OT: naked war protests
B.B.
I really don't understand this phenominon. I mean, I'm all for
protesting the "war," but why get naked?
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net
Regime change begins at home.
Steve W
"B.B." <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote in message
news:2E5F5B7015BD1538.D25860B9...@lp.airnews.net...
Attention.
Orchid
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/03/naked.protest/
>
> I really don't understand this phenominon. I mean, I'm all for
> protesting the "war," but why get naked?
People who don't really care about deeper issues or humanistic concerns
trying to get their 15 minutes. People supposedly oppose wars because
they value human life but things like this which are sensationalistic
and silly undermine the seriousness of the situation rather than offer a
cogent protest.
I guess if you can't argue your point intelligently, you take of your
clothes and say "look at me."
People are suffering and many more people may die but a bunch of smug,
stupid middle-class people think this is going to accomplish something.
All it will do is attract the attention of the media so they'll stop
focussing on the serious issues involved and print news about garbage
like this.
Shari (Orchid)
tcells
Orchid wrote in message <1frlvx7.ejp95v16axpkwN%orc...@csonline.net>...
well it just got worse - they just announced "they" (ok possibly an
ill-advised collective use) want to do a sex strike as a protest
Dead Meat
>B.B. <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/03/naked.protest/
>>
>> I really don't understand this phenominon. I mean, I'm all for
>> protesting the "war," but why get naked?
Maybe because people driving by tend to put up blinders and ignore protesters, they felt that they
had to resort to getting naked to get your attention...?
Naaa, it's to get the media vans and helicopters out. <g>
>
>People who don't really care about deeper issues or humanistic concerns
>trying to get their 15 minutes. People supposedly oppose wars because
>they value human life but things like this which are sensationalistic
>and silly undermine the seriousness of the situation rather than offer a
>cogent protest.
>
>I guess if you can't argue your point intelligently, you take of your
>clothes and say "look at me."
>
>People are suffering and many more people may die but a bunch of smug,
>stupid middle-class people think this is going to accomplish something.
Stupid UPPER-middle class people...They're the ones with the time to do these things.
>All it will do is attract the attention of the media so they'll stop
>focussing on the serious issues involved and print news about garbage
>like this.
Most news coverage is already garbage.
>
>Shari (Orchid)
...
wildBill
<2E5F5B7015BD1538.D25860B9...@lp.airnews.net>,
B.B. <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/03/naked.protest/
>
> I really don't understand this phenominon. I mean, I'm all for
> protesting the "war," but why get naked?
why not? ^_^
wild-any-excuse-to-get-naked-Bill
Marshall
"wildBill" <wildbi...@snotmail.com> wrote in message
news:100320031145480833%wildbi...@snotmail.com...
Perhaps this could be the reason why not...
-Marshall ;-P
tcells
Marshall wrote in message ...
I was ready for a lot of things but not that, ROFL!
SoftMan Brian
news:2E5F5B7015BD1538.D25860B9...@lp.airnews.net...
>
> I really don't understand this phenominon. I mean, I'm all for
> protesting the "war," but why get naked?
have you ever had the feeling that by asking a question you answered it ?...
else i can tell you that you just did just that :-)
Orchid
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:01:41 +0900, orc...@csonline.net (Orchid) wrote:
>
> >B.B. <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/03/naked.protest/
> >>
> >> I really don't understand this phenominon. I mean, I'm all for
> >> protesting the "war," but why get naked?
>
> Maybe because people driving by tend to put up blinders and ignore
> protesters, they felt that they had to resort to getting naked to get your
> attention...?
The issue isn't getting attention. Anyone can attract attention by
taking off their clothes. The point is to get across your message. The
message is lost in these displays as the message becomes "look at us,
we're naked."
If people driving by ignore protesters then being naked is only going to
attract their interest in nudity, not in what is being protested. If
your message is lost due to your method then the protest becomes
completely pointless. If you are regarded so poorly that no one will
take your message seriously (because you are acting like a fool), then
it is also pointless.
I'm not going to listen to someone who has a tantrum while trying to
argue a serious issues. I'm also not goin to listen to someone who
strips naked while protesting. The messenger is as important, possibly
more so, than the message in how the audience receives the message.
> >All it will do is attract the attention of the media so they'll stop
> >focussing on the serious issues involved and print news about garbage
> >like this.
>
> Most news coverage is already garbage.
And why is that? It's because people want to watch garbage and are
willing to act like fools in order to get on the air.
You get more of what you appear to desire. If you watch garbage, then
that is what you'll get more and more of.
This just makes matters worse as it's part of a continuing spiral away
from intelligent discourse. If this is what you have to do to attract
attention, then the audience you're trying to reach isn't worth
bothering with as they will not be receptive to your message no matter
what you do.
Shari (Orchid)
Xocyll
from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is
good, the signs say:
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/03/naked.protest/
>
> I really don't understand this phenominon. I mean, I'm all for
>protesting the "war," but why get naked?
Uh, from the article at the link you've posted:
"Reasons for the nakedness: one is that it is total vulnerability," said
Australian singer and peace activist Grace Knight , who organized the
Sydney protest.
"It's absolute complete vulnerability, and in that vulnerability there's
also an awful lot of power, there's a mighty well of power there."
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
short
"Xocyll" <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote in message
news:pusr6vgmisrde3djk...@4ax.com...
> "B.B." <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> looked up
> from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is
> good, the signs say:
>
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/03/naked.protest/
> >
> > I really don't understand this phenominon. I mean, I'm all for
> >protesting the "war," but why get naked?
>
> Uh, from the article at the link you've posted:
>
> "Reasons for the nakedness: one is that it is total vulnerability," said
> Australian singer and peace activist Grace Knight , who organized the
> Sydney protest.
>
> "It's absolute complete vulnerability, and in that vulnerability there's
> also an awful lot of power, there's a mighty well of power there."
>
>
clothes?
short - hope I never see a nude protest in THIS town!!
dave...@spamcop.net
> Uh, from the article at the link you've posted:
> "Reasons for the nakedness: one is that it is total vulnerability," said
> Australian singer and peace activist Grace Knight , who organized the
> Sydney protest.
Oh, man, I did *NOT* need that mental image.
Oh wait, I was thinking Grace Slick. Nevermind.
Dave "Make it stoooooooop!" Hinz
Mickey
Of course, the best part is what happens if you ask them for an
alternative. Then you get a host of unintelligible answers. The first
and foremost one is "Give the inspectors time". Sounds so nice and
simple, u ntil you ask them "time for what?". If you're lucky, you get
a smart one who says "until they find all the weapons." Now you can
really start to have fun, by asking "OK, and then what?" Now the
gobbledy gook starts in earnest. Firstly, it assumes that the
inspectors will ever find it all, an assumption only a complete and
total idiot would make. Next, it begs the question of what do we do if
they ever should find it all..... do we then pull them out, allowing a
madman bent on possessing WMDs to get back to the business of making
them? Do we instead accept the prospect of having these inspectors
there until he dies of old age? Ah, but then there is his son, who is
at least as mad as he is.... so do we now accept the fact that from
this day forth until the end of time, we must play this game of hide
and seek with a succession of madmen?
