...IT'S ALIVE....PENTAGON to Study Space Solar Power Program.
Jonathan
SSP Rises from the dead!
Incredible! Just incredible!
And the calvary rides in to save the day
...just in the nick of time.
l just love this country.
Pentagon Considering Study on Space-Based Solar Power
Thursday, April 12, 2007
By Jeremy Singer
The Pentagon's National Security Space Office (NSSO) may begin a study in
the near future on the possibility of using satellites to collect solar
energy for use on Earth, according to Defense Department officials.
The officials said the study does not mean that the military plans to
demonstrate or deploy a space-based solar power constellation. However, as
the Pentagon looks at a variety of alternative energy sources, this could be
one possible method of supplying energy to troops in bases or on the
battlefield, they said.
The military's work in this area also could aid development of a system that
could provide energy to non-military users as well, according to Lt. Col.
Michael Hornitschek, chief of rated force policy on the Air Force staff at
the Pentagon.
Hornitschek, who has been exploring the concept of space-based solar power
in his spare time, recently briefed the NSSO on the concept of space-based
solar power, and stimulated interest in conducting a formal study, according
to Lt. Col. M.V. "Coyote" Smith, chief of future concepts at the NSSO. The
NSSO would need to find the financial resources and available manpower to
conduct the study, Smith said.
John Mankins, president of the Space Solar Power Association in Washington,
said space-based solar power could offer a massive improvement over
terrestrial solar collection devices because constant exposure to the sun
avoids the nighttime periods where terrestrial systems cannot collect solar
energy.
The ability to constantly gather solar energy would allow a space-based
system to avoid safety concerns to other satellites or people on the ground
by constantly transmitting energy to Earth at a level that is high enough to
be useful but low enough so as not to cause any damage, said Mankins, a
former NASA official who previously served as manager of advanced concept
studies at NASA headquarters before leaving the agency in 2005.
Jeff Kueter, president of the Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank,
said it is too early to determine if space-based solar power is viable, but
said that if the concept is successful, it could be a potential "game
changer" for energy use.
The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet the desires
both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign energy sources,
as well as liberals who are looking for an environmentally friendly source
of energy, Kueter said.
While space-based solar power may sound like a high-risk proposal, it is
worth investing several million dollars in the near term to study the
concept because of the potential high payoff, Kueter said. If the studies
indicated that the concept might be feasible, it would be worthwhile for the
Pentagon to conduct flight demonstrations to prove out the technology in
space, he said.
If the Pentagon chose to pursue flight demonstrations or deployment of a
space-based solar power system, it could share costs by partnering with
NASA, the Department of Energy and other government agencies, Kueter said.
The concept of space-based solar power might appear to threaten traditional
energy industries, Kueter said. However, the rapidly increasing demands for
energy and diminishing supply of natural resources means that traditional
energy companies may need to find new ways of doing business in the future,
and they could likely find a way to be a part of the space-based solar power
effort through ways like contributing expertise in areas like energy
distribution, he said.
The NSSO would likely ask experts from industries like electrical power to
be involved in the study if it chooses to conduct it to draw on their
experience with power distribution, Smith said.
If the NSSO initiates the study on space-based solar power, it would likely
be the first time that the Pentagon has looked at the concept, Hornitschek
said.
Smith said he hoped the study could create a repository of information about
space-based solar power that may have been conducted by other agencies, as
well as any that may have existed within the military.
Hornitschek said it is too early to estimate the likely constellation size,
types of orbits or cost of a space-based solar-power constellation. However,
the satellites would likely feature very large, powerful solar arrays. In
addition, the cost of launching a constellation of such large satellites
with the types of launch vehicles available today would be a challenge,
Hornitschek said.
Mankins said a large constellation could demonstrate a significant launch
opportunity to industry, and could provide the stimulus needed for industry
to bring reusable launch concepts to fruition.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265380,00.html
Copyright © 2007 Imaginova Corp. All Rights Reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Jonathan
Of course, it'll be the military that ends up building
the space infrastructure needed to save the future.
It just dawned on me, the ideal solution is always
found in the union of opposite extremes.
So I decided to google the system specific opposite
extremes ..solar powered space weapons...and up
came this article.
Up came the path to our future salvation.
"...but said that if the concept is successful, it could be a
potential "game changer" for energy use."
I TOLD YOU!
"Hornitschek, who has been exploring the concept of space-based
solar power in his spare time, recently briefed the NSSO on the
concept of space-based solar power, and stimulated interest in
conducting a formal study"
I TOLD YOU!...to have faith in the better idea, with the internet
today it'll 'find a way' to get around.
"The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet the
desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign
energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an environmentally
friendly source of energy, Kueter said."
I TOLD YOU! ...it's a better idea due to the universal support
this idea should generate.
"Mankins said a large constellation could demonstrate a significant
launch opportunity to industry, and could provide the stimulus needed
for industry to bring reusable launch concepts to fruition."
I'm not saying it again, but oh hell...I TOLD YOU THIS TOO <g>
...that SSP is the path to the best possible future.
s
Michael Turner
I laughed over this one:
""The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet
the
desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign
energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an
environmentally
friendly source of energy, Kueter said."
Hah! As if there were no liberals seeking greater energy
independence, and no conservatives interested in more environmentally
friendly sources of energy.
As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
Since SPS is probably uninteresting (and somewhat overkill) if used
solely for improving military logistics responsiveness, any such
system would probably find interesting civilian uses in applications
where the needs are similar: where you'd like to quickly lay down some
infrastructure that requires electricity. Little as some people might
like it, prospecting for, and extracting, fossil fuels in remote areas
might be one of thos application areas -- companies using SPS instead
of burning fossil fuels for these activities might even be eligible
for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol. Perhaps even certain
marine applications are possible, if you can put rectennas on pontoons
(or could rectennas even be slightly below the ocean surface, if the
microwave frequencies are right?)
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
Joe Strout
Michael Turner <le...@gol.com> wrote:
> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
their natural resources, and have a lot more economic pressure we can
apply when necessary, at least to countries that import our energy.
That's a much stabler and stronger situation than we're in now, even
though this sort of strength isn't military in nature.
A good long-term plan would be to produce (and somehow monopolize on)
these SPS farms, and get the rest of the world addicted to our cheap
energy streaming down from space. Maybe we can even give away the first
hit free... ;)
Cheers,
- Joe
Rand Simberg
Strout <j...@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>In article <1177927302.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael Turner <le...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
>> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
>> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
>
>Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
>a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
>simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
>their natural resources,
Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
Jonathan
"Michael Turner" <le...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:1177927302.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> I laughed over this one:
>
> ""The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet
> the
> desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign
> energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an
> environmentally
> friendly source of energy, Kueter said."
>
> Hah! As if there were no liberals seeking greater energy
> independence, and no conservatives interested in more environmentally
> friendly sources of energy.
So ...both sides of the aisle like ...both reasons for studying SSP.
Not just one or the other? That conclusion only strengthens
the reasoning.
>
> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
> Since SPS is probably uninteresting (and somewhat overkill) if used
> solely for improving military logistics responsiveness,
One of the most vulnerable aspects of our society to
terrorists is an electrical grid. Having an independent
source difficult for a terrorist to attack might be
a large advantage.
In this paper they explore that aspect in detail.
The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global
Mobilization for a Common Human Endeavor
Synopsis
"While space solar power has not been economically
viable in the past, new technologies make this
renewable energy source a promising countermeasure
to terrorist sabotage of U.S. and global energy grids.
This paper will also discuss the potential diplomatic
advantage that investment in space solar power
might have for U.S. relations with countries
in the developing world."
http://www.homeplanetdefense.org/Space%20Solar%20Power1.pdf
> any such
> system would probably find interesting civilian uses in applications
> where the needs are similar: where you'd like to quickly lay down some
> infrastructure that requires electricity.
Like in Iraq? Or in space? It seems any large scale use of space
requires an energy infrastructure. But we have to have a reason to
build that infrastructure. Going to the moon doesn't give
us one. The world energy situation does. Besides
any make-work program like the Vision is hard
to justify suge huge expenditures. SSP isn't make-work
since it has huge potential returns for everybody.
Early commercial aviation needed the US mail to
get things rolling. I think SSP can play that very
same role for space exploitation.
Space exploration is for robots.
Exploitation is for manned missions.
At least, that's the way it should be imo.
> Little as some people might
> like it, prospecting for, and extracting, fossil fuels in remote areas
> might be one of thos application areas -- companies using SPS instead
> of burning fossil fuels for these activities might even be eligible
> for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol. Perhaps even certain
> marine applications are possible, if you can put rectennas on pontoons
> (or could rectennas even be slightly below the ocean surface, if the
> microwave frequencies are right?)
Just extropolate computer technology into the future a bit.
Once we have the constellation of SSP satellites, in
whatever form they may take, it should be conceivable
to power individual cars and such from space. Pay your
bill, or like cable tv now, the car just shuts off~
God only knows what our best and brightest might invent
if given a long term research committment. Like that
hundred billion over twenty years for the moon?
More moon rocks or SSP? In an honest debate
SSP would win going away. It's a concept that
could win the funding, the moon has yet to do
that. I bet the Pentagon could take just a small
portion of NRO slush money and fund the whole
damn SSP program.
I mean, just think of the geopolitical implications
of having the US go from a country slowly being
strangled by the oil cartels that mostly hate us.
And to a US that in a few decades will OWN the
world energy market through SSP.
If the world simply believes we are changing our
future so dramatically, it'll have effects right away
long before any SSP program is up and running.
>
> -michael turner
> http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
>
Jonathan
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:46391b06....@news.giganews.com...
I think Iraq was mostly about the world oil market. Keeping people
like Saddam from controlling it, and with it the world economy.
Keeping the world oil market secure and free is a completely
legitimate reason for invading Iraq. So it's about oil, but
not stealing it, keeping it available for everyone.
Rand Simberg
"Jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:46391b06....@news.giganews.com...
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
>> Strout <j...@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>> way as to indicate that:
>>
>> >In article <1177927302.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Michael Turner <le...@gol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
>> >> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
>> >> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
>> >
>> >Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
>> >a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
>> >simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
>> >their natural resources,
>>
>> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
>> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
>
>I think Iraq was mostly about the world oil market. Keeping people
>like Saddam from controlling it, and with it the world economy.
>Keeping the world oil market secure and free is a completely
>legitimate reason for invading Iraq. So it's about oil, but
>not stealing it, keeping it available for everyone.
That was a minor factor, but if it were the only one, we would also
have invaded Venezuela, Iran, Nigera, Saudi Arabia, Norway, the UK,
etc.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt...
Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.
But not from me.
Fred J. McCall
:In article <1177927302.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
: Michael Turner <le...@gol.com> wrote:
:
:> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
:> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
:> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
:
:Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
:a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
:simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
:their natural resources,
No. If we were prone to such things, lots of cheap energy would give
us MORE incentive to invade places for raw materials.
:A good long-term plan would be to produce (and somehow monopolize on)
:these SPS farms, and get the rest of the world addicted to our cheap
:energy streaming down from space. Maybe we can even give away the first
:hit free... ;)
The problem is that SPS energy is *NOT* particularly cheap. If it was
space would already be full of SPS generating and transmitting
stations.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Michael Turner
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:09:02 -0400, in a place far, far away,
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:46391b06....@news.giganews.com...
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
> >> Strout <j...@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> >> way as to indicate that:
>
> >> > Michael Turner <l...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
> >> >> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
> >> >> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
>
> >> >Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
> >> >a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
> >> >simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
> >> >their natural resources,
>
> >> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
> >> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
>
> >I think Iraq was mostly about the world oil market. Keeping people
> >like Saddam from controlling it, and with it the world economy.
> >Keeping the world oil market secure and free is a completely
> >legitimate reason for invading Iraq. So it's about oil, but
> >not stealing it, keeping it available for everyone.
>
> That was a minor factor, but if it were the only one, we would also
> have invaded Venezuela, Iran, Nigera, Saudi Arabia, Norway, the UK,
> etc.
>
> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt...
>
> Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not so sure that oil was a "minor factor" in invading Iraq, Rand.
Look a couple moves ahead in the geopolitical game: 9/11 was perhaps a
shot over the bow informing the U.S. (and the world) that Saudi Arabia
might be the next major arena of Islamist Revolution (the last major
instance being Iran). Would Americans pump gas into their cars if
they knew some of it might come from a nation whose government
sympathized with, and harbored, 9-11 co-conspirators? I think
Americans would feel queasy and violated even importing goods from
countries that freely consumed Al Qaeda Arabia oil! If so, what are
the implications of a global oil market that has suddenly become too
politicized to be free? Saudi Arabia is still the #1 nation in the
world in petroleum reserves; even if the reserves accounting is
seriously off, the whole peninsula is likely to fall to Islamist
revolution if Saudi Arabia goes, and that would make it *definitely*
the #1 reserves nation on Earth.
With Arabian peninsula oil suddenly coming to be seen as political
poison, you start looking closely at other major reserves. Because
otherwise you're looking at severe oil shock prices, and the political
repercussions from extended stagflation. Well, Iraq is #2 (maybe #3
after Canada and its tar sands).
Say what you want about Ba'athism, it was a fairly powerful
secularizing force in Iraqi society, making it a much less problematic
nation to invade. Also, unlike Saudi Arabia, Iraq does not host major
Sunni holy cities like Mecca and Medina.
And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
The more realpolitik types among them probably regard an extended low-
intensity conflict in Iraq as a way to save Saudi Arabia from Islamic
revolution (intervening militarily on the Peninsula being almost
certainly a non-starter -- we don't yet have credible Global Jihad
against America, but U.S. troops occupying Mecca and Medina and
vetting muslim pilgrims would certainly make one, overnight.) Such a
conflict and the passions it stirs up in other oil-exporting nations
helps keeps world oil markets jittery, which keeps oil prices
artificially high, which helps arrest the long decline in per capita
income in Saudi Arabia. That decline probably represented the
greatest single factor favoring Islamic Revolution in the Land of
Mecca and Medina. After all, revolutions happen not because the poor
and wretched masses rise up, but because relatively comfortable masses
tangibly feel themselves falling.
If there was any such calculation by this administration, well ... I'm
reminded of a saying attributed to Hitler: "War is like throwing open
a door onto a darkened room." The secularization of Iraq under
Ba'athism was widespread, but clearly only skin-deep. Iraq is still
one of the most consanguinous nations in the world, and ranks among
the lowest in the world in measures of generalized social trust. In
troubled times, family, clan and tribal ties come to the fore. So
does religion and its consolations. Absent any reliable central
stabilizing authority (even a rather murderous central authority like
Saddam's), the prevailing attitude toward resolving most conflicts
will tend to be "Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out". Iraq hosts
the major holy sites of Shi'ism, a sect with a history of civil war
with Sunni Islam. That civil war seems to be reviving (one of the few
elements of this tragedy in which I am willing to say that Al Qaeda
has played a part, if you could call Zarqawi truly "Al Qaeda".) What
seems to be greater secularization in Kurdistan is really just good
ol' racialist nationalism: these days, a non-Kurdish Iraqi actually
needs a passport to legally enter Kurdistan, and its Arabs are second-
class citizens.
It doesn't look good. I wish it looked better. I sincerely hope
David Petraeus succeeds. I find the sentiment of leaving Iraqis to
sort it out among themselves because it's really their responsibility
now to be morally baseless, if only because about half of Iraq is
under 20 years old. But even Petraeus (reportedly) quotes his odds of
success at only 25%. American voters may doom any such effort anyway
-- George Washington had it right when he said that a war can't be
sustained on an ideal alone, it requires national-interest
motivations. We may end up having to retreat to Kurdistan (which has
a national-interest case: it's quite stable, quite friendly to us, and
has reserves of oil that could feed America's addiction for five years
or so (if we had to rely upon it alone, which we don't.) Jeane
Kirkpatrick had it right when she said that dictatorship is often the
only thing holding a society together. And I guess smart dictators
make *sure* that's the case -- that they will be perceived as evil,
perhaps, but still a lesser evil than their sudden absence. People
who will die for you even if they hate you are stronger than Kevlar,
and lots of Iraqi Saddam-haters died preserving Saddam's state,
including Kurds fighting other Kurds, and Iraqi Shi'ites fighting
Iranian Shi'ites. And truer words were never spoken by George W. Bush
when he said that tolerating and even fostering dictatorships among
our oil suppliers was one of the worst foreign policy decisons ever
made. Although in his case, that standout truth is conspicuous
against a backdrop of being very economical with the truth, whenever
he wasn't embellishing it.
Anyway, it's not as simple as "We invaded Iraq for its oil." But I
think there's a grain or two of truth to the idea, understood in a
broader context. Obviously, there is no reason to move against the
U.K. or Norway as oil suppliers -- they can be counted upon to play
ball. But Venezuela, Iran, Nigera, Saudi Arabia? They all present
their own problems. Nigeria resembles Iraq culturally in some
interesting ways -- very high consanguinity, latent internal
nationalism based on tribal affinity and/or religion (with the north
hosting a large and growing muslim population), a skin-deep layer of
secularization over a not very modernized and highly artificial
"nation" with a very corrupt democracy (when it's not be run by
juntas). Venezuela's claim to be a democracy is increasingly tenuous
under Chavez, and it's steadily becoming for South America what Saudi
Arabia is to the world. Iran? Enough said. Saudi Arabia? See
above. If Saudi Arabia becomes Al Qaeda Arabia (in all but name
perhaps), increased dependence on other problematic suppliers may make
them bigger problems, as the Petrostate Syndrome deepens for them --
and they'll either be uninvadable for all practical purposes, like
Saudi Arabia and Iran, or become potential targets for invasion on
flimsy, trumped-up pretexts. Who knows? In 2015, we may find
ourselves arguing about whether Cuba, which hosted Marxist terrorists
that flew planes into building in Miami in 2011 after post-Fidel state
failure, is really doing as well as portrayed with its U.S.-installed
government; and we might see voters increasingly in favor of a move to
get the hell out of Venezuela, where things seem far less likely to
stabilize -- especially in view of how South American states have come
to hate us. Stranger things have happened. Stranger things *are*
happening.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
Rand Simberg
Turner <le...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>> >I think Iraq was mostly about the world oil market. Keeping people
>> >like Saddam from controlling it, and with it the world economy.
