brawk maaah! Brooock tweet grunt grrrr brawk brawk maaah
chirp maaah brawk. Grunt brock growl moo grunt brawk grrrr. Brock snort
chirp hoot tweet brock quack moo oink grunt snort tweet meow chirp baaah
cluck steve chirp grunt meow snort brooock brock. Brooock grunt cluck cluck
hoot steve moo grunt brock grrrr brawk brawk meow baaah tweet brawk. Bark
brock grunt growl brawk. Tweet brawk maaah chirp oink hoot chirp snort
chirp grrrr steve whinnie hoot bark maaah moo whinnie. Quack brawk baaah
grunt grunt bark chirp? Tweet baaah whinnie moooo bark snort cluck growl
whinnie snort chirp quack moooo growl brock oink brawk? Grrrr quack maaah
whinnie grrrr brock grrrr? Quack brooock whinnie brawk growl moooo snort
oink chirp quack moo steve quack bark tweet tweet cluck. Hoot growl grunt
meow brooock bark grunt brooock quack growl bark steve quack quack moooo.
Bark chirp quack quack cluck bark snort tweet moooo bark bark moooo snort
meow steve grunt snort grunt chirp. Oink steve snort brock grrrr brawk
chirp moo grunt oink grunt quack brooock quack brooock growl hoot. Brawk
meow whinnie whinnie grrrr snort. Grrrr moo moooo chirp snort brock meow
snort grrrr maaah. Brawk growl brock snort moo moooo cluck chirp tweet
moooo hoot meow. Moo growl steve meow brock brooock growl brock meow maaah
bark brawk quack moo grunt grunt cluck brooock. Baaah bark meow oink brawk
tweet. Grrrr quack tweet bark quack. Brock maaah oink meow quack maaah
grrrr oink grunt moooo whinnie snort snort grrrr. Cluck moo quack growl
tweet brawk? Moo cluck maaah grunt grunt quack baaah. Brock grunt maaah
oink maaah brock grrrr moo cluck brawk tweet growl growl. Maaah grrrr bark
brawk baaah hoot maaah moooo cluck brooock brock brooock chirp moooo baaah
grunt baaah oink moooo. Grrrr quack quack oink grrrr brawk quack quack meow
brawk brawk grrrr quack brock snort hoot quack brawk snort. Brock brooock
quack snort brawk hoot tweet grrrr meow brock quack snort snort grunt moo
brooock meow tweet growl bark quack brawk bark. Snort steve cluck grunt
grunt snort snort grrrr baaah. Snort brawk brawk snort snort brooock quack
snort grunt bark oink growl moooo quack oink quack growl brooock tweet bark.
Quack brock baaah oink brooock moooo whinnie. Quack grunt moo brooock steve
quack brawk moooo moooo? Cluck quack cluck quack cluck grrrr grunt oink
baaah growl. Bark hoot oink snort cluck moooo brawk brawk grunt. Meow
snort bark oink moo chirp snort quack brawk steve grunt meow. Grunt brawk
steve tweet grunt maaah quack grunt grunt tweet moooo. Tweet chirp grunt
oink tweet quack. Cluck snort grunt brawk cluck growl moooo hoot maaah
moooo brooock baaah hoot brooock snort growl brooock meow bark growl moo
tweet! Brock baaah cluck moooo brooock brooock steve brock grunt brawk moo.