And before I finish my rant, I would also ask these peaceniks if they
actually support leaving a man in power who to date has been
responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 MILLION people, if they can
justify leaving in power someone who has used WMDs against his OWN
people, and if they have a just and good cause for allowing a man who
has in the last 20 years attack 4 of his neighbors to continue to plan
and plot. Anti-war protests against the Viet Nam war had good cause
for they points of view. The current crop are either stupid, gutless
or French.
Mickey
Marshall
"short" <sho...@zoominternet.net> wrote in message
news:b4kslg$20551m$1...@ID-160707.news.dfncis.de...
Liar! You'd be one of the first ones out there, gawking ;-P
-Marshall
Marshall
<dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:b4kvpc$21hb7v$3...@ID-134476.news.dfncis.de...
"Keep your head..."
-Marshall
Marshall
news:be74c859.03031...@posting.google.com...
I was going to make a comment about those three things not
necessarily being mutually exclusive... but thought better of
it ;) Your arguments are the only ones that hold any water, by
the way- the rest is just namby-pamby stupidity and hopelessly
ignorant wishful thinking. Saddam needs removed, plain and
simple. If we let him hang around, he'll eventually manage to
make Hitler look like a two-bit chump, in the holocaust dept.
Speaking of which... interesting to see Vichy France making a
comeback at this point, eh?
-Marshall
dave...@spamcop.net
> The current crop are either stupid, gutless or French.
You seem to be repeating yourself...
Dead Meat
[snip]
>
>And before I finish my rant, I would also ask these peaceniks if they
>actually support leaving a man in power who to date has been
>responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 MILLION people, if they can
>justify leaving in power someone who has used WMDs against his OWN
>people, and if they have a just and good cause for allowing a man who
>has in the last 20 years attack 4 of his neighbors to continue to plan
>and plot. Anti-war protests against the Viet Nam war had good cause
>for they points of view. The current crop are either stupid, gutless
>or French.
>
>Mickey
Much of what you say applies to half the countries in Africa, North Korea and China.
Shall we put them next on the list?
Face it, the only reason Bush is out to get Hussein is so we forget about the fact that he NEVER
CAUGHT Osama Bin Laden, and the fact that the "9/11" terrorists were SAUDI ARABIANS.
(But oops, they sell us oil. Can't attack THEM!)
Saddam is not a threat to the USA.
Muslim (or Islamic, they all look the same with ski masks on) extremists are, and we'll have plenty
more after attacking Iraq (even though they may very well come from Indonesia next time).
He probably IS a threat to those 4 neighbors you allude to but wait, have ANY of them asked to be
protected from Iraq?
...(crickets chirp, a tumbleweed rolls by)...
Not unless every single news agency AND G.W himself have decided to keep quiet about it!
Hell, even ISRAEL is against attacking Iraq!
Is Saddam an evil, tyrannical despot? Hell YES!
Is he *our problem*? HELL no!
If the UN can't agree on the need to attack him (sheesh, now I'm supporting the UN), then we have no
business WAGING WAR on Iraq!
BTW, someone please refresh my memory on when exactly CONGRESS declared war on Iraq?
(It's a CONSTITUTION thing...you wouldn't understand.)
...
dave...@spamcop.net
> BTW, someone please refresh my memory on when exactly CONGRESS declared war on Iraq?
> (It's a CONSTITUTION thing...you wouldn't understand.)
> ...
Was there a declaration for Desert Storm? Has that war ended?
While we're at it - has the Korean War ended?
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> And before I finish my rant, I would also ask these peaceniks if they
> actually support leaving a man in power who to date has been
> responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 MILLION people, if they can
> justify leaving in power someone who has used WMDs against his OWN
> people, and if they have a just and good cause for allowing a man who
> has in the last 20 years attack 4 of his neighbors to continue to plan
> and plot. Anti-war protests against the Viet Nam war had good cause
> for they points of view. The current crop are either stupid, gutless
> or French.
>
> Mickey
I agree that Saddam has to go. And his son.
But there are other methods than bombing the shit out of the country. An
invasion of Iraq won't touch Saddam cause he doesn't care a jot about
what happens to the Iraqi people, he'll just hide in his favourite
underground bomb shelter. :( Personally I'd suggest something along the
lines of a SWAT team sent in to assassinate Saddam and Co; it may not be
very politically correct (for all I know it may not be possible) but
it'd mean far fewer civilian casualties.
--
--
* "Justice, as the humans like to say, is blind. I used to believe
that. I'm not sure I can any more."
E-mail: devlinwright @ tiscali .co .uk (remove spaces to e-mail)
AIM: EvilBill1782
MSN: dev...@agqx-imperium.fsnet.co.uk
DIABLO II
Matriarch Kheperkare - Lvl 91 Javazon - Open
Slayer HorribleHobbler - Lvl 46 Barbarian - Open
Matriarch EB-Amarice - Lvl 87 Bowazon - USWest
tcells
Mickey wrote in message ...
As I've said before, it should have been done at the time of the Gulf war -
it wasn't politically or economically expediant at the time.
It's an anti-war movement you're talking about. That movement wants the
same results, by and large they believe that war will actually worsen the
situation or minimally that the costs of a war in terms of human life and
later ramifications would be greater than the cost of not having one.
It's pretty much accepted in the intelligence world that while the
inspectors are there performing their jobs that nothing is going to happen -
what is best (and cheapest economically or in terms of human life) to keep
inspectors there or wage a war?
It's also the wide opinion of agencies in Aus and Britain, and that of the
director of the CIA (so I expect the US also) that there is no love between
Saddam and the terrorist groups (actually they hate him because his is a
secular state and they would have loved to toplle him themselves) and the
surest way to ensure that any weapons from Iraq get into the terrorists
hands is by backing him into a corner. And you can bet that war will bring
about a manifest increase in terrorism. There's a big difference between
intelligence and what Bush, Blair or Howard put forward.
Cite from a legitimate source where Iraq is a military threat to either the
US, UK or Australia.
Given that what the UN has done so far has not lead to widespread killing or
seeing WMDs get into the hands of terrorists, it would seem sensible to
continue down this route.
The trouble is that with the developments occuring in the Labour Party that
Bush might well see himself on a very limitted time scale because if Blair
is toppled over this the "colalition of the willing" becomes a total charade
in the eyes of the world.