>> >Keeping the world oil market secure and free is a completely
>> >legitimate reason for invading Iraq. So it's about oil, but
>> >not stealing it, keeping it available for everyone.
>>
>> That was a minor factor, but if it were the only one, we would also
>> have invaded Venezuela, Iran, Nigera, Saudi Arabia, Norway, the UK,
>> etc.
>>
>> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt...
>>
>> Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.
>>
>> But not from me.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I'm not so sure that oil was a "minor factor" in invading Iraq, Rand.
All right, it was a significant factor. The point is, it was hardly
the only one, or even necessarily the biggest one (other than keep it
from Saddam.
>Say what you want about Ba'athism, it was a fairly powerful
>secularizing force in Iraqi society, making it a much less problematic
>nation to invade. Also, unlike Saudi Arabia, Iraq does not host major
>Sunni holy cities like Mecca and Medina.
>
>And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
sanctions.
Fred J. McCall
:On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
:Turner <le...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:way as to indicate that:
:>
:>And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
:>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
:>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
:>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
:>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
:>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
:>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
:
:Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
:sanctions.
More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
where the US gets its oil.
If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
women are probably friendlier.
If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
OPEC).
It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Michael Turner
> On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
As if it were all about markets, rather than geopolitics. An
extraordinarily simplistic view.
The sanctions were all about punishing an entire society for the
transgressions of its leadership. Well, look how well that worked
with Germany after WW I. Lifting the sanctions on Iraq without some
sort of political liberalization and peaceful regional integraton
would have infused the Ba'athist regime with money and arms at a bad
time, while a general sense among Iraqis of having been victimized in
defeat could still be played upon politically. That's the kind of
thing Hitlers feed upon (and as bad as Saddam was, he wasn't quite
Hitler at any point.).
And the post-9/11 implications are pretty crucial. Lifting the
sanctions would have increased the supply of oil, reducing the price,
further eating into per capita incomes in nations like Saudi Arabia
where many are predisposed to the sort of political gospel that Al
Qaeda was preaching. Possible upshot: we'd have the world's largest
reserves of oil controlled by a government sympathetic to Al Qaeda,
and the *second* largest reserves of oil controlled by a Ba'athist
government not much less hostile to the U.S. And, of course, you have
to consider the risks to world oil supply from their mutual hatred of
each other, not their hatred of us -- Al Qaeda regards Ba'athists as
dangerous apostates, and Iraqis are hardly ignorant of the role that
Saudi Arabia played in the first Gulf War. Throw Iran into the
dangerous mix (Shi'ites, and therefore apostates to Al Qaeda as well),
and the picture hardly gets any better, does it?
It's not about what the market price for oil would be tomorrow, with a
source of oil reestablished. It's also about the possible
geopolitical destabilizing effects from who wins and who loses in that
scenario, over periods of decades. Do people in the Bush
administration think about these things? It would be irresponsible of
them to *not* being paying people to think full-time about these
things.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
Michael Turner
> simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>
> :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
> :way as to indicate that:
> :>
> :>And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
> :>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
> :>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
> :>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
> :>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
> :>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
> :>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
> :
> :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
> :sanctions.
>
> More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
> where the US gets its oil.
It's not all about where it gets its oil today. It's also where it's
going to get its oil in 10 years, in 20 years.
> If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
> oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
> women are probably friendlier.
Canadian tar sands aren't profitable until oil goes over about $20-25/
bbl, a relatively recent situation.
> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
> and gotten the sanctions listed.
I didn't say it was "all about oil", I merely objected when Rand said
it was a minor factor.
> Since oil is pretty fungible, it
> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
> OPEC).
Somehow, even though I didn't say it was "all about oil", you seem to
have concluded I believe something I never said: that it was all about
*cheap* oil. Actually, from the point of view of stabilizing Arab
societies where Al Qaeda might hold more popular appeal than the
sitting government, the *optimal* price of oil might have been quite a
lot higher than the lowest theoretical prices. Declining per capita
incomes among those who have become used to comfort are a big
ingredient in any recipe for revolution. And Saudi Arabia was one of
those countries. As Prince Bandar might have put it to Dubya at some
point: "You can pay me now or you can pay THEM later." (Not to
mention that higher prices/bbl tend to mean higher profits for oil
majors.)
> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
Yeah, except he didn't have a gun, and probably wasn't even a madman.
> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
As did most of Congress. What didn't happen, however, was an
invasion. (Well, no *US* invasion, anway. When Ahmed Chalabi, with
American money, tried to send in an invasion force, what happened was
an object lesson in why invading Iraq might not be a terribly good
idea: Saddam-hating Kurds and Saddam's Republican Guard worked
*together* against it.)
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
And some people, on some issues, avoid thought almost entirely because
of their sorry record of getting lost in it.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
Rand Simberg
<le...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:
>(Not to
>mention that higher prices/bbl tend to mean higher profits for oil
>majors.)
There's no intrinsic reason that this would be the case.
Rand Simberg
<le...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:
>> >And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
>> >people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
>> >Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
>> >who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
>> >pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
>> >Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
>> >of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
>>
>> Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
>> sanctions.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>As if it were all about markets, rather than geopolitics. An
>extraordinarily simplistic view.
Exactly. So it wasn't about giving the majors access to the oil. It
was about taking away Saddam's access from the oil.
<snip>
Henry Spencer
Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The problem is that SPS energy is *NOT* particularly cheap. If it was
>space would already be full of SPS generating and transmitting
>stations.
Not exactly: the problem is that the *first* powersat is not particularly
cheap. The 50th could be the cheapest energy source around, depending on
what assumptions you make -- analyses claiming that powersat energy is
excessively expensive tend to make stupid assumptions like launching all
materials from Earth.
The central difficulty with powersats is not that they are obviously
uneconomical, but that they do not scale down well, which means that (at
least with current technology) a very large up-front investment is needed
to test their viability.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Henry Spencer
>oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
>women are probably friendlier.
Maybe you were just afraid to, after what happened the last couple of
times that was tried. :-) :-) :-)
(For any newcomer who doesn't know what I'm alluding to: the US has twice
invaded Canada with the intention of conquering it, in 1775 and 1812, and
both attempts were complete disasters, humiliating total defeats. Each
time the balance of forces favored the invaders, but unpreparedness, inept
leadership, and overconfidence swung the outcome the other way. The
balance of forces has gotten even more lopsided since 1812, but whether
US preparedness and leadership have improved is less clear. :-))
Rand Simberg
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <o1ee3314iglivpv5l...@4ax.com>,
>Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
>>oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
>>women are probably friendlier.
>
>Maybe you were just afraid to, after what happened the last couple of
>times that was tried. :-) :-) :-)
>
>(For any newcomer who doesn't know what I'm alluding to: the US has twice
>invaded Canada with the intention of conquering it, in 1775 and 1812, and
>both attempts were complete disasters, humiliating total defeats. Each
>time the balance of forces favored the invaders, but unpreparedness, inept
>leadership, and overconfidence swung the outcome the other way. The
>balance of forces has gotten even more lopsided since 1812, but whether
>US preparedness and leadership have improved is less clear. :-))
Apparently not, based on Iraq, but we'd probably win anyway. I
somehow don't see Canadians as being very dedicated suicide bombers.
;-)
Actually, if we really wanted to conquer a close country for oil,
Venezuela seems like a more likely candidate. And with not only
friendly, but extremely beautiful women.
By the way, Henry, do you have a link to your previous debunking of
Heinlein's "bombard the earth from the moon" notion from TMIAHM? I
was googling for it and couldn't come up with anything. The subject
came up on my blog.
Rand Simberg
simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Actually, if we really wanted to conquer a close country for oil,
>Venezuela seems like a more likely candidate. And with not only
>friendly, but extremely beautiful women.
Not, of course, to disparage in any way the pulchritudinous qualities
of the lasses of the Great White North.
Michael Turner
> On 1 May 2007 20:20:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael Turner
> to indicate that:
>
> >(Not to
> >mention that higher prices/bbl tend to mean higher profits for oil
> >majors.)
>
> There's no intrinsic reason that this would be the case.
By which you mean to say that it's not true, or that it's not a
reliable guide to future prices? If you think it's not true, it can
only mean you're not paying attention. If you think that tendency has
no intrinsic predictive power, I'll listen to someone with a PhD in
economics with specialization in oil markets before I'll listen to
you.
-michael turner
Michael Turner
> On 1 May 2007 20:03:58 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael Turner
Saying that invading Iraq was about any one single thing like taking
Saddam's oil access away is as ridiculous as saying we invaded Iraq
for its cheap oil. The real question is: how big a factor was
securing long-term oil supplies in the Middle East as a whole, in the
face of a suddenly sharpened argument that Islamic revolution was
impending in major reserve nations like Saudi Arabia? I'd say it was
pretty big.
Even G.W. Bush has tried to sell staying in Iraq with the argument
that we can't afford to leave Iraq's oil controlled by Al Qaeda
(ridiculous, of course, given what a relatively minor player Al Qaeda
is in Iraq's civil conflict; but he did pretty well for a while making
ridiculous cases, so it's in character.) And Colin Powell, in a radio
interview, said that the invasion was about getting a friendly oil-
supplier nation in the Middle East (subtly implying that Saudi Arabia
might, in some post-Saud scenario, be quite a bit less than
friendly.) Powell of course backpedaled in the same interview, saying
that it was really about liberating Iraqis -- conflating "friendly" in
the diplomatic sense with "free, democratic, peaceful". The strident
denials of the oil motive made by other figures in this administration
aren't very interesting to me -- after all, in politics, you generally
say what's convenient and -- if that involves lying -- what you can
get away with. Occasionally, it even coincides with the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But that's usually just a
lucky coincidence. Or an unlucky coincidence, if telling the truth
amounts to accidentally shooting yourself in the foot.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
Fred J. McCall
:On 1 May 2007 20:20:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael Turner
It tends to be the case, though. What's curious is why people think
there's something wrong with this.
What the oil companies typically do is aim at a specific percentage
return. If oil is $20/barrel and I aim for 5% return (about what the
oil industry targets, I think), then my profit is $1/barrel. If the
price doubles, so does the AMOUNT (but not the percentage) of profit.
Most retail businesses work approximately the same way.
Rand Simberg
<le...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:
>On May 2, 4:37 am, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>> On 1 May 2007 20:20:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael Turner
>> <l...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>> to indicate that:
>>
>> >(Not to
>> >mention that higher prices/bbl tend to mean higher profits for oil
>> >majors.)
>>
>> There's no intrinsic reason that this would be the case.
>
>By which you mean to say that it's not true, or that it's not a
>reliable guide to future prices?
I don't know whether it's true or not, but it's certainly not a
reliable guide to future prices.
>If you think it's not true, it can only mean you're not paying attention.
Let's just say I'm a skeptic.
Rand Simberg
<le...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:
>On May 2, 4:39 am, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>> On 1 May 2007 20:03:58 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael Turner
>> <l...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
>> to indicate that:
>>
>> >> >And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
>> >> >people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
>> >> >Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
>> >> >who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
>> >> >pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
>> >> >Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
>> >> >of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
>>
>> >> Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
>> >> sanctions.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >As if it were all about markets, rather than geopolitics. An
>> >extraordinarily simplistic view.
>>
>> Exactly. So it wasn't about giving the majors access to the oil. It
>> was about taking away Saddam's access from the oil.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>Saying that invading Iraq was about any one single thing like taking
>Saddam's oil access away is as ridiculous as saying we invaded Iraq
>for its cheap oil.
Since I didn't say that, I'm not sure what your point is. I was only
discussing the factor that had to do with oil. I'm not sure how you
missed this, since you had already criticized me for saying that oil
was a minor factor.
Henry Spencer
Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
>By the way, Henry, do you have a link to your previous debunking of
>Heinlein's "bombard the earth from the moon" notion from TMIAHM? I
>was googling for it and couldn't come up with anything. The subject
>came up on my blog.
The subject has come up more than once, and I never saved a complete set
of my postings on it... However, I probably have a better idea of what
to search for. :-) Try these, especially the second (noting that they're
long threads and you may have to follow links forward or backward to see
all the discussion):
(Apologies for the long URLs.)
Rand Simberg
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <463bb1e4....@news.giganews.com>,
>Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
>>By the way, Henry, do you have a link to your previous debunking of
>>Heinlein's "bombard the earth from the moon" notion from TMIAHM? I
>>was googling for it and couldn't come up with anything. The subject
>>came up on my blog.
>
>The subject has come up more than once, and I never saved a complete set
>of my postings on it... However, I probably have a better idea of what
>to search for. :-) Try these, especially the second (noting that they're
>long threads and you may have to follow links forward or backward to see
>all the discussion):
Thanks, Henry, can't expect any more than that.
Jonathan
"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JHF35...@spsystems.net...
> In article <q77d33d6fajnku6hf...@4ax.com>,
> Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >The problem is that SPS energy is *NOT* particularly cheap. If it was
> >space would already be full of SPS generating and transmitting
> >stations.
>
> Not exactly: the problem is that the *first* powersat is not particularly
> cheap. The 50th could be the cheapest energy source around, depending on
> what assumptions you make -- analyses claiming that powersat energy is
> excessively expensive tend to make stupid assumptions like launching all
> materials from Earth.
I've seen studies that indicate current SSP technology might already
be competitive with peak rates. And more importantly, SSP designed
to do that could be a much smaller and cheaper design. Allowing an
initial test system to be affordable to build and competitive at the
same time. And all this is assuming a large research program
wouldn't make plenty of breakthroughs along the way.
Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite
NASA/TM—2004-212743
Geoffrey A. Landis
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdf
"The selling price of electrical power varies with time. The economic
viability of space solar power is maximum if the power can be sold
at peak power rates, instead of baseline rate."
Conclusion
"A space solar power generation system can be designed to work
in synergy with ground solar power. Previous Space Solar Power
architectures were designed to deliver 24-hour power; this design
constraint was relaxed. A non-tracking, integrated solar/microwave
Space Power system can be configured to match peak power demand.
The minimum system size decreases in power by:
• factor of 8 (face-on solar array)
• factor of 4 (4 PM/8 AM tilt)
The ground rectenna scales proportionately. Since the minimum
investment required to reach first power decreases, this design is
considerably more feasible than tracking system concepts.
Jonathan
>
>
> The sanctions were all about punishing an entire society for the
> transgressions of its leadership. Well, look how well that worked
> with Germany after WW I. Lifting the sanctions on Iraq without some
> sort of political liberalization and peaceful regional integraton
> would have infused the Ba'athist regime with money and arms at a bad
> time, while a general sense among Iraqis of having been victimized in
> defeat could still be played upon politically. That's the kind of
> thing Hitlers feed upon (and as bad as Saddam was, he wasn't quite
> Hitler at any point.).
Quite right. The sanctions were falling apart, we couldn't continue
to punish the Iraqi people that way. And allowing Saddam to
resume pumping and rebuilding his military would only insure
a war with far more casualties down the road. I think the
true fear is in allowing Iraq to become another N Korea
except one sitting on top of the world economy.
That very real future is unacceptable for a host of
reasons. Mostly humanitarian.
Once someone like Saddam had a military too powerful
to take out without unacceptable casualities, such as the
case with N Korea, the entire world economy would be
at the mercy of people like Saddam and bin Laden.
>
> And the post-9/11 implications are pretty crucial. Lifting the
> sanctions would have increased the supply of oil, reducing the price,
> further eating into per capita incomes in nations like Saudi Arabia
> where many are predisposed to the sort of political gospel that Al
> Qaeda was preaching. Possible upshot: we'd have the world's largest
> reserves of oil controlled by a government sympathetic to Al Qaeda,
> and the *second* largest reserves of oil controlled by a Ba'athist
> government not much less hostile to the U.S. And, of course, you have
> to consider the risks to world oil supply from their mutual hatred of
> each other, not their hatred of us -- Al Qaeda regards Ba'athists as
> dangerous apostates, and Iraqis are hardly ignorant of the role that
> Saudi Arabia played in the first Gulf War. Throw Iran into the
> dangerous mix (Shi'ites, and therefore apostates to Al Qaeda as well),
> and the picture hardly gets any better, does it?
>
> It's not about what the market price for oil would be tomorrow, with a
> source of oil reestablished. It's also about the possible
> geopolitical destabilizing effects from who wins and who loses in that
> scenario, over periods of decades. Do people in the Bush
> administration think about these things? It would be irresponsible of
> them to *not* being paying people to think full-time about these
> things.
Letting Iraq slide along another ten years would have been
highly irresponsible. And the repubs knew it's a nearly
50/50 chance the dems would retake the White House
in that time frame and let the worst case scenario happen.
And we should remember, only the Euros screamed about
the invasion. The countries in the region, Iraq's neighbors
stayed remarkably quiet, clearly indicating approval.
And to top it off, the actions of the Ba'athists and Jihadists
in Iraq the last four years has only demonstrated their
complete lack of morality. Nothing justifies bombing
market places, mosques and schools.
The sectarian violence is between a large majority of
Iraqis that want democracy and have a right to it, and
the former rulers and extremists that will do /anything/
at all to gain and keep power in the hands of a few
mass criminals.
My only guilt as an American is that we've done a poor
job of nation building. Just too many political mistakes.
In about two years they'll be a huge turning point in the
future of the Middle East. If democracy in Iraq falls and
the jihadists/Ba'athists take over, that entire region
will become the land of constant suicide bombings
until there's nothing much left. One war after another.
s
>
> -michael turner
> http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
>
jon...@gmail.com
> The central difficulty with powersats is not that they are obviously
> uneconomical, but that they do not scale down well, which means that (at
> least with current technology) a very large up-front investment is needed
> to test their viability.
That's why microwave thermal propulsion is at least slightly
interesting in my
book. The thought being to build a subscale demo plant in LEO that
could
provide microwave thermal energy for the outbound leg of any exo-LEO
flights.
That way you get some practice and experience, and if it works out,
you might
have decreased the cost of shipping stuff either to GEO, or to
wherever you're
getting your materials from (the Moon, NEOs, etc).
It's a big if, but I think that might be one creative strategy for
"scaling down"
your first attempt while still milking some economic benefit out of
it.
~Jon
Fred J. McCall
:Henry,
Can you really get a big enough receiving antenna onto such a
satellite to get any reasonable benefit from beamed microwave power?