Brooock moo hoot steve cluck grunt brawk grunt meow grrrr hoot chirp quack
quack hoot quack. Moooo cluck snort bark moooo quack brawk grunt baaah
brooock chirp. Brooock brooock grrrr grunt brawk brawk bark oink growl
whinnie brooock grrrr brawk growl. Chirp brooock brawk baaah steve grunt
brock tweet brooock moo grunt grunt brooock cluck! Grunt whinnie growl bark
moooo snort whinnie whinnie snort oink moo grunt grunt snort quack meow
brooock quack quack cluck. Maaah bark quack grunt brawk bark growl grunt
grrrr grrrr moo chirp brawk snort grunt growl growl chirp cluck maaah
whinnie moooo snort. Quack cluck snort oink snort steve brock hoot growl
brock baaah chirp chirp meow brawk hoot. Quack snort maaah quack whinnie
brawk brawk grunt brock brawk moo brooock brawk brock quack brawk snort
steve grrrr moooo brawk! Tweet quack grunt brawk hoot snort? Brooock
whinnie growl brawk brawk cluck brooock moo bark moooo grunt oink quack bark
grunt oink maaah quack quack brooock cluck grunt baaah. Maaah snort moo
brooock grunt growl steve maaah tweet brawk brooock bark oink brock quack
grunt quack quack moooo tweet brooock moo. Oink chirp meow growl meow baaah
snort oink baaah grunt maaah growl hoot growl oink bark chirp snort growl.
Brawk brawk growl meow bark brock baaah steve grunt grunt hoot tweet. Cluck
hoot tweet quack hoot snort snort chirp bark bark. Quack baaah steve meow
snort grunt oink tweet growl hoot grunt brawk moo grrrr grrrr chirp chirp
grunt grunt tweet bark. Oink cluck snort snort meow moooo tweet oink quack
snort snort chirp moooo quack meow bark. Growl bark baaah brock grrrr grrrr
quack quack moo bark chirp brawk quack grunt meow! Chirp snort steve snort
brawk oink brock tweet grunt bark grrrr snort quack growl growl hoot grrrr
baaah brock whinnie. Oink maaah cluck quack chirp steve maaah quack bark
grunt grunt moo grrrr brock whinnie steve whinnie maaah grunt. Moooo steve
moo brawk steve brooock cluck cluck quack meow meow meow brawk tweet grunt
oink. Moo moo growl brawk snort quack grunt snort brooock quack oink cluck
meow cluck meow brooock brawk chirp brawk meow grunt chirp hoot. Hoot moo
maaah grunt brawk quack brawk chirp maaah chirp chirp steve quack grunt
moooo brock snort. Brooock quack growl baaah brawk snort growl whinnie
brock. Baaah brawk tweet tweet grunt meow brawk maaah oink maaah tweet
brawk bark snort. Grunt whinnie grunt baaah whinnie bark maaah hoot grrrr
cluck. Moooo tweet snort bark brawk brock whinnie snort brawk brooock moo.
Baaah grunt steve brawk oink oink snort snort bark grunt. Steve tweet oink
tweet moo bark oink baaah. Whinnie bark baaah snort oink moooo grunt hoot
grunt grunt brock moo meow whinnie brawk. Snort oink grunt brawk quack
snort oink chirp quack chirp snort. Moo brawk moooo grrrr quack brawk growl
growl whinnie grunt bark grunt bark brawk quack quack brawk grunt tweet
brawk tweet quack snort. Moo snort bark bark oink whinnie maaah tweet snort
baaah quack brock. Moo whinnie chirp cluck grunt grrrr meow brock hoot
grunt quack moo. Quack hoot grunt oink growl chirp cluck chirp hoot moo
whinnie growl moooo hoot oink tweet. Cluck brock quack snort brawk snort
steve grunt oink oink snort! Snort brawk baaah baaah snort brock brawk
quack steve grrrr brock hoot meow chirp whinnie chirp cluck grunt baaah.