In terms of a country Nth Korea has been and continues to be the biggest
threat to a western country (1998 flying a missile over Japan) ever pondered
why we aren't hell bent on invading them?
>
>And before I finish my rant, I would also ask these peaceniks if they
>actually support leaving a man in power who to date has been
>responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 MILLION people, if they can
>justify leaving in power someone who has used WMDs against his OWN
>people, and if they have a just and good cause for allowing a man who
>has in the last 20 years attack 4 of his neighbors to continue to plan
>and plot.
This is at best a naive lie. How about you tell us about the Iran Iraq war
and tell us who the western world's interests were backing.
Noone person condones his killing, however, the US, Australia and all
members of the Gulf war condoned his masacre of Kurds by their very
inactions at a time when they were there, were mobilised and could do
something.
The "peacenics" as you derrogatorally put it, support leaving him in power,
but they see the consequences of waging a war at this time as being the
wrong way of going about things.
Anti-war protests against the Viet Nam war had good cause
>for they points of view. The current crop are either stupid, gutless
>or French.
>
most of the world is against a war with Iraq. The last sentence is simply
self opinionated or perhaps you'd care to cite?
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> The trouble is that with the developments occuring in the Labour
> Party that Bush might well see himself on a very limitted time scale
> because if Blair is toppled over this the "colalition of the willing"
> becomes a total charade in the eyes of the world.
>
Blair's just Bush's personal slave; right now I find it hard to believe
that I'm living in the same country that produced Churchill...
To be honest, while Labour has done a few good things for this country,
for the last couple of years they've been just as bad as John Major's
Tory government.
BTW, why does everyone hate the French? I have no love for the French
language but I can't say I've met many French people, and I never had
any problems with the ones I have met. <g>
tcells
EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ...
>Hail! For tcells <tce...@Xcapmon.com> hath spoken thusly:
>>
>> The trouble is that with the developments occuring in the Labour
>> Party that Bush might well see himself on a very limitted time scale
>> because if Blair is toppled over this the "colalition of the willing"
>> becomes a total charade in the eyes of the world.
>>
>
>Blair's just Bush's personal slave; right now I find it hard to believe
>that I'm living in the same country that produced Churchill...
>To be honest, while Labour has done a few good things for this country,
>for the last couple of years they've been just as bad as John Major's
>Tory government.
>
>BTW, why does everyone hate the French? I have no love for the French
>language but I can't say I've met many French people, and I never had
>any problems with the ones I have met. <g>
>
a member of the "hallowed society" made a comment about the real war being
that with the French, but he wouldn't elaborate on it further when I asked.
B.B.
mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
[...]
@Of course, the best part is what happens if you ask them for an
@alternative. Then you get a host of unintelligible answers. The first
@and foremost one is "Give the inspectors time". Sounds so nice and
@simple, u ntil you ask them "time for what?". If you're lucky, you get
@a smart one who says "until they find all the weapons." Now you can
@really start to have fun, by asking "OK, and then what?" Now the
@gobbledy gook starts in earnest. Firstly, it assumes that the
@inspectors will ever find it all, an assumption only a complete and
@total idiot would make. Next, it begs the question of what do we do if
@they ever should find it all..... do we then pull them out, allowing a
@madman bent on possessing WMDs to get back to the business of making
@them? Do we instead accept the prospect of having these inspectors
@there until he dies of old age? Ah, but then there is his son, who is
@at least as mad as he is.... so do we now accept the fact that from
@this day forth until the end of time, we must play this game of hide
@and seek with a succession of madmen?
From what I've seen there is no evidence that Saddam has developed or
acquired WMDs since he kicked out the inspectors. Everything Powell has
presented has been refuted by the inspectors. Everything discovered by
the new inspections has either not been WMDs, or has been left over from
the old inspections. I trust the inspectors far more than the US
administration because Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld/Fox News keeps insisting
there is a link with 9/11 when everyone can plainly see that for what it
is--bullshit.
Also, every time the US and UN have made specific request of Saddam
and Iraq, those requests have been met. ie, request for inspections led
to inspections, request for fly overs has resulted in fly overs, request
for the destruction of weapons has resulted in the destruction of
weapons. How about we make some more specific requests? "You must
disarm," is far too vague. When Iraq started destroying missiles I
considered that disarmament, and many others did as well. Apparently it
was not, according to the president, so more exact language is necessary.
People argue that the threat of force made Saddam comply. I agree.
And there is nothing to stop us from coming back if he fucks up again.
Let's leave with the notice that if he ever disallows inspectors to
enter a site we will bomb it into atoms.
As it is, Saddam is in no position to develop or buy any wepons as
long as inspections are going on. So he presents less of a threat than
before. Despite having zero evidence that he was a threat before.
We also have far more tactical information than we had before. So if
we did ever have a justifiable reason for going to war, the inspections
will have provided a great deal of information.
So I have no problem with leaving Saddam there. Sure, he's a sack of
shit, but he's nowhere near as evil as everyone seems to think he is.
He's just another dictator--pretty much like all the rest in the world.
I do, however, have a problem with the consequences of an attack on
Iraq. The majority of terrorist attacks against the US have come from
the arab nations. And at this moment the arab nations are entirely
opposed to war. The Bush administration has not even attempted to
convince them that this attack is justified even though gaining their
support would prevent countless terrorist attacks and save many lives.
That's my biggest concern. After all, Bush isn't the one who will be
fighting in the war, or dying in any retaliatory terrorism. The
citizens of the US (who mostly oppose the attack) will be.
Further, the attack plans seem to include a LOT of civilian
casualties. Why are we going to flatten Baghdad? Saddam will find a
way out, his military will find a way out, but civilians will not.
That's a horrible way to "free the people of Iraq."
So we'll wind up with large numbers of civilian casualties on both
sides only to remove a minor threat to...somebody. And it'll scare the
shit out of North Korea. Not in the sense they'll stand down and fall
in line. They'll lash out, possibly killing millions if it turns into a
nuclear fight.
And more than that, Bush has made a BIG show of talking about regime
change and creating democracy in the middle east. Well, what's the next
country to be reformatted in the middle east? If we start up a polocy
of overthrowing dictators all the dictators in the middle east (who
control the oil and terrorist supply, BTW) will turn on us in an instant.
Not to mention Russia and China are against us now. Everybody makes
a big deal about france but all of europe is against the attack as well.
Seeing as this country survives on international trade pissing off 3/4
of the planet isn't going to be very helpful when dealing with economic
problems over here. On top of the cost of the attack.
So an attack will just mushroom into a huge problem for years to come.
@And before I finish my rant, I would also ask these peaceniks if they
@actually support leaving a man in power who to date has been
@responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 MILLION people, if they can
@justify leaving in power someone who has used WMDs against his OWN
@people, and if they have a just and good cause for allowing a man who
@has in the last 20 years attack 4 of his neighbors to continue to plan
@and plot. Anti-war protests against the Viet Nam war had good cause
@for they points of view. The current crop are either stupid, gutless
@or French.