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Jonathan Goff
> Can you really get a big enough receiving antenna onto such a
> satellite to get any reasonable benefit from beamed microwave power?
If you're trying to use the demo Solar Power Sat to provide thermal
energy
to a rocket that is within 100-200km from it, it can get away with a
much
smaller microwave antenna. The only reason that GEO based SPS's need
such big antennas is due to how far they are from their target. If
you were
trying to beam power from an SPS in GEO to some target a couple of
miles
away, you could get away with a fairly tiny antenna.
~Jon
Michael Turner
wrote:
> On 2 May 2007 09:27:25 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael Turner
>
> - Show quoted text -
Really, Rand? Was it someone else, not you, who wrote "So it wasn't
about giving the majors access to the oil. It was about taking away
Saddam's access from the oil."? Google Groups must be glitching up
again.
Until that issue of authorship is settled: It was obviously not about
merely taking away Saddam's oil access. If it was, why did we
continue in Iraq AFTER Saddam had gone underground, his state
irrevocably shattered, or AFTER Saddam been captured? The Surge was
being planned on the eve of Saddam's execution. Obviously, it was not
so much about taking access to oil away from Saddam as it was about
who gets access to that oil afterward, and on what terms. Recently,
Bush put Maliki on notice that he's got to get things in hand, or
Maliki will be replaced. So much for the "liberal democracy" that
Bush lauded Rumsfled for conferring on Iraq, so much for the idea of a
"sovereign Iraq", at least for now.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
Michael Turner
> And we should remember, only the Euros screamed about
> the invasion. The countries in the region, Iraq's neighbors
> stayed remarkably quiet, clearly indicating approval.
Are we talking about an event that took place on planet Earth? The
invasion of Iraq was very unpopular throughout the Middle East.
(Kuwait and Israel being obvious exceptions.) You don't remember
Turkey having to back down on hosting the U.S. air force, when about
95% of its population opposed the invasion? Even in Kurdistan,
opinion polls showed considerable opposition.
> And to top it off, the actions of the Ba'athists and Jihadists
> in Iraq the last four years has only demonstrated their
> complete lack of morality. Nothing justifies bombing
> market places, mosques and schools.
Ba'athists and Jihadists should not be so easily conflated. The
suicide bombings and attacks on Shi'ite holy places tend to be
Jihadist; Ba'athists focus their efforts primarily on U.S. troops --
which, if you buy the argument that the invasion was illegal, is well
within their rights, in some legalistic sense. When our ambassador to
Iraq, Khalilzad, went into talks with the Sunni insurgent groups last
year (yes, we *do* "negotiate with terrorists"), Jihadists weren't
represented, and the general position of the attending insurgents was
that they wouldn't restrain or otherwise undermine the Jihadists in
any significant way unless their conditions were met -- implying, of
course, that they'd be all too happy to root out Jihadists with U.S.
support if they could make an acceptable deal. (And why not?
Ba'athists are apostates, according to Al Qaeda.) There is really not
much commonality of interests or tactics, except that both tendencies
obviously oppose Shi'ite majority rule.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
frédéric haessig
"Jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
Ir9_h.7267$TD3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> And we should remember, only the Euros screamed about
> the invasion. The countries in the region, Iraq's neighbors
> stayed remarkably quiet, clearly indicating approval.
>
Maybe YOU should remember, or try to look for some archives...
'Screams' from europe against the invasion of Iraq were really mild when
compared to what you got from the rest of the world, especially from Muslim
countries, for Africa to Asia. In particular, most of the middle east was -
and still is - deadset against it. Compare how many middle east countries
there was in the war-fighting coalition in 91 vs 03, for exemple.
Of course, the big difference is that conservative US media continue to
speak about european 'screams', while they have forgotten all the other
opposition from that time. You'd just have to wonder why ( or not ) and why
people are accepting that propaganda as truth.
Rand Simberg
<le...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:
>> >Saying that invading Iraq was about any one single thing like taking
>> >Saddam's oil access away is as ridiculous as saying we invaded Iraq
>> >for its cheap oil.
>>
>> Since I didn't say that, I'm not sure what your point is. I was only
>> discussing the factor that had to do with oil. I'm not sure how you
>> missed this, since you had already criticized me for saying that oil
>> was a minor factor.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Really, Rand? Was it someone else, not you, who wrote "So it wasn't
>about giving the majors access to the oil. It was about taking away
>Saddam's access from the oil."?
Yes, I did say that. I didn't say (of course, because it would be
absurd) that it was *only* that. The discussion was about oil, not
all the reasons we removed Saddam.
Michael Turner
wrote:
> On 2 May 2007 09:27:25 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael Turner
>
> - Show quoted text -
My apologies, Rand. I jumped to a conclusion, precisely the kind of
thing I berate others for doing.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
Monte Davis
>The central difficulty with powersats is not that they are obviously
>uneconomical, but that they do not scale down well..
One potentially interesting baby step would be a powersat supplying
other satellites. Are there reasonable assumptions under which that
could that be a win over satellites having their own photovoltaics?
(Geoff Landis, you out there?)
Obviously you'd need a shorter wavelength for tolerably small
antennas, and a strong case that the combination of wavelength and
power selected adds up to neither ASAT nor anti-ground threat. (No
such case could be Gagnon-proof, but you'd need to try.) Does that
leave any attractive trade space?
Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com
Henry Spencer
>
>Can you really get a big enough receiving antenna onto such a
>satellite to get any reasonable benefit from beamed microwave power?
Depends on wavelength. The proposals for beamed-microwave propulsion
mostly use much shorter wavelengths than powersat concepts, so with a
substantial transmitter array you can indeed get useful amounts of power
into a modest receiver at modest distances. (*This* sort of beaming
wouldn't be done from GSO.)
Whether it is a good way to do rocketry is a more complicated question --
not least, because most any externally-heated thermal rocket really wants
to use LH2, with all the bulk and complexity penalties that incurs.
Jonathan Goff
> Depends on wavelength. The proposals for beamed-microwave propulsion
> mostly use much shorter wavelengths than powersat concepts, so with a
> substantial transmitter array you can indeed get useful amounts of power
> into a modest receiver at modest distances. (*This* sort of beaming
> wouldn't be done from GSO.)
Exactly. The point is to build a small subscale pilot plant, probably
in some
higher LEO orbit to test out the basics. And then to find a small
market that
can use that subscale pilot plant so you can get some early revenue.
If that
market also happens to reduce the cost of transportation for building
the
bigger systems (including the cost of transportation to wherever you
get the
materials for bigger systems), its all the better.
> Whether it is a good way to do rocketry is a more complicated question --
> not least, because most any externally-heated thermal rocket really wants
> to use LH2, with all the bulk and complexity penalties that incurs.
There are drawbacks to LH2 indeed, but there's also a large and
growing
experience base with the stuff. With the advent of large, thin-gauge
FSW
tanks like what the ULA guys have been proposing for their "Wide Body
Centaur", I think you might actually be able to get away with a
reasonable
propellant fraction.
Now, whether it will actually make technical sense compared to normal
LOX/LH2 or LOX/HC upper stages remains to be seen. I'm actually a bit
skeptical, but at least it's politically feasible (unlike say NTRs or
Gas Core
NTRs). The other thing in its favor is that it is one possible
customer for a
subscale SPS demonstrator. And that alone might make it worth
further
pursuit for someone who wants to pursue Space Solar Power.
~Jon
Geoffrey
> h...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
> >The central difficulty with powersats is not that they are obviously
> >uneconomical, but that they do not scale down well..
>
> One potentially interesting baby step would be a powersat supplying
> other satellites. Are there reasonable assumptions under which that
> could that be a win over satellites having their own photovoltaics?
> (GeoffLandis, you out there?)
Yes, given that space is currently the place where electricity sells
for the highest price per watt, it makes sense to sell electricity to
space markets as a first market.
There are definitely markets where it might be valuable, but I haven't
found one where it's valuable enough to overcome the risk-aversion of
the satellite engineering community. Power for orbital transfer
vehicles might be one, if you had a reusable orbit-raising tug running
on electric propulsion, but unless the market expands radically, I'm
not sure that you can make it profitable enough to pay off the
required up-front investment. (which supports what Henry Spencer
posted, I think; a big problem with these concepts is high up-front
investments required.)
--
Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis
Michael Turner
Maybe for beamed microwave power, you have to start off beaming it in
the "wrong" direction. Does it save you anything, anywhere, to beam
power to GEO satellites from Earth? One such power station might
serve several satellites.
If that works, maybe you have a spin-off application: use power beamed
from Earth for electric propulsion to circularize the orbits of
satellites destined for GEO, rather than using kickstages. With that
proven, maybe you have a case for powering orbital tugs from Earth-
based beam stations -- re-use the propulsion units you use to get
satellites into the right orbits. And with that proven, maybe you get
a case for an *orbital* power station for all of the above purposes,
perhaps assuming less-than-breakthrough reductions in Earth-to-orbit
launch costs (such as those SpaceX claims), plus those same orbital
tugs that have proved their worth already.
Admittedly, these seem like marginal propositions at best. Even if
you could make a case right now, they face competition from
improvements in self-contained space-based photovoltaic power for
probes, satellites and manned craft, and I've seen recent evidence
that this isn't yet a mature technology arena. Those space-based
photovoltaic improvements arguably improve the case for SPS (for
terrestrial power markets) in the long run, but could cannibalize
potential niches for smaller-scale SPS applications in the near term
(if it's OK to say "cannibalize" when there's nothing to eat yet ;-).
As long as I'm thinking "wrong-way charlie" about this (i.e., that
getting power beam networks going through space at all, even if
collection has to be done on Earth initially, is conducive in the long
run to making space the main source of that power) ... how efficient
would microwave power relaying be? How much less material on orbit do
you you need? There are vast areas on Earth -- the Sahara, the
Arabian peninsula's Empty Quarter, the interior of Australia, others
-- now receiving a wealth of near-constant, high quality sunlight. If
you can collect a fraction of the potential PV power from it
economically, can it be beamed up to relays and back down to major
electrical power markets, at a small fraction of the investment
required to put equivalent collectors in space? And if so, is that
likely to be more cannibalistic of eventual space-based collection,
rather than an incentive to space-based ISRU approaches?
SPS as rationalized by O'Neill et al. was somewhat eschatological. If
it all went off half-cocked, it may have been simply because, in the
70s, with all its talk of "an Era of Limits", the Club of Rome report,
Paul Ehrlich's theories of an impending global Malthusian crisis and
so on, the environmental eschaton seemed a whole lot closer. (And of
course, with disastrously optimistic estimates of what the Shuttle
would be able to do, the Space Colonies solution seemed much nearer at
hand.) Earth may not, in fact, be the place for an expanding
industrial civilization, but the models indicating this were fed with
somewhat arbitrary constants where they should have variables.
Something like those times may be creeping back upon us, though.
Anthropogenic global warming is very nearly proven, and the costs of
addressing it seem lower than feared, but still much higher than SPS-
scale investment.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
Fred J. McCall
:
:Maybe for beamed microwave power, you have to start off beaming it in
:the "wrong" direction. Does it save you anything, anywhere, to beam
:power to GEO satellites from Earth? One such power station might
:serve several satellites.
:
Since, as Henry pointed out, a different frequency would be used for
this than would be used for an SPS feeding power to Earth, does this
really get you much closer to where you want to go?
Fred J. McCall
:In article <q77d33d6fajnku6hf...@4ax.com>,
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>The problem is that SPS energy is *NOT* particularly cheap. If it was
:>space would already be full of SPS generating and transmitting
:>stations.
:
:Not exactly: the problem is that the *first* powersat is not particularly
:cheap. The 50th could be the cheapest energy source around, depending on
:what assumptions you make -- analyses claiming that powersat energy is
:excessively expensive tend to make stupid assumptions like launching all
:materials from Earth.
:
The problem is that folks who try to make a case that using space
materials in a big way generally hand wave away the development of the
technologies and space industrial base that makes that really
possible. If you bill all that to the SPS effort rather than assuming
is springs full grown like Athena from the head of Zeus, is space
development really cheaper?
:
:The central difficulty with powersats is not that they are obviously
:uneconomical, but that they do not scale down well, which means that (at
:least with current technology) a very large up-front investment is needed
:to test their viability.
:
And that leads to both an immense barrier to entry, as it makes sure
prices for a working system stays preposterously high until the point
where you have a large working system, at which point what economies
of scale may exist don't help you all that much (because the system is
already built).
Jonathan
"Geoffrey" <geoffre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178423119.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
If SSP is only considered as a business investment
that's correct I'm sure.
That's why it needs to be wrapped up in the Global
Warming and Energy issues that are rapidly gaining
steam. SSP could be 'sold' as a matter of global
and/or national survival. As a matter of global or
national prosperity. Of ending wars over resources
and bringing hope to an impoverished third world.
Changing the cost to benefit analysis by political
and emotional leaps and bounds.
But maybe all of you are correct. If Kennedy had demanded
that all the technological hurdles for going to the moon
be solved in advance, I doubt he would've ever given
....'that speech'.
But he knew that if he set a goal that was high enough, one
that could change the world and inspire people to act.
That the breakthroughs would find a way to happen.
To initiate a self organizing system, one that settles on
the best possible solution just as any complex adaptive
system does, the most important thing is the 'push'
from equilibrium. The goal.
The goal must simultaneously maximize two primary
variables, then connect them together dynamically, with
a sense of urgency.
The static attractor of maximum tangible returns to society
And the chaotic attractor of dreams of a better future.
SSP, has the potential to maximize and connect
both of those inspiring ambitions at once.
By being seen as a single solution to climate
change and the dependence on dwinding fossil fuels.
And within an urgent time frame defined by the rate
of climate change.
Just as Kennedy connected a single solution to
winning the omminous cold war /while/ ushering
in an age of technology and discovery.
With the single and lofty goal of landing a man
on the moon by a date certain.
If the goal is designed properly, designed to self organize.
It cannot fail to find the best possible solutions.
We simply have to have faith, faith in science, that
once set in motion towards a worthy goal we
will succeed.
The goal is the thing, design that first, not SSP.
Jonathan
Some Complexity links
CALResCo Complexity Writings
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm
Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html
London School of Economic Complexity Programme
http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/
Paul J. Steinhardt
Department of Physics
Princeton University
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/
Complexity Digest
http://www.comdig.org/index.php
Complexity Science: A Worldview Shift
by ERIC B. DENT
George Washington University
http://polaris.umuc.edu/~edent/emergence/emerge2-r.htm
s
Henry Spencer
Michael Turner <le...@gol.com> wrote:
>Maybe for beamed microwave power, you have to start off beaming it in
>the "wrong" direction. Does it save you anything, anywhere, to beam
>power to GEO satellites from Earth? One such power station might
>serve several satellites.
There is considerable value in laser beaming to GSO satellites from Earth
(as Geoff and others have pointed out), because of GSO's eclipse seasons.
Earth's axial tilt means that GSO is in continuous sunlight for much of
the year, with Earth's shadow passing "above" or "below" the orbit. But
for a few weeks around the spring and fall equinoxes, a GSO bird passes
through Earth's shadow once a day, experiencing about an hour of darkness
max. Maintaining operation during those eclipses calls for considerable
battery mass, even though the total eclipse time is only a day or two per
year. (Some TV-broadcasting satellites simply shut down their broadcast
transmitters during eclipses, and hence need only small batteries to run
internal "housekeeping" functions, but most comsats have to keep working.)
This is a particularly interesting application for power beaming, because
the satellites already have suitable receivers -- their solar arrays are
already there and are even pointed in pretty much the right direction --
and ground laser stations do not need huge lasers or enormous optics to
put adequate light on the satellite. (It's less than you would think,
because solar cells are quite a bit more efficient for monochromatic light
at the right wavelength than for sunlight.) You *would* need several
widely-separated beaming stations to try to make sure that they aren't all
clouded over simultaneously.
The problem is that the GSO comsat market is *intensely* conservative, and
the benefits mostly don't show up until they launch new satellites. They
won't shrink their batteries on speculation. (Indeed, they will want
quite strong assurances that the beaming service will still be there 10-20
years later.) So such a service would take a long time to start paying off
its startup costs.
The other wart is that while such a service could help legitimize power
beaming, it doesn't really get a foot in the door for powersats otherwise.
Despite the weather hassles, for this application you clearly want to put
the beaming stations on the ground, and you clearly want laser rather than
microwave beaming.
> ... how efficient
>would microwave power relaying be? How much less material on orbit do
>you you need? There are vast areas on Earth -- the Sahara, the
>Arabian peninsula's Empty Quarter, the interior of Australia, others
>-- now receiving a wealth of near-constant, high quality sunlight. If
>you can collect a fraction of the potential PV power from it
>economically, can it be beamed up to relays and back down...?
It's been suggested. The actual energy-conversion processes should be
80-90% efficient without great difficulty -- better than long-haul
transmission by high-voltage power line! -- provided the antennas are big
enough to get almost all of the transmitted beam into the receiver. You
save *something* on orbited mass due to no solar collectors, but you still
need kilometer-scale orbiting structures to make it work.
>likely to be more cannibalistic of eventual space-based collection,
>rather than an incentive to space-based ISRU approaches?
*Probably* not. If for no other reason, because there is considerable
long-term advantage in moving the one inefficient step -- initial
conversion of sunlight -- outside the biosphere. And even at a desert
site, averaged over a long period, a ground solar array collects only
about 1/5th of the energy of a similar array in orbit, due to night,
weather, and atmospheric losses.
Pat Flannery
Jonathan Goff wrote:
>
> Exactly. The point is to build a small subscale pilot plant, probably
> in some
> higher LEO orbit to test out the basics. And then to find a small
> market that
> can use that subscale pilot plant so you can get some early revenue.
>
Speaking of pilot plants: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6616651.stm
Pat
Rand Simberg
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> ... how efficient
>>would microwave power relaying be? How much less material on orbit do
>>you you need? There are vast areas on Earth -- the Sahara, the
>>Arabian peninsula's Empty Quarter, the interior of Australia, others
>>-- now receiving a wealth of near-constant, high quality sunlight. If
>>you can collect a fraction of the potential PV power from it
>>economically, can it be beamed up to relays and back down...?