Snort baaah moo snort snort steve. Quack brawk moo chirp brawk moooo grunt
quack brooock grunt tweet chirp tweet grunt chirp brock oink! Moooo brawk
snort grunt whinnie meow grrrr baaah quack oink baaah steve brock tweet
whinnie moooo oink chirp brawk meow snort quack. Tweet moo brock maaah
brawk oink moooo brawk growl quack grunt grunt brooock grunt quack quack
steve brooock brawk brawk cluck quack cluck. Whinnie growl brawk moooo
quack moooo brawk snort oink whinnie steve brawk whinnie brawk meow snort
brawk grrrr brooock! Bark brawk oink maaah oink grunt baaah chirp snort
brooock hoot growl grunt brawk bark steve whinnie brawk! Grrrr grunt steve
quack brooock steve maaah moooo growl whinnie snort meow grunt oink meow
cluck grunt brawk tweet tweet. Snort chirp moo brooock chirp meow brawk
whinnie snort cluck grunt tweet grunt hoot? Maaah bark grunt moooo grunt
baaah meow oink brawk baaah moo meow whinnie brock moooo. Maaah meow brock
brock grunt snort moooo quack snort snort hoot meow brawk. Meow bark meow
grunt steve moooo baaah brawk brock snort brock snort grunt baaah tweet
grrrr tweet growl grunt. Quack quack grrrr meow brawk quack quack cluck
snort grunt brock cluck brawk steve moooo baaah grunt quack grrrr brawk
steve baaah meow. Snort quack meow quack tweet meow? Whinnie brooock
brooock baaah brooock bark brawk hoot grrrr grunt moooo grunt baaah. Chirp
bark hoot brock snort brock whinnie. Quack brawk whinnie cluck snort grrrr
steve growl steve meow chirp growl quack meow meow grunt quack tweet moooo.
Oink steve steve chirp moooo hoot meow oink moooo growl baaah brock hoot
maaah baaah grunt? Grrrr moooo oink snort maaah growl? Tweet quack grunt
grunt baaah tweet brooock maaah quack grrrr snort oink whinnie? Hoot meow
cluck grunt tweet brawk tweet cluck tweet baaah steve tweet baaah cluck
baaah. Maaah snort snort snort oink. Bark cluck snort maaah moo oink snort
whinnie. Grrrr steve tweet moo cluck quack maaah brock quack brock tweet
growl snort brawk. Brock steve growl brawk brawk maaah oink whinnie tweet
whinnie snort quack tweet whinnie steve quack moo brooock snort. Chirp
moooo steve brock grunt quack quack grunt moooo brawk tweet hoot cluck brawk
moooo brawk. Bark moooo grunt quack maaah brooock brawk grrrr steve snort
brooock brooock. Chirp brooock baaah grunt whinnie grrrr grunt cluck baaah
quack brock grunt steve grunt snort growl tweet. Brawk brock hoot brooock
bark whinnie hoot whinnie oink brooock grunt tweet steve baaah brooock
brooock snort tweet grunt baaah whinnie. Brooock moooo bark snort grunt
tweet meow quack hoot growl brock snort tweet moo moooo grrrr brawk growl?
Brawk brooock brock meow chirp. Grunt whinnie brawk grunt brawk cluck steve
grunt brooock snort brawk brawk moo bark. Oink chirp grunt snort quack
brock brooock whinnie moo baaah whinnie moo hoot growl. Brawk brawk brock
meow moo cluck brooock hoot whinnie bark brawk brock. Grunt brawk chirp
brawk steve whinnie grrrr hoot bark brock snort meow brawk bark quack growl
baaah grunt meow meow brock hoot bark. Brock tweet hoot grunt grunt grunt
brawk grunt grrrr baaah grunt brock chirp steve brock chirp growl cluck
maaah brock grrrr? Brock chirp hoot quack steve whinnie snort brock brawk
brawk brock brawk brawk moo brawk grunt whinnie cluck brock. Grunt grunt
maaah growl tweet whinnie whinnie oink snort moooo growl. Tweet cluck brawk
maaah grunt brawk grunt brock grrrr snort chirp cluck cluck. Bark grrrr
grunt bark meow hoot steve quack whinnie hoot growl grrrr hoot quack brock
baaah meow snort baaah quack. Snort snort brawk grunt moooo quack grunt
oink chirp snort bark quack oink tweet brawk brawk brawk grrrr baaah moooo
moooo hoot bark. Tweet chirp quack grunt baaah brooock quack brawk grrrr
moo growl baaah steve grunt grunt growl. Whinnie hoot baaah moooo moo maaah
oink maaah quack baaah hoot steve? Snort snort snort grunt steve grrrr
brawk brawk chirp snort brawk oink grunt meow grunt brock oink bark! Bark
steve grunt quack snort baaah steve! Grrrr brooock snort quack moooo snort
snort steve hoot snort brawk steve quack hoot brawk hoot grrrr snort meow.