If we were saying explicitly that we're going to kill Saddam to
protect the people of the region, fine. However, the war(1) isn't being
presented as such. It is being presented as a move to defend the US.
Killing his own people is a bad thing, granted, but it does not indicate
that he's a threat to us.
I'm glad the French are opposing Bush. The function of the UN has
been to prevent nations from going to war without justification. Bush
has yet to justify the attack, and the UN is functioning correctly when
it opposes Bush.
Of course, at this point it no longer matters since Bush keeps upping
his demands on Saddam (wants him to leave now?) and since he said we'll
go to war anyway, regardless of the UN vote, it's pretty much a given
that we will go to war. And all that lip service from the
administration about not wanting the UN to become irrelevent will go up
in smoke. After all, if the UN can't keep one of its own from
slaughtering another, it's pretty damn useless.
I am not stupid, gutless, or French.
1. This is not a war--it is an attack. We will fire the first shot, and
they have no chance of defending themselves from it.
P.S. Speaking of the news, why the hell are they calling Michael
Jackson "Jacko"? Did I miss a press conference?
P.P.S Getting back to the thread topic: some naked people are cool,
some are not. Freckles are a plus. Implants are a minus. I boycott
playboy.
EvilBill[AGQx]
hath spoken thusly:
>
> P.P.S Getting back to the thread topic: some naked people are cool,
> some are not. Freckles are a plus. Implants are a minus. I boycott
> playboy.
I certainly boycotted Pam Anderson years ago. Women made of plastic are
not sexy.
tcells
B.B. wrote in message
<00CB684E5D8BD924.1EB5C2F6...@lp.airnews.net>...
snip (I concur)
>P.S. Speaking of the news, why the hell are they calling Michael
>Jackson "Jacko"? Did I miss a press conference?
>
because it rhymes with "whacko" - whacko jacko
>P.P.S Getting back to the thread topic: some naked people are cool,
>some are not. Freckles are a plus. Implants are a minus. I boycott
>playboy.
>
that might be taking things a tad far ;)
Orchid
> P.P.S Getting back to the thread topic: some naked people are cool,
> some are not. Freckles are a plus. Implants are a minus. I boycott
> playboy.
The issue isn't nudity, or good or bad nudity for that matter. As far as
I'm concerned, the world might be a better place if everyone walked
around naked all the time as it may lead to greater acceptance of body
tyep variation and less obession with appearance overall.
The issue is pandering to the prurient interests of people in order to
protest a potential war which I personally feel undermines the
seriousness of the issue and obscures the message that the protesters
are trying to get across. It's a little like giving away free
pornography to sign an anti-war petition. The people who will give you
what you want aren't doing so for any reasons related to your own.
All that being said, I was worried this would turn into a divisive
Iraq/US debate and hoped it'd stay on point. Personally, I'm staying out
of that quagmire as I feel the vast majority of people are too
emotionally invested to discuss it without it turning into an exchange
of insults and a great many (but certainly not all) are also too poorly
read to take part in a decent debate. I'm afraid it'll all just turn
into increasingly hostile claims and counter-claims with no basis in
fact. For instance, someone posted that Israel opposes attacking Iraq
which is certainly untrue (read some editorials at www.haaretzdaily.com
if you don't believe me...and this is a liberal publication which is
more secular and more inclined toward peace).
So, have at it if you like but those who decide to step into the fray
better be ready for some blood.
For the record, I consider myself too ignorant of the details to discuss
this intelligently although I do have an opinion just like everyone
else. I'm just not prepared to trot it out here and pretend I know
what's what in order to validate what I feel. (Note: I am not accusing
others of doing so, just saying this about myself.)
Shari (Orchid)
Dead Meat
>Hail! For Mickey <mic...@comcast.net> hath spoken thusly:
>>
>> And before I finish my rant, I would also ask these peaceniks if they
>> actually support leaving a man in power who to date has been
>> responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 MILLION people, if they can
>> justify leaving in power someone who has used WMDs against his OWN
>> people, and if they have a just and good cause for allowing a man who
>> has in the last 20 years attack 4 of his neighbors to continue to plan
>> and plot. Anti-war protests against the Viet Nam war had good cause
>> for they points of view. The current crop are either stupid, gutless
>> or French.
>>
>> Mickey
>
>I agree that Saddam has to go. And his son.
>But there are other methods than bombing the shit out of the country. An
>invasion of Iraq won't touch Saddam cause he doesn't care a jot about
>what happens to the Iraqi people, he'll just hide in his favourite
>underground bomb shelter. :( Personally I'd suggest something along the
>lines of a SWAT team sent in to assassinate Saddam and Co; it may not be
>very politically correct (for all I know it may not be possible) but
>it'd mean far fewer civilian casualties.
There's the pesky issue that it's against our own laws to assassinate the leaders of other
countries.
...
tcells
Dead Meat wrote in message <069t6vc59h5qqi2cp...@4ax.com>...
That was recently changed (I'm assuming you're talking about the US) wasn't
it?
dave...@spamcop.net
> The issue isn't nudity, or good or bad nudity for that matter. As far as
> I'm concerned, the world might be a better place if everyone walked
> around naked all the time as it may lead to greater acceptance of body
> tyep variation and less obession with appearance overall.
You've never lived in Wisconsin, have ya. Yikes. Bad idea. The
snotcicles are bad enough when it's zero (farenheit), I hesitate to
even imagine the other problems.
> The issue is pandering to the prurient interests of people in order to
> protest a potential war which I personally feel undermines the
> seriousness of the issue and obscures the message that the protesters
> are trying to get across.
Yup. Agree or not, it's an attention ploy.
> It's a little like giving away free
> pornography to sign an anti-war petition.
Well, ... I don't think it's a porn thing, but I think I get your point.
Dave "Like Edwin Meese, I know it when I see it" Hinz
tcells
tcells wrote in message ...
>
snip
>The "peacenics" as you derrogatorally put it, support leaving him in power,
>but they see the consequences of waging a war at this time as being the
>wrong way of going about things.
snip
correction - I left a word out
>The "peacenics" as you derrogatorally put it, *DON'T* support leaving him
in power
ty for the email
Orchid
> BTW, why does everyone hate the French? I have no love for the French
> language but I can't say I've met many French people, and I never had
> any problems with the ones I have met. <g>
Because they appear arrogant, ethnocentric and culturally ossified. I'm
not saying they actually are but that is the image people get based on a
variety of facts, myths, and satirical representations of the French.