>
>It's been suggested. The actual energy-conversion processes should be
>80-90% efficient without great difficulty -- better than long-haul
>transmission by high-voltage power line! -- provided the antennas are big
>enough to get almost all of the transmitted beam into the receiver. You
>save *something* on orbited mass due to no solar collectors, but you still
>need kilometer-scale orbiting structures to make it work.
Yes, Peter Glaser used to call this one of the "terraces" on the way
to full SPS.
Michael Turner
> h...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
> :uneconomical, but that they do not scale down well, which means that (at
> :least with current technology) a very large up-front investment is needed
> :to test their viability.
> :
>
> And that leads to both an immense barrier to entry, as it makes sure
> prices for a working system stays preposterously high until the point
> where you have a large working system, at which point what economies
> of scale may exist don't help you all that much (because the system is
> already built).
Well, wait a minute: if the size of the market you have to address
with SPS before you get competitive economies of scale is, say, 5% of
the world's electrical power demand, that still leaves the other 85%
-- which *would* enjoy the economies of scale established in getting
that first 5%. Addressing 5% with a single upfront investment in a
technically risky technology that might not even start paying off for
20 years or more -- yes, that is very likely an insuperable barrier at
present. But after that, what's wong with the economies-of-scale
argument? If, as is usually assumed, SPS is made cheaper through
lunar ISRU, why just let all that resource extraction gear sit around
on the Moon, when it could be even more profitable than it was
initially? The only way your argument works is if you can prove that
SPS only becomes cost-competitive if you meet *all* demand in the very
first installation (and demand doesn't grow significantly thereafter.)
Maybe understanding is breaking down on what we mean by "system"?
Maybe you mean "one SPS satellite and its ground rectennas", where I
would mean "the entire logistical supply chain for construction and
maintenance"?
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
Eric Chomko
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
> Strout <j...@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> > Michael Turner <l...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >> As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
> >> eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
> >> for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
>
> >Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
> >a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
> >simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
> >their natural resources,
>
> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
Eric Chomko
> simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>
> :Turner <l...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> :way as to indicate that:
> :>And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
> :>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
> :>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
> :>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
> :>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
> :>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
> :>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
> :
> :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
>
> More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
> where the US gets its oil.
>
> If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
> oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
> women are probably friendlier.
The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.
>
> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
> OPEC).
That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
as the sale is in dollars.
> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
Petrodollars not petroeuros.
> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
:wrote:
:>
:> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
:> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
:>
:
:What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
:
That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
:
:And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
:
Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
:On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:>
:> :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
:> :Turner <l...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:> :way as to indicate that:
:> :>
:> :>And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
:> :>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
:> :>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
:> :>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
:> :>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
:> :>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
:> :>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
:> :
:> :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
:> :sanctions.
:>
:> More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
:> where the US gets its oil.
:>
:> If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
:> oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
:> women are probably friendlier.
:
:The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.
:
So it isn't "all about oil" even for the loony. Thank you very much.
:>
:> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
:> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
:> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
:> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
:> OPEC).
:
:That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
:as the sale is in dollars.
:
You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
because it doesn't really matter.
:> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
:> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
:
:Petrodollars not petroeuros.
:
Dumbass.
:> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
:> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
:
:No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
:
What planet are you living on, Eric?
Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.
From the Congressional Report entitled "Iraq: U.S. Regime Change
Efforts and Post-War Governance"
"In November 1998, amid a crisis with Iraq over U.N. weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) inspections, the Clinton Administration stated that
the United States would seek to go beyond containment to promoting a
change of regime."
"The Iraq Liberation Act made the previously unstated policy of
promoting regime change in Iraq official, declared policy. A provision
of the ILA states that it should be the policy of the United States to
“support efforts” to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein. In
mid-November 1998, President Clinton publicly articulated that regime
change was a component of U.S. policy toward Iraq."
"In May 1999, in concert with an INC visit to Washington, the Clinton
Administration announced it would draw down $5 million worth of
training and “non-lethal” defense equipment under the ILA. During 1999
- 2000, about 150 opposition members underwent civil administration
training at Hurlburt air base in Florida, including attending Defense
Department-run courses provided civil affairs training, including
instruction in field medicine, logistics, computers, communications,
broadcasting, power generation, and war crimes issues. However, the
Clinton Administration asserted that the opposition was not
sufficiently organized to merit U.S. provision of lethal military
equipment or combat training."
Read all the preceding closely, Eric. You starting to catch on here
yet?
Eric Chomko
> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> :>
> :> :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
> :> :Turner <l...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> :> :way as to indicate that:
> :> :>
> :> :>And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
> :> :>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
> :> :>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
> :> :>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
> :> :>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
> :> :>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
> :> :>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
> :> :
> :> :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
> :> :sanctions.
> :>
> :> More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
> :> where the US gets its oil.
> :>
> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
> :> oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
> :> women are probably friendlier.
> :
> :The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.
> :
>
> So it isn't "all about oil" even for the loony. Thank you very much.
More to do with dollars for oil. Reading comprehension. Get some!
> :>
> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
> :> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
> :> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
> :> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
> :> OPEC).
> :
> :That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
> :as the sale is in dollars.
> :
>
> You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
> things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
> because it doesn't really matter.
Sure it does. We rely on and need dollar hegemony, especially where
oil is concerned.
>
> :> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
> :> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
> :
> :Petrodollars not petroeuros.
> :
>
> Dumbass.
Poor Freddy. He uses the above standard line when he's wrong.
>
> :> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
> :> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
> :
> :No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
> :
>
> What planet are you living on, Eric?
Have you ever read the PNAC agenda dated in 1998 and submitted to then
President Clinton? No? Then don't comment.
> Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.
Yes, and its states:
"through active application of all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions"
Bush ignored that part. No where does Clinton mention war. So in 2001
we get attacked by Al Qeada operating out of Afghanistan and Bush
attacks Iraq and useful idiots like you claim that Bush was
implementing Clinton's desire to oust Saddam Hussein because of the
above cited document?
No one ever stated that Saddam was a good guy. Well no one but
Rumsfeld and others in the Reagan administartion back in the 80s, but
that is another story.
>
> From the Congressional Report entitled "Iraq: U.S. Regime Change
> Efforts and Post-War Governance"
>
> "In November 1998, amid a crisis with Iraq over U.N. weapons of mass
> destruction (WMD) inspections, the Clinton Administration stated that
> the United States would seek to go beyond containment to promoting a
> change of regime."
>
> "The Iraq Liberation Act made the previously unstated policy of
> promoting regime change in Iraq official, declared policy. A provision
> of the ILA states that it should be the policy of the United States to
> "support efforts" to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein. In
> mid-November 1998, President Clinton publicly articulated that regime
> change was a component of U.S. policy toward Iraq."
"Support efforts" is not the same as starting a war unilaterally.
We're failing in Iraq because Bush felt like we could and should do it
all alone. Now we have even our allies not giving two shits if we
succeed or fail due to not taking them in account when we went in.
>
> "In May 1999, in concert with an INC visit to Washington, the Clinton
> Administration announced it would draw down $5 million worth of
> training and "non-lethal" defense equipment under the ILA. During 1999
> - 2000, about 150 opposition members underwent civil administration
> training at Hurlburt air base in Florida, including attending Defense
> Department-run courses provided civil affairs training, including
> instruction in field medicine, logistics, computers, communications,
> broadcasting, power generation, and war crimes issues. However, the
> Clinton Administration asserted that the opposition was not
> sufficiently organized to merit U.S. provision of lethal military
> equipment or combat training."
>
> Read all the preceding closely, Eric. You starting to catch on here
> yet?
What that Bush snubbed the UN where Clinton wanted to work through it?
Yeah, that is clear. Also, are you trying to lay some of the blame on
Clinton for the current mess in Iraq? Sorry, that won't work either.
Eric
Eric Chomko
> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
> :wrote:
> :>
> :> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
> :> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
> :>
> :
> :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
> :
>
> That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
>
> :
> :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
> :
>
> Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
Maybe you should to catch up.
Eric
Fred J. McCall
:On May 9, 11:37 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
:> :> :Turner <l...@gol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:> :> :way as to indicate that:
:> :> :>
:> :> :>And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
:> :> :>people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
:> :> :>Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
:> :> :>who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
:> :> :>pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
:> :> :>Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
:> :> :>of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
:> :> :
:> :> :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
:> :> :sanctions.
:> :>
:> :> More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
:> :> where the US gets its oil.
:> :>
:> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
:> :> oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
:> :> women are probably friendlier.
:> :
:> :The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.
:> :
:>
:> So it isn't "all about oil" even for the loony. Thank you very much.
:
:More to do with dollars for oil. Reading comprehension. Get some!
:
Preposterous notion. Writing sensibly. Try it! You might like it.
:> :>
:> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
:> :> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
:> :> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
:> :> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
:> :> OPEC).
:> :
:> :That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
:> :as the sale is in dollars.
:> :
:>
:> You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
:> things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
:> because it doesn't really matter.
:>
:
:Sure it does. We rely on and need dollar hegemony, especially where
:oil is concerned.
:
Why? Try and put forward a coherent case for why this matters.
:>
:> :> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
:> :> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
:> :
:> :Petrodollars not petroeuros.
:> :
:>
:> Dumbass.
:>
:
:Poor Freddy. He uses the above standard line when he's wrong.
:
Poor El Chimpko. He throws his feces ... well, pretty much all of the
time.
:>
:> :> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
:> :> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
:> :
:> :No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
:> :
:>
:> What planet are you living on, Eric?
:>
:
:Have you ever read the PNAC agenda dated in 1998 and submitted to then
:President Clinton? No? Then don't comment.
:
You're confused. Go read the sequence above. Show me where I said
*ANYTHING* about anyone but President Clinton. You responded with
'No'. Showing that someone else may have also said something similar
does *NOT* prove that Clinton didn't say it.
Logic - get some!
:> Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.
:
:Yes, and its states:
:
:"through active application of all relevant United Nations Security
:Council resolutions"
:
Try reading the whole thing. In fact, just try reading Section 3.
It's quite short and even you should be able to understand it:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime."
That's it. No conditions about means.
In point of fact, the Iraq Liberation Act does not contain the phrase
YOU quote above at all. In fact, it doesn't contain the world
"through" at all, much less the rest.
Liar.
:
:Bush ignored that part.
:
Because it wasn't there.
:
:No where does Clinton mention war. So in 2001
:we get attacked by Al Qeada operating out of Afghanistan and Bush
:attacks Iraq
:
Gee, El Chimpko seems to have missed an entire war in Afghanistan
there.
:
:... and useful idiots like you claim that Bush was
:implementing Clinton's desire to oust Saddam Hussein because of the
:above cited document?
:
Cite where I made such a claim.
Liar.
:
:No one ever stated that Saddam was a good guy. Well no one but
:Rumsfeld and others in the Reagan administartion back in the 80s, but
:that is another story.
:
Yes, it is - 'story' in the sense of 'lie'.
Liar.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
Fred J. McCall
:On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
:> :wrote:
:> :>
:> :> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
:> :> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
:> :>
:> :
:> :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
:> :
:>
:> That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
:
:I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
:
Eric: "What about rationally hating George Bush based upon results?"
Make up your mind.
:>
:> :
:> :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
:> :
:>
:> Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
:>
:
:The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
:when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
:less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
:react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
:
Poor Eric. Too stupid to understand what's said to him, so all he can
do is bleat idiocy like the preceding.
:
:Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
:Maybe you should to catch up.
:
Have ever even looked into the interaction of your head, your ass, and
your mouth? Maybe you should to heal up.
Eric Chomko
Why don't you debate why what I wrote is preposterous?
>
> :> :>
> :> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
> :> :> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
> :> :> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
> :> :> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
> :> :> OPEC).
> :> :
> :> :That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
> :> :as the sale is in dollars.
> :> :
> :>
> :> You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
> :> things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
> :> because it doesn't really matter.
> :>
> :
> :Sure it does. We rely on and need dollar hegemony, especially where
> :oil is concerned.
> :
>
> Why? Try and put forward a coherent case for why this matters.
It forces other nations to hold dollar reserves where we have no need
to hold those nations' currencies in reserve in a similar manner. That
is dollar hegemony. We rule with an iron fist that notion and is
probably the main reason we attacked Iraq.
> :>
> :> :> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
> :> :> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
> :> :
> :> :Petrodollars not petroeuros.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Dumbass.
> :>
> :
> :Poor Freddy. He uses the above standard line when he's wrong.
> :
>
> Poor El Chimpko. He throws his feces ... well, pretty much all of the
> time.
Throws feces by telling the truth? Sorry if the truth hurts you so
much. Your slanted take on world events makes you a useful idiot.
>
> :>
> :> :> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
> :> :> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
> :> :
> :> :No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
> :> :
> :>
> :> What planet are you living on, Eric?
> :>
> :
> :Have you ever read the PNAC agenda dated in 1998 and submitted to then
> :President Clinton? No? Then don't comment.
> :
>
> You're confused. Go read the sequence above. Show me where I said
> *ANYTHING* about anyone but President Clinton.
Clinton did not invent the damn Iraq Liberation Act. No doubt his
answer to the PNAC agenda was to implement the ILA. Too bad Bush took
it to another level and here we are in th mess we have today of which
you cannot blame on Clinton.
> You responded with
> 'No'. Showing that someone else may have also said something similar
> does *NOT* prove that Clinton didn't say it.
>
> Logic - get some!
The ILA is mild compared to the PNAC agenda and what Bush did in Iraq.
UN sanctions and all that.
> :> Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.
> :
> :Yes, and its states:
> :
> :"through active application of all relevant United Nations Security
> :Council resolutions"
> :
>
> Try reading the whole thing. In fact, just try reading Section 3.
> It's quite short and even you should be able to understand it:
>
> "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
> remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
> promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
> regime."
>
> That's it. No conditions about means.
So do you think Clinton just said "through active application of all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions" to appease
liberals, but was really suggesting a more hawkish approach like W
actually did?
>
> In point of fact, the Iraq Liberation Act does not contain the phrase
> YOU quote above at all. In fact, it doesn't contain the world
> "through" at all, much less the rest.
>
I cut and pasted from here: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
"My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
objectives *through* active application of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such
changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
> Liar.
Take it back, unless you can prove my link is wrong. And if so, then
blame the Cornell website.
(Will Freddy be man enough to admit he was wrong?)
>
> :
> :Bush ignored that part.
> :
>
> Because it wasn't there.
Sure it is. Will you admit your fault is the real question? Don't
avoid this Freddy, your credibility is at stake.
>
> :
> :No where does Clinton mention war. So in 2001
> :we get attacked by Al Qeada operating out of Afghanistan and Bush
> :attacks Iraq
> :
>
> Gee, El Chimpko seems to have missed an entire war in Afghanistan
> there.
"Entire" is way to big a word when describing that skirmish that did
not net as bin Laden the actual culprit of 9-11.
> :
> :... and useful idiots like you claim that Bush was
> :implementing Clinton's desire to oust Saddam Hussein because of the
> :above cited document?
> :
>
> Cite where I made such a claim.
What did you claim? Why did you post the ILA at all? To have me show
you for the fool that you are?
>
> Liar.
Is this where I'm supposed to get mad?! LOL!
Cheat!
> :
> :No one ever stated that Saddam was a good guy. Well no one but
> :Rumsfeld and others in the Reagan administartion back in the 80s, but
> :that is another story.
> :
>
> Yes, it is - 'story' in the sense of 'lie'.
Are you claiming that we did not look at Saddam as a good guy and
actually provide him with arms at one time? 1980s during the Iraq/Iran
War, Ronald Regan presidency?
> Liar.
You're an idiot Freddy and seemingly becoming mental as well.
Correction: more mental.
Eric
Eric Chomko
> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
> :> :wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
> :> :> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
> :> :
> :>
> :> That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
> :
> :I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
> :
>
> Eric: "What about rationally hating George Bush based upon results?"
>
> Make up your mind.
I pity the poor SOB...
>
> :>
> :> :
> :> :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
> :> :
> :>
> :> Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
> :>
> :
> :The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
> :when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
> :less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
> :react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
> :
>
> Poor Eric. Too stupid to understand what's said to him, so all he can
> do is bleat idiocy like the preceding.
Yes, make it about me and ignore the post.
> :
> :Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
> :Maybe you should to catch up.
> :
>
> Have ever even looked into the interaction of your head, your ass, and
> your mouth? Maybe you should to heal up.
Ad hominem at it's worst. Poor Freddy. You would have made a good
Soviet in the USSR.
Fred J. McCall
For the same reason I don't argue with people about why the Earth
isn't flat or how the Moon landings weren't a hoax.
:>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
:> :> :> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
:> :> :> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
:> :> :> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
:> :> :> OPEC).
:> :> :
:> :> :That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
:> :> :as the sale is in dollars.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
:> :> things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
:> :> because it doesn't really matter.
:> :>
:> :
:> :Sure it does. We rely on and need dollar hegemony, especially where
:> :oil is concerned.
:> :
:>
:> Why? Try and put forward a coherent case for why this matters.
:
:It forces other nations to hold dollar reserves where we have no need
:to hold those nations' currencies in reserve in a similar manner. That
:is dollar hegemony. We rule with an iron fist that notion and is
:probably the main reason we attacked Iraq.
:
Except that makes no sense, since they're going to spend those dollars
for oil and that puts them in the hands of nations that don't need to
hold them. Net effect is pretty much zero, other than perhaps a one
year lag.
So the idea that this is somehow "probably the main reason we attacked
Iraq" is merely silly.
:> :>
:> :> :> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
:> :> :> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
:> :> :
:> :> :Petrodollars not petroeuros.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Dumbass.
:> :>
:> :
:> :Poor Freddy. He uses the above standard line when he's wrong.
:> :
:>
:> Poor El Chimpko. He throws his feces ... well, pretty much all of the
:> time.
:
:Throws feces by telling the truth? Sorry if the truth hurts you so
:much. Your slanted take on world events makes you a useful idiot.
:
Throws feces by making up lies and then acting as if your fantasies
are true and your feces are valuable. Sorry if the truth eludes you
so much. Your stupid take on world events makes you an idiot Chimpko.
:>
:> :>
:> :> :> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
:> :> :> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
:> :> :
:> :> :No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> What planet are you living on, Eric?
:> :>
:> :
:> :Have you ever read the PNAC agenda dated in 1998 and submitted to then
:> :President Clinton? No? Then don't comment.