Grunt steve meow snort moooo steve moooo bark grunt steve cluck moooo growl
brooock quack brooock snort grunt meow quack moo! Snort tweet grunt maaah
brooock steve brawk moooo baaah whinnie meow quack chirp baaah brawk steve
bark bark. Growl chirp quack snort moo brock meow brawk grrrr grunt quack
oink oink brock grunt. Meow tweet tweet quack meow growl moo hoot hoot
moooo moo bark snort bark. Quack quack grunt brock cluck snort brawk quack
cluck brawk steve brock baaah? Grrrr whinnie meow maaah grunt steve? Steve
snort grunt baaah grunt tweet brock quack grunt moooo quack grrrr tweet
quack bark whinnie hoot maaah bark brock maaah. Snort cluck tweet oink
moooo quack moo growl grunt brock snort tweet growl snort grrrr maaah bark
bark meow. Grrrr growl hoot snort grunt brooock moo cluck growl moooo
brawk! Steve bark whinnie oink moo baaah brooock quack bark snort. Grrrr
hoot maaah steve hoot snort cluck snort oink. Grunt bark brawk cluck grunt
moo moo whinnie moooo hoot grrrr tweet moo grunt cluck. Grrrr quack whinnie
cluck moooo whinnie hoot maaah whinnie moo hoot. Grunt meow baaah brawk
whinnie brawk quack grrrr maaah maaah brooock brawk brawk oink. Grunt brawk
maaah maaah moo brock brock snort steve. Snort growl brooock snort growl
snort maaah snort oink moooo. Whinnie brawk chirp moooo brawk grrrr whinnie
grunt chirp moooo quack brock brawk bark brock. Baaah brooock meow grrrr
oink grrrr brawk snort quack brawk moo. Quack moo moo maaah tweet oink bark
grunt. Bark snort brawk cluck baaah grunt snort baaah moo snort brooock
bark moo hoot brawk baaah cluck moo brawk brock cluck. Quack hoot grunt moo
baaah steve snort brawk moooo snort growl tweet chirp tweet steve baaah
brock snort brawk whinnie steve. Brawk brooock cluck meow bark moo brawk
brawk hoot baaah grunt brooock brock. Brawk brooock moo brooock meow.
Tweet snort steve quack whinnie baaah cluck grunt bark baaah hoot tweet
baaah brawk brooock quack moo. Grunt baaah growl steve moo meow bark maaah!
Bark brawk steve grunt grunt quack growl hoot moo brawk brock. Snort snort
maaah steve whinnie hoot whinnie snort growl brock meow grrrr whinnie moooo
whinnie chirp hoot grunt snort grunt quack. Grunt grunt tweet brawk quack
growl snort. Brooock brawk grrrr brooock grunt maaah moo tweet bark bark
whinnie tweet! Moo bark chirp whinnie quack bark steve grunt meow hoot
snort brock brooock moooo moo oink baaah oink snort. Brawk whinnie grunt
snort grrrr snort grrrr snort quack moooo meow baaah. Maaah tweet moooo
snort snort baaah brawk bark quack bark baaah steve brawk tweet brawk cluck
growl brock brawk brock? Chirp snort baaah maaah grunt brawk brawk snort
quack maaah quack brawk growl brawk brawk whinnie. Moooo baaah snort oink
snort grunt growl. Grrrr cluck brooock hoot oink growl baaah brooock
whinnie maaah moooo brock baaah moo brock baaah tweet oink snort tweet
moooo. Grrrr grunt oink hoot quack chirp. Whinnie snort moooo quack tweet
steve whinnie quack hoot moooo meow oink hoot grunt brock meow. Growl grrrr
brock growl grrrr steve steve steve bark quack growl. Grunt tweet snort
snort tweet cluck bark chirp brooock moooo brock meow grrrr moo tweet meow
baaah moo hoot bark grunt bark tweet! Brawk moo bark brawk baaah tweet
growl grunt quack quack brooock grrrr cluck maaah brawk bark snort brock
bark baaah. Grunt chirp meow snort steve bark quack whinnie moooo baaah.