I was also under the impression that there was some long-standing
rivalry between England and France which is why they are hated by the
English. Every British person I've ever met during my time in Japan
(which is actually quite a few) has at least made joking, if not
serious, disparaging remarks about France. I'm not sure of the root of
this rivalry but I'm guessing it goes back to colonial disputes, wars
between the countries throughout history, and simply relative geographic
proximity breeding contempt.
If you add that to the way they are viewed in retrospect for their
actions during World War II ("cheese-eating surrender monkeys") and
their recent comments about Eastern European countries needing to shut
up on the Iraq issue, you can sort of see why they're not viewed with
affection.
tcells mentioned in another post that someone he spoke to said the "real
war" was with the French. I'm not exactly sure what they meant but I'd
have to guess that this ties into the UN Security Council situation and
France's opposition to the America's actions on multiple occasions.
Chirac has said that he feels there should be a bi-polar world order
(America vs. Europe) in order to keep America's power in check. I'd
imagine trying to get all of Europe to stand with France to oppose
America could be considered a "war" as it is not a balanced notion (to
form a political union simply to oppose a country rather than form
opinions/make political stands on a case-by-case basis). I'm aware that
not all politicians or leaders in France feel this is a good idea but
the Prime Minister controls foreign policy and is listened to so it's
seen as "France's position."
This is just a guess at what tcells' acquaintance might have been
referring to.
Shari (Orchid)
Orchid
> Someone who looks an awful lot like Orchid <orc...@csonline.net> wrote:
>
> > The issue isn't nudity, or good or bad nudity for that matter. As far as
> > I'm concerned, the world might be a better place if everyone walked
> > around naked all the time as it may lead to greater acceptance of body
> > tyep variation and less obession with appearance overall.
>
> You've never lived in Wisconsin, have ya. Yikes. Bad idea. The
> snotcicles are bad enough when it's zero (farenheit), I hesitate to
> even imagine the other problems.
ROTFL!! I was born in Pennsylvania and lived there for 24 years so I
know what it's like. Never heard the word "snoticles" but I like it
(soooo apt).
> > The issue is pandering to the prurient interests of people in order to
> > protest a potential war which I personally feel undermines the
> > seriousness of the issue and obscures the message that the protesters
> > are trying to get across.
>
> Yup. Agree or not, it's an attention ploy.
>
> > It's a little like giving away free
> > pornography to sign an anti-war petition.
>
> Well, ... I don't think it's a porn thing, but I think I get your point.
Heh, I didn't mean to imply it was pornographic (far from it, I don't
believe nudity is porn)...just another example of appealing to purient
interest to get to something you want. ;-)
I have to be careful with those examples/metaphors. :-)
Shari (Orchid)
Marshall
news:1frpkz4.7r3gg25l470N%orc...@csonline.net...
Let us also not forget the fact that France (and Russia, as well)
have been thick with Saddam Hussein in the recent past, doing
their best to sign agreements with him to develop Iraq's huge
oil fields further. Of course they are all against the US kicking
Saddam out of power... for obvious reasons.
-Marshall
jerk-o
Did the Korean War ever offically start?
--
no, i didn't forget the 'F's
morals often get in the way of free will and free enterprise
-me
http://www.geocities.com/jerk_o2002
patriarch jerk-o clvl 99 necromancer
patriarch Lombar-Hisst clvl 99 barbarian
conqueror yodaddy clvl 99 necromancer
matriarch jessica clvl 99 sorceress
Dead Meat
If it was, they were very quiet about it (which they'd have to be). And it wouldn't surprise me in
the least. What do these Politicians need with a Constitution and Bill of Rights anyway, eh?
Actually, if Congress sanctioned Nixon's "War on Drugs", then we've been in a state of war for over
30 years and have been living without Constitutional support all this time.
...
Warric
>
> B.B. <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
>
> > P.P.S Getting back to the thread topic: some naked people are cool,
> > some are not. Freckles are a plus. Implants are a minus. I boycott
> > playboy.
>
> The issue isn't nudity, or good or bad nudity for that matter. As far as
> I'm concerned, the world might be a better place if everyone walked
> around naked all the time as it may lead to greater acceptance of body
> tyep variation and less obession with appearance overall.
Yet again I find myself agreeing with Orchid, and I speak from
personal experience. On this occasion, however, I find cause to
disagree:
> The issue is pandering to the prurient interests of people in order to
If it had been only "body beautiful" types who took part, I'd have
agreed. I don't believe that was the case, though.
--
Warric
short
"Dead Meat" <For_Eyes_Only@Top_Secret.com> wrote in message
news:4kmt6vs7815m5dro4...@4ax.com...
everyone would believe it.
On the funny side, I was at the gas station this morning and one of the
tabloids had a pretty good headline: Saddam moves to France, will be the
Ambassador to the US. I almost bought it, but I resisted.
short
short
"Warric" <sp...@housemartin.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9c0u6v419g5ojah14...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:04:34 +0900, Orchid wrote:
> >
> > B.B. <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
> >
> > > P.P.S Getting back to the thread topic: some naked people are cool,
> > > some are not. Freckles are a plus. Implants are a minus. I boycott
> > > playboy.
> >
> > The issue isn't nudity, or good or bad nudity for that matter. As far as
> > I'm concerned, the world might be a better place if everyone walked
> > around naked all the time as it may lead to greater acceptance of body
> > tyep variation and less obession with appearance overall.
>
> Yet again I find myself agreeing with Orchid, and I speak from
> personal experience. On this occasion, however, I find cause to
> disagree:
>
short
short
"tcells" <tce...@Xcapmon.com> wrote in message
news:yztba.5$kG1...@vicpull1.telstra.net...
I agree. I think protests in general are stupid, and a waste of time. All
they do is get you and your organization in the news, and everyone thinks
that you are a bunch of wackos, mostly.
> >> I'm not going to listen to someone who has a tantrum while trying to
> >> argue a serious issues. I'm also not goin to listen to someone who
> >> strips naked while protesting. The messenger is as important, possibly
> >> more so, than the message in how the audience receives the message.
Yup
> >> > >All it will do is attract the attention of the media so they'll stop
> >> > >focussing on the serious issues involved and print news about
garbage
> >> > >like this.
> >> >
> >> > Most news coverage is already garbage.
> >>
> >> And why is that? It's because people want to watch garbage and are
> >> willing to act like fools in order to get on the air.
> >>
> >> You get more of what you appear to desire. If you watch garbage, then
> >> that is what you'll get more and more of.
> >>
Yes. Garbage rocks! But, only for entertainment. Every time I try to
watch the news, I end up getting pissed and turning it off. I do NOT think
that the chronological history of Michael Jackson's plastic surgeries is
newsworthy. Neither is half of the other crap they put on the news.
> >> This just makes matters worse as it's part of a continuing spiral away
> >> from intelligent discourse. If this is what you have to do to attract
> >> attention, then the audience you're trying to reach isn't worth
> >> bothering with as they will not be receptive to your message no matter
> >> what you do.