:> :
:>
:> You're confused. Go read the sequence above. Show me where I said
:> *ANYTHING* about anyone but President Clinton.
:
:Clinton did not invent the damn Iraq Liberation Act. No doubt his
:answer to the PNAC agenda was to implement the ILA. Too bad Bush took
:it to another level and here we are in th mess we have today of which
:you cannot blame on Clinton.
:
Unlike you, I'm not 'blaming' anyone. I'm merely pointing out that
Bush didn't invent the US policy of active regime change with regard
to Iraq.
I'm merely pointing out that you're a lying fool.
:> You responded with
:> 'No'. Showing that someone else may have also said something similar
:> does *NOT* prove that Clinton didn't say it.
:>
:> Logic - get some!
:
:The ILA is mild compared to the PNAC agenda and what Bush did in Iraq.
:UN sanctions and all that.
:
The ILA doesn't say anything about sanctions, you stupid bastard. Go
read the thing.
:> :> Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.
:> :
:> :Yes, and its states:
:> :
:> :"through active application of all relevant United Nations Security
:> :Council resolutions"
:> :
:>
:> Try reading the whole thing. In fact, just try reading Section 3.
:> It's quite short and even you should be able to understand it:
:>
:> "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
:> remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
:> promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
:> regime."
:>
:> That's it. No conditions about means.
:
:So do you think Clinton just said "through active application of all
:relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions" to appease
:liberals, but was really suggesting a more hawkish approach like W
:actually did?
:
You're the only one (now) claiming that that's what Bill Clinton said.
Given that you earlier claimed that's what the ILA said, why the hell
should anyone believe anything at all that you say?
:>
:> In point of fact, the Iraq Liberation Act does not contain the phrase
:> YOU quote above at all. In fact, it doesn't contain the world
:> "through" at all, much less the rest.
:>
:
:I cut and pasted from here: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
:
:"My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
:objectives *through* active application of all relevant United Nations
:Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such
:changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
:
Which is not, oddly enough, the Iraq Liberation Act. Try reading the
actual Act.
:> Liar.
:
:Take it back, unless you can prove my link is wrong. And if so, then
:blame the Cornell website.
:
Note that it says that the text is "STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT".
That's not the text of the Iraq Liberation Act and it is correctly
labeled as not being the text of the Iraq Liberation Act but rather a
Statement by the White House with regard to the Iraq Liberation Act.
I am right.
The Cornell website is right.
You are a lying idiot.
That seems to sum it up.
:
:(Will Freddy be man enough to admit he was wrong?)
:
Sure, but first I would have to BE wrong. I'm not. You are. And
again it's a product of your own stupidity.
Go read the actual text of that Act. Go study the things that were
done under it (including providing arms and training to Iraqi
resistance groups, which isn't precisely what the UN Resolutions were
calling for).
Then you can admit that you've been stupidly lying again.
Not that I expect you'll ever be man enough to admit that.
:>
:> :
:> :Bush ignored that part.
:> :
:>
:> Because it wasn't there.
:
:Sure it is.
No it isn't.
:Will you admit your fault is the real question? Don't
:avoid this Freddy, your credibility is at stake.
I don't need to avoid it. You're lying again. There is nothing in
the Iraq Liberation Act that mentions UN resolutions. In fact, the
word "through" doesn't appear in the Act at all. Means are not
discussed.
Once again your claims about someone else's credibility are pure
bullshit and you are wrong, as usual.
:
:>
:> :
:> :No where does Clinton mention war. So in 2001
:> :we get attacked by Al Qeada operating out of Afghanistan and Bush
:> :attacks Iraq
:> :
:>
:> Gee, El Chimpko seems to have missed an entire war in Afghanistan
:> there.
:
:"Entire" is way to big a word when describing that skirmish that did
:not net as bin Laden the actual culprit of 9-11.
:
And lots of folks escaped to Argentina during WWII. Gee, I guess WWII
never happened, according to Eric's thinking.
:> :
:> :... and useful idiots like you claim that Bush was
:> :implementing Clinton's desire to oust Saddam Hussein because of the
:> :above cited document?
:> :
:>
:> Cite where I made such a claim.
:
:What did you claim?
:
Try reading what I actually say and having your brain engaged. You
might like the change.
:Why did you post the ILA at all?
I didn't post the ILA. I did mention it in passing, to demonstrate to
you that Bush didn't invent the idea of regime change in Iraq, despite
what you useful idiots of the Left keep trying to claim.
:
:To have me show
:you for the fool that you are?
:
Do us all a favor. Try holding your breath until you manage that.
:>
:> Liar.
:>
:
:Is this where I'm supposed to get mad?! LOL!
:
No, this is where you're supposed to go actually read the Iraq
Liberation Act. But you won't, because if you did you'd have to admit
you've been lying all this time.
:
:Cheat!
:
Yeah, how dare I actually point to facts and think! Thinking in a
discussion with you is 'cheating', since it involves something that
you're not capable of doing in return.
:> :
:> :No one ever stated that Saddam was a good guy. Well no one but
:> :Rumsfeld and others in the Reagan administartion back in the 80s, but
:> :that is another story.
:> :
:>
:> Yes, it is - 'story' in the sense of 'lie'.
:
:Are you claiming that we did not look at Saddam as a good guy and
:actually provide him with arms at one time? 1980s during the Iraq/Iran
:War, Ronald Regan presidency?
:
Again, go look it up. Please list the arms we provided him.
Hint: Iraq bought its arms largely from France and Russia. Total US
arms sales to Iraq amount to something like 0.005 of Iraq's foreign
arms purchases.
Hint: The US sells weapons to lots of folks we don't consider "a good
guy", particularly in the minor quantities we're talking about here.
:> Liar.
:
:You're an idiot Freddy and seemingly becoming mental as well.
:Correction: more mental.
:
Poor El Chimpko. Now he thinks his fantasies are true again.
Fred J. McCall
:On May 10, 9:27 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
:> :> :wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
:> :> :> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
:> :
:> :I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
:> :
:>
:> Eric: "What about rationally hating George Bush based upon results?"
:>
:> Make up your mind.
:
:I pity the poor SOB...
:
Oh? Why? Because he's wealthy and the President of the United States
and you are neither?
:>
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
:> :>
:> :
:> :The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
:> :when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
:> :less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
:> :react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
:> :
:>
:> Poor Eric. Too stupid to understand what's said to him, so all he can
:> do is bleat idiocy like the preceding.
:
:Yes, make it about me and ignore the post.
:
I covered the post. I said "bleat idiocy". That seems all the
discussion of the post that is required.
:> :
:> :Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
:> :Maybe you should to catch up.
:> :
:>
:> Have ever even looked into the interaction of your head, your ass, and
:> your mouth? Maybe you should to heal up.
:
:Ad hominem at it's worst. Poor Freddy. You would have made a good
:Soviet in the USSR.
:
Look at what it's in response to, El Chimpko, with your "Maybe you
should to catch up".
You get what you give. Talk sense and you get sensible discussion.
Talk idiocy and it gets pointed out you're talking idiocy. Lie and
you get called a liar. Start making ad hominem remarks and you get
them back.
That seems to cover it.
Eric Chomko
Nice try. Why not just admit you're lazy instead? Just lump all
theories you don't like under the same umbrella and debunk the easy
ones. Typical of the way JFK assassination lone nutters work as well.
Are you a paid government stooge or an unpaid one?
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
> :> :> :> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
> :> :> :> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
> :> :> :> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
> :> :> :> OPEC).
> :> :> :
> :> :> :That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
> :> :> :as the sale is in dollars.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
> :> :> things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
> :> :> because it doesn't really matter.
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :Sure it does. We rely on and need dollar hegemony, especially where
> :> :oil is concerned.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Why? Try and put forward a coherent case for why this matters.
> :
> :It forces other nations to hold dollar reserves where we have no need
> :to hold those nations' currencies in reserve in a similar manner. That
> :is dollar hegemony. We rule with an iron fist that notion and is
> :probably the main reason we attacked Iraq.
> :
>
> Except that makes no sense, since they're going to spend those dollars
> for oil and that puts them in the hands of nations that don't need to
> hold them.
So? The dollar is also the de facto currency for criminal
transactions as well (i.e. black market, drugs, etc.). Those nations
will find a way to use the dollars.
> Net effect is pretty much zero, other than perhaps a one
> year lag.
Is there where you pretend not to know about the time/value of money?
Freddy, you have already admitted to having a degree in economics.
>
> So the idea that this is somehow "probably the main reason we attacked
> Iraq" is merely silly.
No it isn't. It's sends a clear message that we won't fool around when
dollar hegemony is concerned.
> :> :>
> :> :> :> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
> :> :> :> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Petrodollars not petroeuros.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Dumbass.
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :Poor Freddy. He uses the above standard line when he's wrong.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Poor El Chimpko. He throws his feces ... well, pretty much all of the
> :> time.
> :
> :Throws feces by telling the truth? Sorry if the truth hurts you so
> :much. Your slanted take on world events makes you a useful idiot.
> :
>
> Throws feces by making up lies and then acting as if your fantasies
> are true and your feces are valuable. Sorry if the truth eludes you
> so much. Your stupid take on world events makes you an idiot Chimpko.
Yes let me agree with your worl view instead. We are pure and can do
no wrong. Gee, I feel better already. LOL!
> :>
> :> :>
> :> :> :> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
> :> :> :> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> What planet are you living on, Eric?
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :Have you ever read the PNAC agenda dated in 1998 and submitted to then
> :> :President Clinton? No? Then don't comment.
> :> :
> :>
> :> You're confused. Go read the sequence above. Show me where I said
> :> *ANYTHING* about anyone but President Clinton.
> :
> :Clinton did not invent the damn Iraq Liberation Act. No doubt his
> :answer to the PNAC agenda was to implement the ILA. Too bad Bush took
> :it to another level and here we are in th mess we have today of which
> :you cannot blame on Clinton.
> :
>
> Unlike you, I'm not 'blaming' anyone. I'm merely pointing out that
> Bush didn't invent the US policy of active regime change with regard
> to Iraq.
He invented the manner in which he handled it. He, Cheney and other
like-mineded oil industrialists.
> I'm merely pointing out that you're a lying fool.
You spout your opinion. Nothing more.
> :> You responded with
> :> 'No'. Showing that someone else may have also said something similar
> :> does *NOT* prove that Clinton didn't say it.
> :>
> :> Logic - get some!
> :
> :The ILA is mild compared to the PNAC agenda and what Bush did in Iraq.
> :UN sanctions and all that.
> :
>
> The ILA doesn't say anything about sanctions, you stupid bastard. Go
> read the thing.
You trying to twist the fact that the ILA states "resolutions" rather
than "sanctions" in an attempt to avoid the language about the UN.
You are in no position to call anyone a liar when you yourself are
intellectually dishonest.
> :> :> Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.
> :> :
> :> :Yes, and its states:
> :> :
> :> :"through active application of all relevant United Nations Security
> :> :Council resolutions"
> :> :
> :>
> :> Try reading the whole thing. In fact, just try reading Section 3.
> :> It's quite short and even you should be able to understand it:
> :>
> :> "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
> :> remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
> :> promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
> :> regime."
> :>
> :> That's it. No conditions about means.
> :
> :So do you think Clinton just said "through active application of all
> :relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions" to appease
> :liberals, but was really suggesting a more hawkish approach like W
> :actually did?
> :
>
> You're the only one (now) claiming that that's what Bill Clinton said.
> Given that you earlier claimed that's what the ILA said, why the hell
> should anyone believe anything at all that you say?
McClod, I quoting the ILA. Actual quotes! They should believe me
because I am quoting the actual text. Too bad that you erred and are
too little of a person to admit it.
> :>
> :> In point of fact, the Iraq Liberation Act does not contain the phrase
> :> YOU quote above at all. In fact, it doesn't contain the world
> :> "through" at all, much less the rest.
> :>
> :
> :I cut and pasted from here:http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
> :
> :"My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
> :objectives *through* active application of all relevant United Nations
> :Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such
> :changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
> :
>
> Which is not, oddly enough, the Iraq Liberation Act. Try reading the
> actual Act.
So the statement from the White House out of Clinton's mouth himself
is not enough for you? Where is the link you want me to read?
>
> :> Liar.
> :
> :Take it back, unless you can prove my link is wrong. And if so, then
> :blame the Cornell website.
> :
>
> Note that it says that the text is "STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT".
> That's not the text of the Iraq Liberation Act and it is correctly
> labeled as not being the text of the Iraq Liberation Act but rather a
> Statement by the White House with regard to the Iraq Liberation Act.
>
> I am right.
Where is the link? Who drafted the act?
> The Cornell website is right.
That is where I am quoting.
> You are a lying idiot.
Poor Freddy...
> That seems to sum it up.
You are wrong about Clinton and Bush WRT Iraq. Bush attacked Iraq
giving no deference to the UN. Clinton stated that we wanted to work
within UN guidelines. You conveniently ignore that part. I cut right
to it and the truth drives you nuts.
> :
> :(Will Freddy be man enough to admit he was wrong?)
> :
>
> Sure, but first I would have to BE wrong. I'm not. You are. And
> again it's a product of your own stupidity.
Still a punk, aren't you?
> Go read the actual text of that Act. Go study the things that were
> done under it (including providing arms and training to Iraqi
> resistance groups, which isn't precisely what the UN Resolutions were
> calling for).
The Act began in 1980 according to the subtitle. That was way before
Clinton.
> Then you can admit that you've been stupidly lying again.
>
> Not that I expect you'll ever be man enough to admit that.
The Act was used by PNAC. Clinton tempered the Act with his statement
regarding the UN. Bush had his own agenda.
You're an idiot if you think that the mess in Iraq is Clinton or
anybody but Bush's fault.
> :>
> :> :
> :> :Bush ignored that part.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Because it wasn't there.
> :
> :Sure it is.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> :Will you admit your fault is the real question? Don't
> :avoid this Freddy, your credibility is at stake.
>
> I don't need to avoid it. You're lying again. There is nothing in
> the Iraq Liberation Act that mentions UN resolutions.
UNSOM - United Nations Special Commission on Iraq - the weapons
inspectors of which Bush all but forced out.
> In fact, the
> word "through" doesn't appear in the Act at all. Means are not
> discussed.
No, "through" was Clinton's words. Why do you avoid Clinton's
statement?
The Act's words themselves is actual fodder for PNAC. By going around
and around about the "Act" you merely underpin my original claim about
Bush implementing PNAC's agenad WRT Iraq. No doubt they and other
hawkish industrialists' minions help draft the Act's wording as a
justification for their own business interests. Clinton attempted to
clarify his stance on the Act through the statement you like to
ignore.
> Once again your claims about someone else's credibility are pure
> bullshit and you are wrong, as usual.
No Freddy. You're a government stooge that slants the truth through
filtered glasses.
>
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :No where does Clinton mention war. So in 2001
> :> :we get attacked by Al Qeada operating out of Afghanistan and Bush
> :> :attacks Iraq
> :> :
> :>
> :> Gee, El Chimpko seems to have missed an entire war in Afghanistan
> :> there.
> :
> :"Entire" is way to big a word when describing that skirmish that did
> :not net as bin Laden the actual culprit of 9-11.
> :
>
> And lots of folks escaped to Argentina during WWII. Gee, I guess WWII
> never happened, according to Eric's thinking.
But not Hitler! We got Hitler but not bin Laden. Your analogy fails,
like Bush, miserably.
>
> :> :
> :> :... and useful idiots like you claim that Bush was
> :> :implementing Clinton's desire to oust Saddam Hussein because of the
> :> :above cited document?
> :> :
> :>
> :> Cite where I made such a claim.
> :
> :What did you claim?
> :
>
> Try reading what I actually say and having your brain engaged. You
> might like the change.
>
> :Why did you post the ILA at all?
>
> I didn't post the ILA. I did mention it in passing,
You mention a lot in passing. Perhaps you pass words like the rest of
us pass...
> to demonstrate to
> you that Bush didn't invent the idea of regime change in Iraq, despite
> what you useful idiots of the Left keep trying to claim.
Bush invented the means and the ends were not for the American people.
It was for the oil people and their cousins in the MIC.
> :
> :To have me show
> :you for the fool that you are?
> :
>
> Do us all a favor. Try holding your breath until you manage that.
Poor Freddy...
> :>
> :> Liar.
> :>
> :
> :Is this where I'm supposed to get ...
>
> read more »
Eric Chomko
> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> :To have me show
> :you for the fool that you are?
> :
>
> Do us all a favor. Try holding your breath until you manage that.
>
> :>
> :> Liar.
> :>
> :
> :Is this where I'm supposed to get mad?! LOL!
> :
>
> No, this is where you're supposed to go actually read the Iraq
> Liberation Act. But you won't, because if you did you'd have to admit
> you've been lying all this time.
I read it. PNAC fodder. My original point. You're a dupe.
>
> :
> :Cheat!
> :
>
> Yeah, how dare I actually point to facts and think! Thinking in a
> discussion with you is 'cheating', since it involves something that
> you're not capable of doing in return.
I was responding to your "liar" comments. Funny how you think you're
allowed to call people
liars and they can't call you a cheat.
> :> :
> :> :No one ever stated that Saddam was a good guy. Well no one but
> :> :Rumsfeld and others in the Reagan administartion back in the 80s, but
> :> :that is another story.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Yes, it is - 'story' in the sense of 'lie'.
> :
> :Are you claiming that we did not look at Saddam as a good guy and
> :actually provide him with arms at one time? 1980s during the Iraq/Iran
> :War, Ronald Regan presidency?
> :
>
> Again, go look it up. Please list the arms we provided him.
>
> Hint: Iraq bought its arms largely from France and Russia. Total US
> arms sales to Iraq amount to something like 0.005 of Iraq's foreign
> arms purchases.
>
> Hint: The US sells weapons to lots of folks we don't consider "a good
> guy", particularly in the minor quantities we're talking about here.
>
The US sells lots of folks small quantities of arms?
We have never learned from the days of selling rifles to the Indians.
> :> Liar.
> :
> :You're an idiot Freddy and seemingly becoming mental as well.
> :Correction: more mental.
> :
>
> Poor El Chimpko. Now he thinks his fantasies are true again.
If my fantasies are just that, then why do you have so much energy on
my falsehoods?
Gotcha!
Poor Freddy...