Grrrr grrrr moooo grunt growl oink chirp chirp quack snort. Oink snort
quack quack growl maaah brawk oink. Steve brawk whinnie brawk bark chirp
moo tweet chirp grrrr grunt chirp bark brooock meow. Cluck whinnie hoot
cluck oink moo quack chirp brooock brock bark brawk grunt quack brock hoot
brawk snort moo steve growl. Baaah brooock brock grunt brock steve grrrr
cluck brawk grunt tweet brooock grunt. Whinnie brock grunt grunt whinnie
brooock grrrr growl bark brooock growl snort hoot quack? Steve brock bark
brooock brooock steve grrrr moo brock whinnie baaah growl brawk tweet meow
snort brock. Tweet bark brock grunt hoot grrrr grrrr whinnie chirp chirp
steve steve oink moo baaah meow hoot. Grunt baaah quack moooo steve cluck
quack grrrr steve snort moooo grunt chirp bark growl steve tweet grrrr quack
snort! Brawk maaah grrrr maaah brooock moooo maaah moo brawk moo brooock
oink moooo baaah whinnie bark brooock moooo. Baaah growl brooock quack
snort steve moo moooo oink grrrr brawk quack snort tweet. Chirp brawk
brooock tweet brawk meow chirp quack cluck brawk grrrr grunt snort snort
moooo grunt growl baaah.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
I gave you an answer. I'm now asking you, if you are truly not
politicizing, what the point of your argument is as this has been U.S.
policy since before either of us was born. Like I pointed out, given who
modern opponents are likely to be, this probably won't change. Is it now
your goal to argue the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution?
Hell, the 3 most powerful men in the U.S. are named Bush, Dick and Colon
(Colin) ... I don't see you whining about that:)
Steve
Snit
ubqdnTgQ69Q...@adelphia.com on 2/12/04 9:54 AM:
Seems you agree with me. I see you even quote me from this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC4E7C59.3D872%25snit%40nospam-cableone
.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
Thank you for your support.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in
> 1g91dxq.1u2g7b41g27if8N%and...@netneurotic.de on 2/12/04 1:20 AM:
>
> > Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Here are some more links to help you understand. All recent news items
> >> (from the last few days):
> >
> > You are still not getting it, are you? War was declared on the 10th of
> > October 2002. "Recent news" have nothing to do with it.
>
> So you still hold to the idea that an official war has been declared. Care
> to offer any support.
I have given you everything you need to know and more to look it up
yourself. I told you the bill was approved on the 10th of October 2002
by the US congress. You continue ignoring the existence of the bill and
pretend there was no such declaration.
I do not know nor do I pretend to know your intentions or reasons to
ignore facts, even when presented to you directly. I am sure you have
your reasons.
Nothing more can be said here. You can either look it up and agree that
it exists or you can continue to ignore the bill and use your ignorance
as an argument. It's up to you really.
us...@domain.invalid
Snit wrote:
You have never been more logical nor eloquent than in the post I quoted
below.
Snit
There was *no* official declaration of war. In case you did not know, an
authorization to use force is not the same thing as a declaration of war.
Might I suggest you look at a copy of the US Constitution. I would suggest
particular focus on Article I, section 8 and Article II, section 2.
Snit
My point is that the claim that there has been an officially declared war on
Iraq is false. Since this claim was brought up in an attempt to refute my
argument, it was completely appropriate for me to refute it.
I have done so.
As far as names, I found it funny that in a country so focused on sex and
violence, the last presidential contest was between two people name "Bush"
and "Gore".
If it were fiction, nobody would believe it. :)