> >>
Agreed. Completely
> >> Shari (Orchid)
> >
> >Of course, the best part is what happens if you ask them for an
> >alternative. Then you get a host of unintelligible answers. The first
> >and foremost one is "Give the inspectors time". Sounds so nice and
> >simple, u ntil you ask them "time for what?". If you're lucky, you get
> >a smart one who says "until they find all the weapons." Now you can
> >really start to have fun, by asking "OK, and then what?" Now the
> >gobbledy gook starts in earnest. Firstly, it assumes that the
> >inspectors will ever find it all, an assumption only a complete and
> >total idiot would make. Next, it begs the question of what do we do if
> >they ever should find it all..... do we then pull them out, allowing a
> >madman bent on possessing WMDs to get back to the business of making
> >them? Do we instead accept the prospect of having these inspectors
> >there until he dies of old age? Ah, but then there is his son, who is
> >at least as mad as he is.... so do we now accept the fact that from
> >this day forth until the end of time, we must play this game of hide
> >and seek with a succession of madmen?
>
Yeah, is son is a nutball too. Probably worse than his dad, if the truth
were known.
> As I've said before, it should have been done at the time of the Gulf
war -
> it wasn't politically or economically expediant at the time.
>
I agree with this one
> It's an anti-war movement you're talking about. That movement wants the
> same results, by and large they believe that war will actually worsen the
> situation or minimally that the costs of a war in terms of human life and
> later ramifications would be greater than the cost of not having one.
>
But what about the long term ramifications of not having one??
> It's pretty much accepted in the intelligence world that while the
> inspectors are there performing their jobs that nothing is going to
happen -
> what is best (and cheapest economically or in terms of human life) to keep
> inspectors there or wage a war?
>
The point is, we shouldn't have to keep the inspectors there. Remove the
reason for the inspections (i'm talking about the leader, not the weapons)
and this whole problem goes away. The problem is, no one can actually know
what will happen after a war, or if we don't have one. I'm of the opinion
that he has some weapons stashed somewhere, but you never really know, do
you?
> It's also the wide opinion of agencies in Aus and Britain, and that of the
> director of the CIA (so I expect the US also) that there is no love
between
> Saddam and the terrorist groups (actually they hate him because his is a
> secular state and they would have loved to toplle him themselves) and the
> surest way to ensure that any weapons from Iraq get into the terrorists
> hands is by backing him into a corner. And you can bet that war will
bring
> about a manifest increase in terrorism. There's a big difference between
> intelligence and what Bush, Blair or Howard put forward.
>
Well, there are conflicting reports on this one. Some say he finances them,
some say that they don't like him, and some say the terrorists don't like
him, but still take his money.
> Cite from a legitimate source where Iraq is a military threat to either
the
> US, UK or Australia.
>
Directly or indirectly? Directly, he's not. I don't think he has the
ability to fly a plane over here and drop a nuke on us. However, I do think
he has the ability to invade Kuwait again. Or worse yet, what happens when
he bombs Israel instead? Even if he can't get to us directly, there are
other ways for him to screw up the world. Not to say this is all about oil,
but I bed he would LOVE to have some claims on Saudi Arabia too.
> Given that what the UN has done so far has not lead to widespread killing
or
> seeing WMDs get into the hands of terrorists, it would seem sensible to
> continue down this route.
>
Pacifism?
> The trouble is that with the developments occuring in the Labour Party
that
> Bush might well see himself on a very limitted time scale because if Blair
> is toppled over this the "colalition of the willing" becomes a total
charade
> in the eyes of the world.
>
Well, Bush is definitly not the brights guy we've ever had in the
WhiteHouse, to say the least. Telling the world that he wanted to bomb even
if the UN voted no, is not the smartest/fastest way to win support. Nothing
like a big FUCK YOU to the world, eh?
short
short
> language but I can't say I've met many French people, and I never had
> any problems with the ones I have met. <g>
>
>
country's policies and such towards the United States, and most of our
foreign endevours hacks me off.
short
Mickey
> On 11 Mar 2003 09:25:59 -0800, mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >And before I finish my rant, I would also ask these peaceniks if they
> >actually support leaving a man in power who to date has been
> >responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 MILLION people, if they can
> >justify leaving in power someone who has used WMDs against his OWN
> >people, and if they have a just and good cause for allowing a man who
> >has in the last 20 years attack 4 of his neighbors to continue to plan
> >and plot. Anti-war protests against the Viet Nam war had good cause
> >for they points of view. The current crop are either stupid, gutless
> >or French.
> >
> >Mickey
>
> Much of what you say applies to half the countries in Africa, North Korea and China.
> Shall we put them next on the list?
Why not? Or are you in favor of a "civilized" world which accepts
despotic leaders who torture and murder innocents?
>
> Face it, the only reason Bush is out to get Hussein is so we forget about the fact that he NEVER
> CAUGHT Osama Bin Laden, and the fact that the "9/11" terrorists were SAUDI ARABIANS.
> (But oops, they sell us oil. Can't attack THEM!)
Says who?
>
> Saddam is not a threat to the USA.
Ah, the Oracle speaks. Please let us all have a turn with your crystal
ball. And even if this pure hogwash were true, so what? He is
slaughtering people every day, killing innocents a damn load faster
than American troops ever would, and a threat to all his neighbors.
Then again, so what, as long as it isn't YOU he is after at the
moment, right?
> Muslim (or Islamic, they all look the same with ski masks on) extremists are, and we'll have plenty
> more after attacking Iraq (even though they may very well come from Indonesia next time).
And you of course have proof that Saddam won't give t hese chemical
and biological weapons to those very same terrorists, right? After
all, he's too moral a man for that, right?
> He probably IS a threat to those 4 neighbors you allude to but wait, have ANY of them asked to be
> protected from Iraq?
Only Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Iran hasn't.... yet
> ...(crickets chirp, a tumbleweed rolls by)...
> Not unless every single news agency AND G.W himself have decided to keep quiet about it!
Or unless you can't read.
>
> Hell, even ISRAEL is against attacking Iraq!
WHAT????? Do you make this bullshit up yourself, or do you have a crew
of writers inventing as you go along?
>
> Is Saddam an evil, tyrannical despot? Hell YES!
> Is he *our problem*? HELL no!
Proof of which you cannot supply, other than blowing hot air and
pontificating.
>
> If the UN can't agree on the need to attack him (sheesh, now I'm supporting the UN), then we have no
> business WAGING WAR on Iraq!
Fuck the UN. The UN also didn't agree on stopping the slaughter in the
Balkans. They are a bunch of fat sheep, devoid of anything that
remotely could be confused with balls. If you wish to align yourself
with them, have at, just leave the rest of us out of your party.