Fred J. McCall
:
Nice try. Why not just admit you're loony instead? Just spew all the
theories that loons emit under your personal umbrella and squeal like
a pig when people point out your looniness. Typical of the way all
loony toons work as well.
:
:Are you a paid government stooge or an unpaid one?
:
Do you rape young boys too, or just little girls?
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
:> :> :> :> and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
:> :> :> :> wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
:> :> :> :> increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
:> :> :> :> OPEC).
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
:> :> :> :as the sale is in dollars.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
:> :> :> things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
:> :> :> because it doesn't really matter.
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Sure it does. We rely on and need dollar hegemony, especially where
:> :> :oil is concerned.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Why? Try and put forward a coherent case for why this matters.
:> :
:> :It forces other nations to hold dollar reserves where we have no need
:> :to hold those nations' currencies in reserve in a similar manner. That
:> :is dollar hegemony. We rule with an iron fist that notion and is
:> :probably the main reason we attacked Iraq.
:> :
:>
:> Except that makes no sense, since they're going to spend those dollars
:> for oil and that puts them in the hands of nations that don't need to
:> hold them.
:
:So? The dollar is also the de facto currency for criminal
:transactions as well (i.e. black market, drugs, etc.). Those nations
:will find a way to use the dollars.
:
You say this as if it means something.
It doesn't.
:> Net effect is pretty much zero, other than perhaps a one
:> year lag.
:
:Is there where you pretend not to know about the time/value of money?
:Freddy, you have already admitted to having a degree in economics.
:
Is this where you spew non sequiturs and irrelevancies?
It seems so.
:>
:> So the idea that this is somehow "probably the main reason we attacked
:> Iraq" is merely silly.
:
:No it isn't. It's sends a clear message that we won't fool around when
:dollar hegemony is concerned.
:
Loony toon.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :> It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
:> :> :> :> 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Petrodollars not petroeuros.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Dumbass.
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Poor Freddy. He uses the above standard line when he's wrong.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Poor El Chimpko. He throws his feces ... well, pretty much all of the
:> :> time.
:> :
:> :Throws feces by telling the truth? Sorry if the truth hurts you so
:> :much. Your slanted take on world events makes you a useful idiot.
:> :
:>
:> Throws feces by making up lies and then acting as if your fantasies
:> are true and your feces are valuable. Sorry if the truth eludes you
:> so much. Your stupid take on world events makes you an idiot Chimpko.
:
:Yes let me agree with your worl view instead. We are pure and can do
:no wrong. Gee, I feel better already. LOL!
:
You mean let you make something up and then pretend the other person
espoused it. Jesus, do you get kickbacks on straw, or what?
:> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :> As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
:> :> :> :> long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> What planet are you living on, Eric?
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Have you ever read the PNAC agenda dated in 1998 and submitted to then
:> :> :President Clinton? No? Then don't comment.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> You're confused. Go read the sequence above. Show me where I said
:> :> *ANYTHING* about anyone but President Clinton.
:> :
:> :Clinton did not invent the damn Iraq Liberation Act. No doubt his
:> :answer to the PNAC agenda was to implement the ILA. Too bad Bush took
:> :it to another level and here we are in th mess we have today of which
:> :you cannot blame on Clinton.
:> :
:>
:> Unlike you, I'm not 'blaming' anyone. I'm merely pointing out that
:> Bush didn't invent the US policy of active regime change with regard
:> to Iraq.
:
:He invented the manner in which he handled it. He, Cheney and other
:like-mineded oil industrialists.
:
Wrong.
:>
:> I'm merely pointing out that you're a lying fool.
:>
:
:You spout your opinion. Nothing more.
:
The difference being, of course, that my opinion happens to accord
with the facts while yours is just loony toon spew.
:> :> You responded with
:> :> 'No'. Showing that someone else may have also said something similar
:> :> does *NOT* prove that Clinton didn't say it.
:> :>
:> :> Logic - get some!
:> :
:> :The ILA is mild compared to the PNAC agenda and what Bush did in Iraq.
:> :UN sanctions and all that.
:> :
:>
:> The ILA doesn't say anything about sanctions, you stupid bastard. Go
:> read the thing.
:
:You trying to twist the fact that the ILA states "resolutions" rather
:than "sanctions" in an attempt to avoid the language about the UN.
:
The ILA doesn't say anything at all about "resolutions", you dumb
shit.
One more time - what YOU pointed to is a White House statement. The
Iraq Liberation Act is a LAW. You know, passed by Congress, signed by
the President, all that stuff?
:
:You are in no position to call anyone a liar when you yourself are
:intellectually dishonest.
:
You're a liar. Your lie has been pointed out. Sorry that noting that
you are a liar and pointing out the lie somehow in Chimpko world
equates to "intellectually dishonest"
:> :> :> Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.
:> :> :
:> :> :Yes, and its states:
:> :> :
:> :> :"through active application of all relevant United Nations Security
:> :> :Council resolutions"
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Try reading the whole thing. In fact, just try reading Section 3.
:> :> It's quite short and even you should be able to understand it:
:> :>
:> :> "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
:> :> remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
:> :> promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
:> :> regime."
:> :>
:> :> That's it. No conditions about means.
:> :
:> :So do you think Clinton just said "through active application of all
:> :relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions" to appease
:> :liberals, but was really suggesting a more hawkish approach like W
:> :actually did?
:> :
:>
:> You're the only one (now) claiming that that's what Bill Clinton said.
:> Given that you earlier claimed that's what the ILA said, why the hell
:> should anyone believe anything at all that you say?
:
:McClod, I quoting the ILA.
No, you not. You quoting a White House statement. You not quoting
ILA.
:
:Actual quotes!
:
Yes, "actual quotes" OF THE WRONG THING.
:
:They should believe me
:because I am quoting the actual text.
:
False. You are *NOT* quoting from the Iraq Liberation Act. It says
nothing remotely resembling what you 'quote'.
:
:Too bad that you erred and are
:too little of a person to admit it.
:
Try again. Go find the actual Iraq Liberation Act. It's not that
difficult. Then read it. That may be too difficult for you.
Then admit you're wrong, as usual.
:> :>
:> :> In point of fact, the Iraq Liberation Act does not contain the phrase
:> :> YOU quote above at all. In fact, it doesn't contain the world
:> :> "through" at all, much less the rest.
:> :>
:> :
:> :I cut and pasted from here:http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
:> :
:> :"My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
:> :objectives *through* active application of all relevant United Nations
:> :Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such
:> :changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
:> :
:>
:> Which is not, oddly enough, the Iraq Liberation Act. Try reading the
:> actual Act.
:
:So the statement from the White House out of Clinton's mouth himself
:is not enough for you?
:
The statement from the White House is ***NOT*** the Iraq Liberation
Act. Go read the actual law.
:
:Where is the link you want me to read?
:
:>
:> :> Liar.
:> :
:> :Take it back, unless you can prove my link is wrong. And if so, then
:> :blame the Cornell website.
:> :
:>
:> Note that it says that the text is "STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT".
:> That's not the text of the Iraq Liberation Act and it is correctly
:> labeled as not being the text of the Iraq Liberation Act but rather a
:> Statement by the White House with regard to the Iraq Liberation Act.
:>
:> I am right.
:>
:
:Where is the link?
:
All over the place. Try searching for the Bill referred to in the
White House statement you found, for a start.
:
:Who drafted the act?
:
Congress. You know, the same people who draft all laws.
:>
:> The Cornell website is right.
:>
:
:That is where I am quoting.
:
Yes, but it doesn't say that what is there is the actual Iraq
Liberation Act. It is labeled as a White House statement ABOUT that
act, not as the Act itself. It is, in fact, one of those 'signing
statements' that you liberals suddenly hate so much.
Learn to read.
Speaking of which, isn't it odd that you skipped practically the
entire of the White House statement you mistakenly think is the Iraq
Liberation Act?
"This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the
United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition
that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality
of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime
in Baghdad now offers."
"The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all
sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly
supported government."
"The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary
authorities under which my Administration can act to further the
objectives I outlined above."
None of those refer to "UN resolutions". In point of fact, the last
one refers to "additional, discretionary authority" OVER AND ABOVE
such resolutions.
You can't even read the incorrect thing you did find.
:
:>
:> You are a lying idiot.
:>
:
:Poor Freddy...
:
And yet El Chimpko is the one who apparently cannot read.
:
:>
:> That seems to sum it up.
:>
:
:You are wrong about Clinton and Bush WRT Iraq. Bush attacked Iraq
:giving no deference to the UN. Clinton stated that we wanted to work
:within UN guidelines. You conveniently ignore that part. I cut right
:to it and the truth drives you nuts.
:
You can't even read the incorrect thing you found. Let's quote that
bit of the White House statement, shall we?
"My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions. "
Note that Clinton says that this is what he was doing BEFORE the Iraq
Liberation Act was passed. And what does he say about his path
forward now that the Act has passed?
"The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary
authorities under which my Administration can act to further the
objectives I outlined above."
In other words, the Act authorizes him to take steps OUTSIDE those
"relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions" that he had
already been using to try to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.
I'll simply note that those steps included millions of dollars in
MILITARY AID to anti-Saddam forces inside Iraq.
:> :
:> :(Will Freddy be man enough to admit he was wrong?)
:> :
:>
:> Sure, but first I would have to BE wrong. I'm not. You are. And
:> again it's a product of your own stupidity.
:
:Still a punk, aren't you?
:
Still a liar, aren't you?
:
:>
:> Go read the actual text of that Act. Go study the things that were
:> done under it (including providing arms and training to Iraqi
:> resistance groups, which isn't precisely what the UN Resolutions were
:> calling for).
:>
:
:The Act began in 1980 according to the subtitle. That was way before
:Clinton.
:
What nonsense are you gibbering about now? What 'subtitle' are you
talking about? The Iraq Liberation Act was introduced in Congress
September 29, 1998, when it was initially referred to the House
Committee on International Relations.
:
:>
:> Then you can admit that you've been stupidly lying again.
:>
:> Not that I expect you'll ever be man enough to admit that.
:>
:
:The Act was used by PNAC. Clinton tempered the Act with his statement
:regarding the UN. Bush had his own agenda.
:
You can't even read the stuff you find. See above.
:
:You're an idiot if you think that the mess in Iraq is Clinton or
:anybody but Bush's fault.
:
You're an idiot because you apparently cannot read. No 'if' about it.
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :Bush ignored that part.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Because it wasn't there.
:> :
:> :Sure it is.
:>
:> No it isn't.
:>
:> :Will you admit your fault is the real question? Don't
:> :avoid this Freddy, your credibility is at stake.
:>
:> I don't need to avoid it. You're lying again. There is nothing in
:> the Iraq Liberation Act that mentions UN resolutions.
:
:UNSOM - United Nations Special Commission on Iraq - the weapons
:inspectors of which Bush all but forced out.
:
The Iraq Liberation Act doesn't mention UNSOM.
:> In fact, the
:> word "through" doesn't appear in the Act at all. Means are not
:> discussed.
:
:No, "through" was Clinton's words. Why do you avoid Clinton's
:statement?
:
Because Clinton's statement is not the Iraq Liberation Act.
Why do you deliberately lie about what Clinton said? See above. The
whole UN resolutions thing was what he WAS doing before the Iraq
Liberation Act authorized him to do more.
Go read his statement again.
:
:The Act's words themselves is actual fodder for PNAC. By going around
:and around about the "Act" you merely underpin my original claim about
:Bush implementing PNAC's agenad WRT Iraq. No doubt they and other
:hawkish industrialists' minions help draft the Act's wording as a
:justification for their own business interests. Clinton attempted to
:clarify his stance on the Act through the statement you like to
:ignore.
:
Poor El Chimpko, making up things out of the whole cloth again.
:
:>
:> Once again your claims about someone else's credibility are pure
:> bullshit and you are wrong, as usual.
:>
:
:No Freddy. You're a government stooge that slants the truth through
:filtered glasses.
:
Try reading Clinton's statement with your brain engaged. Try reading
the actual Iraq Liberation Act as it was signed into law. Try
explaining away millions of dollars in military aid to Iraqi dissident
groups. Try explaining how various types of interference in Iraq's
internal politics by the Clinton Administration under the Iraq
Liberation Act are somehow consistent with 'enforcing UN resolutions'.
:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :No where does Clinton mention war. So in 2001
:> :> :we get attacked by Al Qeada operating out of Afghanistan and Bush
:> :> :attacks Iraq
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Gee, El Chimpko seems to have missed an entire war in Afghanistan
:> :> there.
:> :
:> :"Entire" is way to big a word when describing that skirmish that did
:> :not net as bin Laden the actual culprit of 9-11.
:> :
:>
:> And lots of folks escaped to Argentina during WWII. Gee, I guess WWII
:> never happened, according to Eric's thinking.
:
:But not Hitler! We got Hitler but not bin Laden. Your analogy fails,
:like Bush, miserably.
:
Did we? How do you know? Show me the body.
:
:>
:> :> :
:> :> :... and useful idiots like you claim that Bush was
:> :> :implementing Clinton's desire to oust Saddam Hussein because of the
:> :> :above cited document?
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Cite where I made such a claim.
:> :
:> :What did you claim?
:> :
:>
:> Try reading what I actually say and having your brain engaged. You
:> might like the change.
:>
:> :Why did you post the ILA at all?
:>
:> I didn't post the ILA. I did mention it in passing,
:>
:
:You mention a lot in passing. Perhaps you pass words like the rest of
:us pass...
:
Well, that explains YOUR emissions, at any rate, shit for brains...
:
:>
:> to demonstrate to
:> you that Bush didn't invent the idea of regime change in Iraq, despite
:> what you useful idiots of the Left keep trying to claim.
:>
:
:Bush invented the means and the ends were not for the American people.
:It was for the oil people and their cousins in the MIC.
:
Again El Chimpko makes up some deluded, ideologically driven fantasy
and acts as if it's fact.
:
:>
:> :
:> :To have me show
:> :you for the fool that you are?
:> :
:>
:> Do us all a favor. Try holding your breath until you manage that.
:>
:
:Poor Freddy...
:
Poor El Chimpko...
:> :>
:> :> Liar.
:> :>
:> :
:> :Is this where I'm supposed to get ...
:>
:> read more »
:
Try reading the actual Iraq Liberation Act....
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Eric Chomko
> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :On May 10, 9:27 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
> :> :> :wrote:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
> :> :> :> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
> :> :
> :> :I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Eric: "What about rationally hating George Bush based upon results?"
> :>
> :> Make up your mind.
> :
> :I pity the poor SOB...
> :
>
> Oh? Why? Because he's wealthy and the President of the United States
> and you are neither?
We dropped out of the right womb. Born on third base and all that. I
don't envy people based upon birth. It is just un-American to do so!
I am more impressed with Clinton rather than Bush given their two
backgrounds.
>
> :>
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
> :> :when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
> :> :less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
> :> :react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Poor Eric. Too stupid to understand what's said to him, so all he can
> :> do is bleat idiocy like the preceding.
> :
> :Yes, make it about me and ignore the post.
> :
>
> I covered the post. I said "bleat idiocy". That seems all the
> discussion of the post that is required.
The the word "said" in the second sentence is redundant.
> :> :
> :> :Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
> :> :Maybe you should to catch up.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Have ever even looked into the interaction of your head, your ass, and
> :> your mouth? Maybe you should to heal up.
> :
> :Ad hominem at it's worst. Poor Freddy. You would have made a good
> :Soviet in the USSR.
> :
>
> Look at what it's in response to, El Chimpko, with your "Maybe you
> should to catch up".
>
> You get what you give. Talk sense and you get sensible discussion.
> Talk idiocy and it gets pointed out you're talking idiocy. Lie and
> you get called a liar. Start making ad hominem remarks and you get
> them back.
>
> That seems to cover it.
How totally uninspiring...
Fred J. McCall
:On May 11, 11:18 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 10, 9:27 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
:> :> :> :wrote:
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
:> :> :> :> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
:> :> :
:> :> :I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Eric: "What about rationally hating George Bush based upon results?"
:> :>
:> :> Make up your mind.
:> :
:> :I pity the poor SOB...
:> :
:>
:> Oh? Why? Because he's wealthy and the President of the United States
:> and you are neither?
:
:We dropped out of the right womb. Born on third base and all that. I
:don't envy people based upon birth. It is just un-American to do so!
:
And yet you evince all the symptoms.
:
:I am more impressed with Clinton rather than Bush given their two
:backgrounds.
:
Yeah, Clinton being a Democrat and all...
You 'think' with your politics, Eric (and I use the word 'think' as
loosely as possible).
:>
:> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
:> :> :when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
:> :> :less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
:> :> :react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Poor Eric. Too stupid to understand what's said to him, so all he can
:> :> do is bleat idiocy like the preceding.
:> :
:> :Yes, make it about me and ignore the post.
:> :
:>
:> I covered the post. I said "bleat idiocy". That seems all the
:> discussion of the post that is required.
:
:The the word "said" in the second sentence is redundant.
:
The person Eric Chimpko is redundant.
:> :> :
:> :> :Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
:> :> :Maybe you should to catch up.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Have ever even looked into the interaction of your head, your ass, and
:> :> your mouth? Maybe you should to heal up.
:> :
:> :Ad hominem at it's worst. Poor Freddy. You would have made a good
:> :Soviet in the USSR.
:> :
:>
:> Look at what it's in response to, El Chimpko, with your "Maybe you
:> should to catch up".
:>
:> You get what you give. Talk sense and you get sensible discussion.
:> Talk idiocy and it gets pointed out you're talking idiocy. Lie and
:> you get called a liar. Start making ad hominem remarks and you get
:> them back.
:>
:> That seems to cover it.
:
:How totally uninspiring...
:
And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
write.
Poor, sad, Eric.
Eric Chomko
> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :On May 11, 11:18 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On May 10, 9:27 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
> :> :> :> :wrote:
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
> :> :> :> :> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Eric: "What about rationally hating George Bush based upon results?"
> :> :>
> :> :> Make up your mind.
> :> :
> :> :I pity the poor SOB...
> :> :
> :>
> :> Oh? Why? Because he's wealthy and the President of the United States
> :> and you are neither?
> :
> :We dropped out of the right womb. Born on third base and all that. I
> :don't envy people based upon birth. It is just un-American to do so!