>
> BTW, someone please refresh my memory on when exactly CONGRESS declared war on Iraq?
Ours, 12 years ago, and reafirrmed it last October. As Iraq has
voilated the terms of their UNCONDITIONAL surrender, the affirmation
was for show only.
> (It's a CONSTITUTION thing...you wouldn't understand.)
ROFL... And you would? Please point out where the Constitution says
that war MUST be declared for US forces to go into action. Bet you
can't!!!
Mickey
Mickey
This is a common misconception among ignorant Americans who prefer to
spendtheir time bleating instead of reading. For those desiring some
semblance of knowledge, I will illuminate.
The COnstitution clearly states that war MUST be declared by the
Congress. That is clear and simple. What the Constitution does NOT
state, in any way, shape or form is that a declaration of war must be
made prior to American forces being deployed. Were that true Korea,
Viet Nam, Desert Storm, the Balkans, and a host of other military
actions would NOT have taken place. For the record, the COngress has
declared war ONLY 3 times, the Spanish/American war, WWI and WWII.
Mickey
Xocyll
spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Someone who looks an awful lot like Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>
>> Uh, from the article at the link you've posted:
>> "Reasons for the nakedness: one is that it is total vulnerability," said
>> Australian singer and peace activist Grace Knight , who organized the
>> Sydney protest.
>
>Oh, man, I did *NOT* need that mental image.
>
>Oh wait, I was thinking Grace Slick. Nevermind.
Oh yeah, there's someone who, erm, "hasn't aged well."
>Dave "Make it stoooooooop!" Hinz
Could have been worse, could have been Rosanne Barr.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Mickey
> Hail! For Mickey <mic...@comcast.net> hath spoken thusly:
> >
> > And before I finish my rant, I would also ask these peaceniks if they
> > actually support leaving a man in power who to date has been
> > responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 MILLION people, if they can
> > justify leaving in power someone who has used WMDs against his OWN
> > people, and if they have a just and good cause for allowing a man who
> > has in the last 20 years attack 4 of his neighbors to continue to plan
> > and plot. Anti-war protests against the Viet Nam war had good cause
> > for they points of view. The current crop are either stupid, gutless
> > or French.
> >
> > Mickey
>
> I agree that Saddam has to go. And his son.
> But there are other methods than bombing the shit out of the country.
Name them.
> An invasion of Iraq won't touch Saddam cause he doesn't care a jot about
> what happens to the Iraqi people, he'll just hide in his favourite
> underground bomb shelter. :( Personally I'd suggest something along the
> lines of a SWAT team sent in to assassinate Saddam and Co; it may not be
> very politically correct (for all I know it may not be possible) but
> it'd mean far fewer civilian casualties.
That's hogwash. We don't need to kill him, we simply need to take
control of the country, install a democracy, and disempower him. As to
"bombing the shit out of them", that's also euphamistic BS, as the US
and UK have made VERY clear that they will NOT be targetting
infrastructure this time, but ONLY mil;itary targets, as they will
havet he job of rebuilding Iraq once it is over.
>
Mickey
Mickey
Another completely irrelevant point, as killing a leader in a military
action is NOT an assassination.
Mickey
Mickey
> In article <be74c859.03031...@posting.google.com>,
> mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> @Of course, the best part is what happens if you ask them for an
> @alternative. Then you get a host of unintelligible answers. The first
> @and foremost one is "Give the inspectors time". Sounds so nice and
> @simple, u ntil you ask them "time for what?". If you're lucky, you get
> @a smart one who says "until they find all the weapons." Now you can
> @really start to have fun, by asking "OK, and then what?" Now the
> @gobbledy gook starts in earnest. Firstly, it assumes that the
> @inspectors will ever find it all, an assumption only a complete and
> @total idiot would make. Next, it begs the question of what do we do if
> @they ever should find it all..... do we then pull them out, allowing a
> @madman bent on possessing WMDs to get back to the business of making
> @them? Do we instead accept the prospect of having these inspectors
> @there until he dies of old age? Ah, but then there is his son, who is
> @at least as mad as he is.... so do we now accept the fact that from
> @this day forth until the end of time, we must play this game of hide
> @and seek with a succession of madmen?
>
> From what I've seen there is no evidence that Saddam has developed or
> acquired WMDs since he kicked out the inspectors.
Irrelevant, as he had them at the time, and has offered NO evidence
that the 10,000 litres of Anthrax, the 22,000 litres of VX and the
rest were EVER destroyed. Next point please.
> Everything Powell has presented has been refuted by the inspectors.
Bullshit, present evidence of this, or be lumped withthe French.
> Everything discovered by
> the new inspections has either not been WMDs, or has been left over from
> the old inspections.
Proving that 200 people cannot possible find anything that someone
wants to hide in a coutry the size of Texas. Next point please.
> I trust the inspectors far more than the US
> administration because Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld/Fox News keeps insisting
> there is a link with 9/11 when everyone can plainly see that for what it
> is--bullshit.
Proving that you are a fool of nearly unimaginable proportions. On 3
occaisions, teh US relased intelligence information to the inspectors,
only to have Iraq move the stuff just before they got there, proving
that said inspectors have more leaks that your so called defense of
them.
> Also, every time the US and UN have made specific request of Saddam
> and Iraq, those requests have been met. ie, request for inspections led
> to inspections, request for fly overs has resulted in fly overs, request
> for the destruction of weapons has resulted in the destruction of
> weapons. How about we make some more specific requests? "You must
> disarm," is far too vague.
Only to a fool. Where are all the chemical and biological agents he
had when he kicke dthe inspectors out the last time? You are either an
apologist or an incredible fool.
>When Iraq started destroying missiles I
> considered that disarmament, and many others did as well.
Yes, because you, like them, are an idiot. He is still building those
same missles as he destroys the ones the inspectors found. I'd just
LOVE to play poker with you.
> Apparently it
> was not, according to the president, so more exact language is necessary.
Only for idiots.
> People argue that the threat of force made Saddam comply. I agree.
> And there is nothing to stop us from coming back if he fucks up again.
> Let's leave with the notice that if he ever disallows inspectors to
> enter a site we will bomb it into atoms.
Again, for how long will we keep inspectors in Iraq? Saddam's
lifetime? His son's as well? You simply do not get it.
> As it is, Saddam is in no position to develop or buy any wepons as
> long as inspections are going on. So he presents less of a threat than
> before. Despite having zero evidence that he was a threat before.
ROFL... what a sucker you are.
> We also have far more tactical information than we had before. So if
> we did ever have a justifiable reason for going to war, the inspections
> will have provided a great deal of information.
Information which gets to Saddam 20 seconds after the US gives it to
the inspectors. WONDERFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> So I have no problem with leaving Saddam there.