> :
>
> And yet you evince all the symptoms.
Poor interpretation of reality on your part again.
>
> :
> :I am more impressed with Clinton rather than Bush given their two
> :backgrounds.
> :
>
> Yeah, Clinton being a Democrat and all...
Clinton didn't have a father that was president nor a grandfather that
was a senator like Bush did. He created himself and did come into
Washington on the coatails of previous generations like Bush.
> You 'think' with your politics, Eric (and I use the word 'think' as
> loosely as possible).
Everyone thinks with their politics, Freddy. Even you. Perhaps even
moreso than I do.
> :>
> :> :>
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
> :> :> :when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
> :> :> :less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
> :> :> :react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Poor Eric. Too stupid to understand what's said to him, so all he can
> :> :> do is bleat idiocy like the preceding.
> :> :
> :> :Yes, make it about me and ignore the post.
> :> :
> :>
> :> I covered the post. I said "bleat idiocy". That seems all the
> :> discussion of the post that is required.
> :
> :The the word "said" in the second sentence is redundant.
> :
>
> The person Eric Chimpko is redundant.
Yes, and you are perfect.
<snicker>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
> :> :> :Maybe you should to catch up.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Have ever even looked into the interaction of your head, your ass, and
> :> :> your mouth? Maybe you should to heal up.
> :> :
> :> :Ad hominem at it's worst. Poor Freddy. You would have made a good
> :> :Soviet in the USSR.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Look at what it's in response to, El Chimpko, with your "Maybe you
> :> should to catch up".
> :>
> :> You get what you give. Talk sense and you get sensible discussion.
> :> Talk idiocy and it gets pointed out you're talking idiocy. Lie and
> :> you get called a liar. Start making ad hominem remarks and you get
> :> them back.
> :>
> :> That seems to cover it.
> :
> :How totally uninspiring...
> :
>
> And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
> write.
At? No, more at back at you. I give what I get from you, Freddy.
> Poor, sad, Eric.
Sad? Surely you jest. Freddy, your need to be right and to prove that
you're better than the next guy is laugh on its face. You are actually
a form of entertainment.
Now go crawl back under your rock...
hahahaha
Fred J. McCall
:On May 23, 8:01 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 11, 11:18 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On May 10, 9:27 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
:> :> :> :> :wrote:
:> :> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :> Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
:> :> :> :> :> been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
:> :> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Eric: "What about rationally hating George Bush based upon results?"
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Make up your mind.
:> :> :
:> :> :I pity the poor SOB...
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Oh? Why? Because he's wealthy and the President of the United States
:> :> and you are neither?
:> :
:> :We dropped out of the right womb. Born on third base and all that. I
:> :don't envy people based upon birth. It is just un-American to do so!
:> :
:>
:> And yet you evince all the symptoms.
:
:Poor interpretation of reality on your part again.
:
You're not part of reality, Eric. Reality matters. You don't.
:
:>
:> :
:> :I am more impressed with Clinton rather than Bush given their two
:> :backgrounds.
:> :
:>
:> Yeah, Clinton being a Democrat and all...
:
:Clinton didn't have a father that was president nor a grandfather that
:was a senator like Bush did. He created himself and did come into
:Washington on the coatails of previous generations like Bush.
:
:> You 'think' with your politics, Eric (and I use the word 'think' as
:> loosely as possible).
:
:Everyone thinks with their politics, Freddy. Even you. Perhaps even
:moreso than I do.
:
Poor El Chimpko. He's being deluded again.
No, dear boy. Everyone does NOT think with their politics. The fact
that you think they do is projection on your part.
:>
:> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
:> :> :> :when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
:> :> :> :less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
:> :> :> :react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Poor Eric. Too stupid to understand what's said to him, so all he can
:> :> :> do is bleat idiocy like the preceding.
:> :> :
:> :> :Yes, make it about me and ignore the post.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> I covered the post. I said "bleat idiocy". That seems all the
:> :> discussion of the post that is required.
:> :
:> :The the word "said" in the second sentence is redundant.
:> :
:>
:> The person Eric Chimpko is redundant.
:
:Yes, and you are perfect.
:
Not hardly. It just looks that way from as far down as you are.
:
:<snicker>
:
Indeed.
:
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
:> :> :> :Maybe you should to catch up.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Have ever even looked into the interaction of your head, your ass, and
:> :> :> your mouth? Maybe you should to heal up.
:> :> :
:> :> :Ad hominem at it's worst. Poor Freddy. You would have made a good
:> :> :Soviet in the USSR.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Look at what it's in response to, El Chimpko, with your "Maybe you
:> :> should to catch up".
:> :>
:> :> You get what you give. Talk sense and you get sensible discussion.
:> :> Talk idiocy and it gets pointed out you're talking idiocy. Lie and
:> :> you get called a liar. Start making ad hominem remarks and you get
:> :> them back.
:> :>
:> :> That seems to cover it.
:> :
:> :How totally uninspiring...
:> :
:>
:> And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
:> write.
:
:At? No, more at back at you. I give what I get from you, Freddy.
:
Or even when you don't get it from me. Go count the number of times
you've responded to articles I've written that aren't even replies to
your usual insidious idiocy.
:
:> Poor, sad, Eric.
:
:Sad? Surely you jest. Freddy, your need to be right and to prove that
:you're better than the next guy is laugh on its face. You are actually
:a form of entertainment.
:
And yet here you are, trying your hardest to show that you matter. And
yet with all that noise, you still don't.
Eric Chomko
> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
> :> :He dropped out of the right womb. Born on third base and all that. I
> :> :don't envy people based upon birth. It is just un-American to do so!
> :> :
> :>
> :> And yet you evince all the symptoms.
> :
> :Poor interpretation of reality on your part again.
> :
>
> You're not part of reality, Eric. Reality matters. You don't.
Yes, that means much to you. How external of you.
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :I am more impressed with Clinton rather than Bush given their two
> :> :backgrounds.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Yeah, Clinton being a Democrat and all...
> :
> :Clinton didn't have a father that was president nor a grandfather that
> :was a senator like Bush did. He created himself and did come into
> :Washington on the coatails of previous generations like Bush.
> :
> :> You 'think' with your politics, Eric (and I use the word 'think' as
> :> loosely as possible).
> :
> :Everyone thinks with their politics, Freddy. Even you. Perhaps even
> :moreso than I do.
> :
>
> Poor El Chimpko. He's being deluded again.
>
> No, dear boy. Everyone does NOT think with their politics. The fact
> that you think they do is projection on your part.
Politics is based upon beliefs. Everyone thinks based upon their
beliefs. Sorry you didn't get the connection.
It is you that posts followups to everyone in the same vein.
Virtually everyone of your posts is the same in tone and manner to
every other.
> :> Poor, sad, Eric.
> :
> :Sad? Surely you jest. Freddy, your need to be right and to prove that
> :you're better than the next guy is laugh on its face. You are actually
> :a form of entertainment.
> :
>
> And yet here you are, trying your hardest to show that you matter.
I matter as a matter of declaration. Yes, just because I say so. Now,
back to the discussion.
> And yet with all that noise, you still don't.
And you do matter? In some other context inside USENET. Freddy, you're
full of yourself. But that is probably good because at least one
person should care.
Fred J. McCall
:On May 24, 9:52 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>
:> You're not part of reality, Eric. Reality matters. You don't.
:
:Yes, that means much to you. How external of you.
:
Yes, indeed, reality does matter to me. You, of course, have your
delusions to keep you warm...
:
:>
:> :
:> :> You 'think' with your politics, Eric (and I use the word 'think' as
:> :> loosely as possible).
:> :
:> :Everyone thinks with their politics, Freddy. Even you. Perhaps even
:> :moreso than I do.
:> :
:>
:> Poor El Chimpko. He's being deluded again.
:>
:> No, dear boy. Everyone does NOT think with their politics. The fact
:> that you think they do is projection on your part.
:
:Politics is based upon beliefs. Everyone thinks based upon their
:beliefs. Sorry you didn't get the connection.
:
Sorry you're ruled by your petty politics. Most peoples' heads aren't
quite so up and locked as yours and they are still capable of
independent thought.
:> :>
:> :> And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
:> :> write.
:> :
:> :At? No, more at back at you. I give what I get from you, Freddy.
:> :
:>
:> Or even when you don't get it from me. Go count the number of times
:> you've responded to articles I've written that aren't even replies to
:> your usual insidious idiocy.
:
:It is you that posts followups to everyone in the same vein.
:Virtually everyone of your posts is the same in tone and manner to
:every other.
:
And yet even though they're not directed at you, up you pop like a,
well, a really stupid popping thing.
:> :> Poor, sad, Eric.
:> :
:> :Sad? Surely you jest. Freddy, your need to be right and to prove that
:> :you're better than the next guy is laugh on its face. You are actually
:> :a form of entertainment.
:> :
:>
:> And yet here you are, trying your hardest to show that you matter.
:
:I matter as a matter of declaration. Yes, just because I say so. Now,
:back to the discussion.
:
No, dear boy. Merely wishing real hard doesn't affect reality.
'Matter' fits in with all the other things you don't do.
:> And yet with all that noise, you still don't.
:
:And you do matter? In some other context inside USENET. Freddy, you're
:full of yourself. But that is probably good because at least one
:person should care.
:
Poor Eric. He thinks it's all about him. The fact that you don't
matter says nothing at all about anyone else, Eric.
Eric Chomko
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Eric Chomko <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :On May 24, 9:52 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> You're not part of reality, Eric. Reality matters. You don't.
> :
> :Yes, that means much to you. How external of you.
> :
>
> Yes, indeed, reality does matter to me. You, of course, have your
> delusions to keep you warm...
Freddy, let's not get into marital status again shall we?
>
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :> You 'think' with your politics, Eric (and I use the word 'think' as
> :> :> loosely as possible).
> :> :
> :> :Everyone thinks with their politics, Freddy. Even you. Perhaps even
> :> :moreso than I do.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Poor El Chimpko. He's being deluded again.
> :>
> :> No, dear boy. Everyone does NOT think with their politics. The fact
> :> that you think they do is projection on your part.
> :
> :Politics is based upon beliefs. Everyone thinks based upon their
> :beliefs. Sorry you didn't get the connection.
> :
>
> Sorry you're ruled by your petty politics. Most peoples' heads aren't
> quite so up and locked as yours and they are still capable of
> independent thought.
What as opposed to your petty beliefs?
>
> :> :>
> :> :> And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
> :> :> write.
> :> :
> :> :At? No, more at back at you. I give what I get from you, Freddy.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Or even when you don't get it from me. Go count the number of times
> :> you've responded to articles I've written that aren't even replies to
> :> your usual insidious idiocy.
> :
> :It is you that posts followups to everyone in the same vein.
> :Virtually everyone of your posts is the same in tone and manner to
> :every other.
> :
>
> And yet even though they're not directed at you, up you pop like a,
> well, a really stupid popping thing.
Yep, a predictable response out of Freddy.
>
> :> :> Poor, sad, Eric.
> :> :
> :> :Sad? Surely you jest. Freddy, your need to be right and to prove that
> :> :you're better than the next guy is laugh on its face. You are actually
> :> :a form of entertainment.
> :> :
> :>
> :> And yet here you are, trying your hardest to show that you matter.
> :
> :I matter as a matter of declaration. Yes, just because I say so. Now,
> :back to the discussion.
> :
>
> No, dear boy. Merely wishing real hard doesn't affect reality.
Wishing? No, declaration.
> 'Matter' fits in with all the other things you don't do.
>
> :> And yet with all that noise, you still don't.
> :
> :And you do matter? In some other context inside USENET. Freddy, you're
> :full of yourself. But that is probably good because at least one
> :person should care.
> :
>
> Poor Eric. He thinks it's all about him. The fact that you don't
> matter says nothing at all about anyone else, Eric.
More convoluted logic by Freddy.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On May 24, 9:52 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> You're not part of reality, Eric. Reality matters. You don't.
:> :
:> :Yes, that means much to you. How external of you.
:> :
:>
:> Yes, indeed, reality does matter to me. You, of course, have your
:> delusions to keep you warm...
:
:Freddy, let's not get into marital status again shall we?
:
Who brought up marital status, El Chimpko (other than you right now, I
mean)?
You're the one who keeps getting upset and wanting to go there. And
then getting more upset.
:
:>
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :> You 'think' with your politics, Eric (and I use the word 'think' as
:> :> :> loosely as possible).
:> :> :
:> :> :Everyone thinks with their politics, Freddy. Even you. Perhaps even
:> :> :moreso than I do.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Poor El Chimpko. He's being deluded again.
:> :>
:> :> No, dear boy. Everyone does NOT think with their politics. The fact
:> :> that you think they do is projection on your part.
:> :
:> :Politics is based upon beliefs. Everyone thinks based upon their
:> :beliefs. Sorry you didn't get the connection.
:> :
:>
:> Sorry you're ruled by your petty politics. Most peoples' heads aren't
:> quite so up and locked as yours and they are still capable of
:> independent thought.
:>
:
:What as opposed to your petty beliefs?
:
Poor El Chimpko. He just can't understand that everyone isn't the
brain dead ideologue that he is.
:
:>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
:> :> :> write.
:> :> :
:> :> :At? No, more at back at you. I give what I get from you, Freddy.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Or even when you don't get it from me. Go count the number of times
:> :> you've responded to articles I've written that aren't even replies to
:> :> your usual insidious idiocy.
:> :
:> :It is you that posts followups to everyone in the same vein.
:> :Virtually everyone of your posts is the same in tone and manner to
:> :every other.
:> :
:>
:> And yet even though they're not directed at you, up you pop like a,
:> well, a really stupid popping thing.
:
:Yep, a predictable response out of Freddy.
:
Yeah. I keep noticing that 'reality' thing on you, don't I?
:>
:> :> :> Poor, sad, Eric.
:> :> :
:> :> :Sad? Surely you jest. Freddy, your need to be right and to prove that
:> :> :you're better than the next guy is laugh on its face. You are actually
:> :> :a form of entertainment.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> And yet here you are, trying your hardest to show that you matter.
:> :
:> :I matter as a matter of declaration. Yes, just because I say so. Now,
:> :back to the discussion.
:> :
:>
:> No, dear boy. Merely wishing real hard doesn't affect reality.
:
:Wishing? No, declaration.
:
Wishing. What you 'declare' doesn't matter. Things will continue to
be what they are and you will continue to not matter and be whining in
the dark.
The Deteriorata was written for you.
:> 'Matter' fits in with all the other things you don't do.
:>
:> :> And yet with all that noise, you still don't.
:> :
:> :And you do matter? In some other context inside USENET. Freddy, you're
:> :full of yourself. But that is probably good because at least one
:> :person should care.
:> :
:>
:> Poor Eric. He thinks it's all about him. The fact that you don't
:> matter says nothing at all about anyone else, Eric.
:
:More convoluted logic by Freddy.
:
Poor El Chimpko. ANY logic is too convoluted for him...
Eric Chomko
> :>
> :> :On May 24, 9:52 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> You're not part of reality, Eric. Reality matters. You don't.
> :> :
> :> :Yes, that means much to you. How external of you.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Yes, indeed, reality does matter to me. You, of course, have your
> :> delusions to keep you warm...
> :
> :Freddy, let's not get into marital status again shall we?
> :
>
> Who brought up marital status, El Chimpko (other than you right now, I
> mean)?
>
> You're the one who keeps getting upset and wanting to go there. And
> then getting more upset.
>
Getting upset? No. Reminding you that you have relationship issues
with virtually everyone. Yes.
Choose to do with the feedback what you like.
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :> You 'think' with your politics, Eric (and I use the word 'think' as
> :> :> :> loosely as possible).
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Everyone thinks with their politics, Freddy. Even you. Perhaps even
> :> :> :moreso than I do.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Poor El Chimpko. He's being deluded again.
> :> :>
> :> :> No, dear boy. Everyone does NOT think with their politics. The fact
> :> :> that you think they do is projection on your part.
> :> :
> :> :Politics is based upon beliefs. Everyone thinks based upon their
> :> :beliefs. Sorry you didn't get the connection.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Sorry you're ruled by your petty politics. Most peoples' heads aren't
> :> quite so up and locked as yours and they are still capable of
> :> independent thought.
> :>
> :
> :What as opposed to your petty beliefs?
> :
>
> Poor El Chimpko. He just can't understand that everyone isn't the
> brain dead ideologue that he is.
Or the pedantic prick that you are.
> :
> :>
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
> :> :> :> write.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :At? No, more at back at you. I give what I get from you, Freddy.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Or even when you don't get it from me. Go count the number of times
> :> :> you've responded to articles I've written that aren't even replies to
> :> :> your usual insidious idiocy.
> :> :
> :> :It is you that posts followups to everyone in the same vein.
> :> :Virtually everyone of your posts is the same in tone and manner to
> :> :every other.
> :> :
> :>
> :> And yet even though they're not directed at you, up you pop like a,
> :> well, a really stupid popping thing.
> :
> :Yep, a predictable response out of Freddy.
> :
>
> Yeah. I keep noticing that 'reality' thing on you, don't I?
Proper sentence construction. Get some!
> :>
> :> :> :> Poor, sad, Eric.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Sad? Surely you jest. Freddy, your need to be right and to prove that
> :> :> :you're better than the next guy is laugh on its face. You are actually
> :> :> :a form of entertainment.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> And yet here you are, trying your hardest to show that you matter.
> :> :
> :> :I matter as a matter of declaration. Yes, just because I say so. Now,
> :> :back to the discussion.
> :> :
> :>
> :> No, dear boy. Merely wishing real hard doesn't affect reality.
> :
> :Wishing? No, declaration.
> :
>
> Wishing. What you 'declare' doesn't matter.
False. What a declare doesn't matter to you. And you don't count. I
stand by my origial declaration.
> Things will continue to
> be what they are and you will continue to not matter and be whining in
> the dark.
Nope. I create therefore I am.
> The Deteriorata was written for you.
But it was not written by you. So go crawl back under your rock...
LOL!
>
> :> 'Matter' fits in with all the other things you don't do.
> :>
> :> :> And yet with all that noise, you still don't.
> :> :
> :> :And you do matter? In some other context inside USENET. Freddy, you're
> :> :full of yourself. But that is probably good because at least one
> :> :person should care.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Poor Eric. He thinks it's all about him. The fact that you don't
> :> matter says nothing at all about anyone else, Eric.
> :
> :More convoluted logic by Freddy.
> :
>
> Poor El Chimpko. ANY logic is too convoluted for him...
Only when it's not logic...
Fred J. McCall
:On May 26, 12:10 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:>
:> ::Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>
:> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :On May 24, 9:52 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> You're not part of reality, Eric. Reality matters. You don't.
:> :> :
:> :> :Yes, that means much to you. How external of you.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Yes, indeed, reality does matter to me. You, of course, have your
:> :> delusions to keep you warm...
:> :
:> :Freddy, let's not get into marital status again shall we?
:> :
:>
:> Who brought up marital status, El Chimpko (other than you right now, I
:> mean)?
:>
:> You're the one who keeps getting upset and wanting to go there. And
:> then getting more upset.
:>
:
:Getting upset? No. Reminding you that you have relationship issues
:with virtually everyone. Yes.
:
So how are you and Paula getting along these days? Last time we went
into that territory you got REAL quiet...
:
:Choose to do with the feedback what you like.
:
I'd give it the treatment it merits, but I don't see a flush handle on
my computer...
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> You 'think' with your politics, Eric (and I use the word 'think' as
:> :> :> :> loosely as possible).
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Everyone thinks with their politics, Freddy. Even you. Perhaps even
:> :> :> :moreso than I do.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Poor El Chimpko. He's being deluded again.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> No, dear boy. Everyone does NOT think with their politics. The fact
:> :> :> that you think they do is projection on your part.
:> :> :
:> :> :Politics is based upon beliefs. Everyone thinks based upon their
:> :> :beliefs. Sorry you didn't get the connection.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Sorry you're ruled by your petty politics. Most peoples' heads aren't
:> :> quite so up and locked as yours and they are still capable of
:> :> independent thought.
:> :>
:> :
:> :What as opposed to your petty beliefs?
:> :
:>
:> Poor El Chimpko. He just can't understand that everyone isn't the
:> brain dead ideologue that he is.
:
:Or the pedantic prick that you are.
:
Talking to a student as stupid as you, cartoons no doubt seem
pedantic...
:> :
:> :>
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
:> :> :> :> write.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :At? No, more at back at you. I give what I get from you, Freddy.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Or even when you don't get it from me. Go count the number of times
:> :> :> you've responded to articles I've written that aren't even replies to
:> :> :> your usual insidious idiocy.
:> :> :
:> :> :It is you that posts followups to everyone in the same vein.
:> :> :Virtually everyone of your posts is the same in tone and manner to
:> :> :every other.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> And yet even though they're not directed at you, up you pop like a,
:> :> well, a really stupid popping thing.
:> :
:> :Yep, a predictable response out of Freddy.
:> :
:>
:> Yeah. I keep noticing that 'reality' thing on you, don't I?
:
:Proper sentence construction. Get some!
:
I did. Perhaps you should learn some English? After all, this isn't
the first time you've complained about something that it turns out is
proper English.
:> :>
:> :> :> :> Poor, sad, Eric.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Sad? Surely you jest. Freddy, your need to be right and to prove that
:> :> :> :you're better than the next guy is laugh on its face. You are actually
:> :> :> :a form of entertainment.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> And yet here you are, trying your hardest to show that you matter.
:> :> :
:> :> :I matter as a matter of declaration. Yes, just because I say so. Now,
:> :> :back to the discussion.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> No, dear boy. Merely wishing real hard doesn't affect reality.
:> :
:> :Wishing? No, declaration.
:> :
:>
:> Wishing. What you 'declare' doesn't matter.
:
:False. What a declare doesn't matter to you. And you don't count. I
:stand by my origial declaration.
:
See above.
:> Things will continue to
:> be what they are and you will continue to not matter and be whining in
:> the dark.
:
:Nope. I create therefore I am.
:
You're pink, therefore you're spam...
:> The Deteriorata was written for you.
:
:But it was not written by you. So go crawl back under your rock...
:LOL!
:
Only silly gits "LOL!" at their own statements.
:>
:> :> 'Matter' fits in with all the other things you don't do.
:> :>
:> :> :> And yet with all that noise, you still don't.
:> :> :
:> :> :And you do matter? In some other context inside USENET. Freddy, you're
:> :> :full of yourself. But that is probably good because at least one
:> :> :person should care.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Poor Eric. He thinks it's all about him. The fact that you don't
:> :> matter says nothing at all about anyone else, Eric.
:> :
:> :More convoluted logic by Freddy.
:> :
:>
:> Poor El Chimpko. ANY logic is too convoluted for him...
:
:Only when it's not logic...
:
See above...
Eric Chomko
> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :On May 26, 12:10 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> ::Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :>
> :> :> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :On May 24, 9:52 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> You're not part of reality, Eric. Reality matters. You don't.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Yes, that means much to you. How external of you.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Yes, indeed, reality does matter to me. You, of course, have your
> :> :> delusions to keep you warm...
> :> :
> :> :Freddy, let's not get into marital status again shall we?
> :> :
> :>
> :> Who brought up marital status, El Chimpko (other than you right now, I
> :> mean)?
> :>
> :> You're the one who keeps getting upset and wanting to go there. And
> :> then getting more upset.
> :>
> :
> :Getting upset? No. Reminding you that you have relationship issues
> :with virtually everyone. Yes.
> :
>
> So how are you and Paula getting along these days? Last time we went
> into that territory you got REAL quiet...
McClod you mistake "real quiet" with "none of your buisness". Do you
honestly think I would or even should discuss my marriage with someone
on USENET?
Freddy, the fact that YOU did doesn't mean I should or would. Sorry my
personal life is my personal life.
All that time in the Navy and you are still intelligence-challenged(C)
in more ways than one. ;)
>
> :
> :Choose to do with the feedback what you like.
> :
>
> I'd give it the treatment it merits, but I don't see a flush handle on
> my computer...
That would be on your head shit-for-brains...
[...]
> :> :> :Politics is based upon beliefs. Everyone thinks based upon their
> :> :> :beliefs. Sorry you didn't get the connection.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Sorry you're ruled by your petty politics. Most peoples' heads aren't
> :> :> quite so up and locked as yours and they are still capable of
> :> :> independent thought.
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :What as opposed to your petty beliefs?
> :> :
> :>
> :> Poor El Chimpko. He just can't understand that everyone isn't the
> :> brain dead ideologue that he is.
> :
> :Or the pedantic prick that you are.
> :
>
> Talking to a student as stupid as you, cartoons no doubt seem
> pedantic...
Is that the best you have? I give grade-A wit and you trot out crap
like this.
> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
> :> :> :> :> write.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :At? No, more at back at you. I give what I get from you, Freddy.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> Or even when you don't get it from me. Go count the number of times
> :> :> :> you've responded to articles I've written that aren't even replies to
> :> :> :> your usual insidious idiocy.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :It is you that posts followups to everyone in the same vein.
> :> :> :Virtually everyone of your posts is the same in tone and manner to
> :> :> :every other.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> And yet even though they're not directed at you, up you pop like a,
> :> :> well, a really stupid popping thing.
> :> :
> :> :Yep, a predictable response out of Freddy.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Yeah. I keep noticing that 'reality' thing on you, don't I?
> :
> :Proper sentence construction. Get some!
> :
>
> I did. Perhaps you should learn some English? After all, this isn't
> the first time you've complained about something that it turns out is
> proper English.
I think you would do well with Engrish.
> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> Poor, sad, Eric.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :Sad? Surely you jest. Freddy, your need to be right and to prove that
> :> :> :> :you're better than the next guy is laugh on its face. You are actually
> :> :> :> :a form of entertainment.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> And yet here you are, trying your hardest to show that you matter.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :I matter as a matter of declaration. Yes, just because I say so. Now,
> :> :> :back to the discussion.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> No, dear boy. Merely wishing real hard doesn't affect reality.
> :> :
> :> :Wishing? No, declaration.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Wishing. What you 'declare' doesn't matter.
> :
> :False. What a declare doesn't matter to you. And you don't count. I
> :stand by my origial declaration.
> :
>
> See above.
A ceiling.
>
> :> Things will continue to
> :> be what they are and you will continue to not matter and be whining in
> :> the dark.
> :
> :Nope. I create therefore I am.
> :
>
> You're pink, therefore you're spam...
The canned ham kind or email kind? Disambiguate little one.
> :> The Deteriorata was written for you.
> :
> :But it was not written by you. So go crawl back under your rock...
> :LOL!
> :
>
> Only silly gits "LOL!" at their own statements.
We are all laughing at you. Given your basic nasty demeanor I am
actually providing a service here on USENET keeping you in your
place.Yes, I know, but someone has to do it.
> :>
> :> :> 'Matter' fits in with all the other things you don't do.
> :> :>
> :> :> :> And yet with all that noise, you still don't.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :And you do matter? In some other context inside USENET. Freddy, you're
> :> :> :full of yourself. But that is probably good because at least one
> :> :> :person should care.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Poor Eric. He thinks it's all about him. The fact that you don't
> :> :> matter says nothing at all about anyone else, Eric.
> :> :
> :> :More convoluted logic by Freddy.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Poor El Chimpko. ANY logic is too convoluted for him...
> :
> :Only when it's not logic...
> :
>
> See above...
The ceiling again...
Fred J. McCall
:
Touch a nerve, did we?
:
:>
:> :
:> :Choose to do with the feedback what you like.
:> :
:>
:> I'd give it the treatment it merits, but I don't see a flush handle on
:> my computer...
:
:That would be on your head shit-for-brains...
:[...]
:
No, Eric. I would never use you for brains. You'd be totally
unqualified.
:> :> :> :Politics is based upon beliefs. Everyone thinks based upon their
:> :> :> :beliefs. Sorry you didn't get the connection.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Sorry you're ruled by your petty politics. Most peoples' heads aren't
:> :> :> quite so up and locked as yours and they are still capable of
:> :> :> independent thought.
:> :> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :What as opposed to your petty beliefs?
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Poor El Chimpko. He just can't understand that everyone isn't the
:> :> brain dead ideologue that he is.
:> :
:> :Or the pedantic prick that you are.
:> :
:>
:> Talking to a student as stupid as you, cartoons no doubt seem
:> pedantic...
:
:Is that the best you have? I give grade-A wit and you trot out crap
:like this.
:
"Grade-A wit"? Is *THAT* what you think you're doing?
That's really quite sad...
:> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :> And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
:> :> :> :> :> write.
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> :At? No, more at back at you. I give what I get from you, Freddy.
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> Or even when you don't get it from me. Go count the number of times
:> :> :> :> you've responded to articles I've written that aren't even replies to
:> :> :> :> your usual insidious idiocy.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :It is you that posts followups to everyone in the same vein.
:> :> :> :Virtually everyone of your posts is the same in tone and manner to
:> :> :> :every other.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> And yet even though they're not directed at you, up you pop like a,
:> :> :> well, a really stupid popping thing.
:> :> :
:> :> :Yep, a predictable response out of Freddy.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Yeah. I keep noticing that 'reality' thing on you, don't I?
:> :
:> :Proper sentence construction. Get some!
:> :
:>
:> I did. Perhaps you should learn some English? After all, this isn't
:> the first time you've complained about something that it turns out is
:> proper English.
:
:I think you would do well with Engrish.
:
So to your ignorance of the English language we can add racism...
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :> Poor, sad, Eric.
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> :Sad? Surely you jest. Freddy, your need to be right and to prove that
:> :> :> :> :you're better than the next guy is laugh on its face. You are actually
:> :> :> :> :a form of entertainment.
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> And yet here you are, trying your hardest to show that you matter.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :I matter as a matter of declaration. Yes, just because I say so. Now,
:> :> :> :back to the discussion.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> No, dear boy. Merely wishing real hard doesn't affect reality.
:> :> :
:> :> :Wishing? No, declaration.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Wishing. What you 'declare' doesn't matter.
:> :
:> :False. What a declare doesn't matter to you. And you don't count. I
:> :stand by my origial declaration.
:> :
:>
:> See above.
:
:A ceiling.
:
Yes, plaster work would be the height of your intellectual ceiling.
:>
:> :> Things will continue to
:> :> be what they are and you will continue to not matter and be whining in
:> :> the dark.
:> :
:> :Nope. I create therefore I am.
:> :
:>
:> You're pink, therefore you're spam...
:
:The canned ham kind or email kind?
:
Yes.
:> :> The Deteriorata was written for you.
:> :
:> :But it was not written by you. So go crawl back under your rock...
:> :LOL!
:> :
:>
:> Only silly gits "LOL!" at their own statements.
:
:We are all laughing at you. Given your basic nasty demeanor I am
:actually providing a service here on USENET keeping you in your
:place.Yes, I know, but someone has to do it.
:
'We' presumably being you, the turd in your pocket, and the monkey up
your butt.
:> :>
:> :> :> 'Matter' fits in with all the other things you don't do.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :> And yet with all that noise, you still don't.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :And you do matter? In some other context inside USENET. Freddy, you're
:> :> :> :full of yourself. But that is probably good because at least one
:> :> :> :person should care.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Poor Eric. He thinks it's all about him. The fact that you don't
:> :> :> matter says nothing at all about anyone else, Eric.
:> :> :
:> :> :More convoluted logic by Freddy.
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :> Poor El Chimpko. ANY logic is too convoluted for him...
:> :
:> :Only when it's not logic...
:> :
:>
:> See above...
:
:The ceiling again...
:
Yes, plaster work would be the height of your intellectual ceiling.
Eric Chomko
You wish.
>
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :Choose to do with the feedback what you like.
> :> :
> :>
> :> I'd give it the treatment it merits, but I don't see a flush handle on
> :> my computer...
> :
> :That would be on your head shit-for-brains...
> :[...]
> :
>
> No, Eric. I would never use you for brains. You'd be totally
> unqualified.
I am fully qualified. You got both the tense wrong and the meaning.
> :> :> :> :Politics is based upon beliefs. Everyone thinks based upon their
> :> :> :> :beliefs. Sorry you didn't get the connection.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> Sorry you're ruled by your petty politics. Most peoples' heads aren't
> :> :> :> quite so up and locked as yours and they are still capable of
> :> :> :> independent thought.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :What as opposed to your petty beliefs?
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Poor El Chimpko. He just can't understand that everyone isn't the
> :> :> brain dead ideologue that he is.
> :> :
> :> :Or the pedantic prick that you are.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Talking to a student as stupid as you, cartoons no doubt seem
> :> pedantic...
> :
> :Is that the best you have? I give grade-A wit and you trot out crap
> :like this.
> :
>
> "Grade-A wit"? Is *THAT* what you think you're doing?
No, just proving you inferior.
>
> That's really quite sad...
Yes, you are...
> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> :> And yet you keep being inspired to spew loony at almost everything I
> :> :> :> :> :> write.
> :> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :> :At? No, more at back at you. I give what I get from you, Freddy.
> :> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> Or even when you don't get it from me. Go count the number of times
> :> :> :> :> you've responded to articles I've written that aren't even replies to
> :> :> :> :> your usual insidious idiocy.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :It is you that posts followups to everyone in the same vein.
> :> :> :> :Virtually everyone of your posts is the same in tone and manner to
> :> :> :> :every other.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> And yet even though they're not directed at you, up you pop like a,
> :> :> :> well, a really stupid popping thing.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Yep, a predictable response out of Freddy.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Yeah. I keep noticing that 'reality' thing on you, don't I?
> :> :
> :> :Proper sentence construction. Get some!
> :> :
> :>
> :> I did. Perhaps you should learn some English? After all, this isn't
> :> the first time you've complained about something that it turns out is
> :> proper English.
> :
> :I think you would do well with Engrish.
> :
>
> So to your ignorance of the English language we can add racism...
Clearly it applied to the application.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> :> Poor, sad, Eric.
> :> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :> :Sad? Surely you jest. Freddy, your need to be right and to prove that
> :> :> :> :> :you're better than the next guy is laugh on its face. You are actually
> :> :> :> :> :a form of entertainment.
> :> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> And yet here you are, trying your hardest to show that you matter.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :I matter as a matter of declaration. Yes, just because I say so. Now,
> :> :> :> :back to the discussion.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> No, dear boy. Merely wishing real hard doesn't affect reality.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Wishing? No, declaration.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Wishing. What you 'declare' doesn't matter.
> :> :
> :> :False. What a declare doesn't matter to you. And you don't count. I
> :> :stand by my origial declaration.
> :> :
> :>
> :> See above.
> :
> :A ceiling.
> :
>
> Yes, plaster work would be the height of your intellectual ceiling.
Are you badmouthing tradesmen now? Drywall mechanics in particular?
And you claim I'm racist and here you are doing the same sort of
thing.
> :>
> :> :> Things will continue to
> :> :> be what they are and you will continue to not matter and be whining in
> :> :> the dark.
> :> :
> :> :Nope. I create therefore I am.
> :> :
> :>
> :> You're pink, therefore you're spam...
> :
> :The canned ham kind or email kind?
> :
>
> Yes.
...you're stupid.
> :> :> The Deteriorata was written for you.
> :> :
> :> :But it was not written by you. So go crawl back under your rock...
> :> :LOL!
> :> :
> :>
> :> Only silly gits "LOL!" at their own statements.
> :
> :We are all laughing at you. Given your basic nasty demeanor I am
> :actually providing a service here on USENET keeping you in your
> :place.Yes, I know, but someone has to do it.
> :
>
> 'We' presumably being you, the turd in your pocket, and the monkey up
> your butt.
Yet is it you that constantly uses the royal "we".
> :> :>
> :> :> :> 'Matter' fits in with all the other things you don't do.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> And yet with all that noise, you still don't.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :And you do matter? In some other context inside USENET. Freddy, you're
> :> :> :> :full of yourself. But that is probably good because at least one
> :> :> :> :person should care.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> Poor Eric. He thinks it's all about him. The fact that you don't
> :> :> :> matter says nothing at all about anyone else, Eric.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :More convoluted logic by Freddy.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Poor El Chimpko. ANY logic is too convoluted for him...
> :> :
> :> :Only when it's not logic...
> :> :
> :>
> :> See above...
> :
> :The ceiling again...
> :
>
> Yes, plaster work would be the height of your intellectual ceiling.
Actually I do electrical, plumbing, carpentry, landscaping, masonry,
and drywall.