I see, so you have no problem withthe hundreds of people he tortures
and kills EVERY week, becausethey aren't YOUR people. You are
dispicible. Disgusting. A revolting example of self-absorbtion. I
won't even bother to read or respond to the rest of your drivel, as
it's a waste of my time to do so and other's time to read it.
Mickey
B.B.
mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
@Yes, because you, like them, are an idiot.
OK, I was trying to be civil. But fuck you, EOT.
Warric
>
> So, you're a nudist??
I wouldn't describe myself as "being a nudist", rather as "enjoying
nude recreation". It's not what I am, more how I do some things,
sometimes. I find swimming, sunbathing and having a sauna or jacuzzi
much more pleasurable when nude. Riding my motorbike thus, on the
other hand, would be reckless!
--
Warric
short
Hehehe, I enjoy a bit of "nude recreation" myself sometimes. Hence the
Babies and more Babies post :o)
short
jerk-o
<Xoc...@kingston.net> took a sip of Chianti, paused, and wrote:
>dave...@spamcop.net looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
>spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>Someone who looks an awful lot like Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Uh, from the article at the link you've posted:
>>> "Reasons for the nakedness: one is that it is total vulnerability," said
>>> Australian singer and peace activist Grace Knight , who organized the
>>> Sydney protest.
>>
>>Oh, man, I did *NOT* need that mental image.
>>
>>Oh wait, I was thinking Grace Slick. Nevermind.
>
>Oh yeah, there's someone who, erm, "hasn't aged well."
>
>>Dave "Make it stoooooooop!" Hinz
>
>Could have been worse, could have been Rosanne Barr.
What if Rosanne was doing it?
Warric
>
> are you in favor of a "civilized" world which accepts
> despotic leaders who torture and murder innocents?
Careful Mickey, you're close to the thin ice here. If Dubya
authorised the execution of a *single* innocent person while Governor
of Texas, then the question starts looking much more entertaining from
a European POV ;-)
> > BTW, someone please refresh my memory on when exactly CONGRESS
> > declared war on Iraq?
>
> Ours, 12 years ago, and reafirrmed it last October.
Hmmmmm, but 3 (three) minutes after you posted this, you posted:
> For the record, the COngress has
> declared war ONLY 3 times, the Spanish/American war, WWI and WWII.
Not that I care much, but you might want to clarify this apparent
contradiction.
--
Warric
EvilBill[AGQx]
>> about
>> what happens to the Iraqi people, he'll just hide in his favourite
>> underground bomb shelter. :( Personally I'd suggest something along
>> the
>> lines of a SWAT team sent in to assassinate Saddam and Co; it may
>> not be
>> very politically correct (for all I know it may not be possible) but
>> it'd mean far fewer civilian casualties.
>
> That's hogwash. We don't need to kill him, we simply need to take
> control of the country, install a democracy, and disempower him.
Would he give up that easily though? If he's still alive we'd proably
end up with yet another terrorist group to deal with, only one with a
political motive rather than a religious one.
> As to
> "bombing the shit out of them", that's also euphamistic BS, as the US
> and UK have made VERY clear that they will NOT be targetting
> infrastructure this time, but ONLY mil;itary targets, as they will
> havet he job of rebuilding Iraq once it is over.
>>
Well it would be nice if our government had told us that... I'd heard
*nothing* along those lines at all and I do try to keep up to date with
this sort of thing. Mind you, since when should I be surprised that the
British government and/or media are hiding things from the public?
Naive I may be, but one thing I'd love to know: why can't human beings
just GET ALONG?
--
--
* Confucius he say, man who buy Windows get what he deserve!
E-mail: devlinwright @ tiscali .co .uk (remove spaces to e-mail)
AIM: EvilBill1782
MSN: dev...@agqx-imperium.fsnet.co.uk
DIABLO II
Matriarch Kheperkare - Lvl 91 Javazon - Open
Slayer HorribleHobbler - Lvl 46 Barbarian - Open
Matriarch EB-Amarice - Lvl 87 Bowazon - USWest
EvilBill[AGQx]
> B.B. <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote:
>
>> P.P.S Getting back to the thread topic: some naked people are cool,
>> some are not. Freckles are a plus. Implants are a minus. I boycott
>> playboy.
>
> The issue isn't nudity, or good or bad nudity for that matter. As far
> as I'm concerned, the world might be a better place if everyone walked
> around naked all the time as it may lead to greater acceptance of body
> tyep variation and less obession with appearance overall.
>
It'd also lead to rates of skin cancer a billion times higher... *runs!*
;)
>
> So, have at it if you like but those who decide to step into the fray
> better be ready for some blood.
>
I should train myself to keep out of these sorts of threads really,
LOL... I just can't resist a debate.
EvilBill[AGQx]
Be nice if politicians were representative of the people they govern.<g>
Right now in the UK most people think Tony Blair is an idiot. Funny, we
hear from the media what the attitudes of the general public are in the
UK (and sometimes the US, and sometimes Iraq), but I've never heard what
the French people think, or the Russian, or the Spanish, etc. Be nice to
know what everyone thinks.
Marshall
> Hail! For Mickey <mic...@comcast.net> hath spoken thusly:
> > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilb...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> >> An invasion of Iraq won't touch Saddam cause he doesn't care a jot
> >> about
> >> what happens to the Iraqi people, he'll just hide in his favourite
> >> underground bomb shelter. :( Personally I'd suggest something along
> >> the
> >> lines of a SWAT team sent in to assassinate Saddam and Co; it may
> >> not be
> >> very politically correct (for all I know it may not be possible) but
> >> it'd mean far fewer civilian casualties.
> >
> > That's hogwash. We don't need to kill him, we simply need to take
> > control of the country, install a democracy, and disempower him.
>
> Would he give up that easily though? If he's still alive we'd proably
> end up with yet another terrorist group to deal with, only one with a
> political motive rather than a religious one.
Not likely. Once Saddam loses control of Iraq, he's finished. Other
than a small group of loyalists who have profited from his dictator-
ship, most of the country hates his guts, if they were allowed to be
honest about it with the press. Being mortally terrified of your own
leader for decades instills a terrified loyalty while he's in charge...
while the secret police, informers, and torture/execution specialists
are omnipresent and omnipotent... but once he's out, then the relief
and repressed hatred set in. No, most of his own people will not miss
him, one bit. A Saddam guerrila/terrorist movement, after he loses
his country? LOL! Major LOL!
> > As to
> > "bombing the shit out of them", that's also euphamistic BS, as the US
> > and UK have made VERY clear that they will NOT be targetting
> > infrastructure this time, but ONLY mil;itary targets, as they will
> > havet he job of rebuilding Iraq once it is over.
> >>
>
> Well it would be nice if our government had told us that... I'd heard
> *nothing* along those lines at all and I do try to keep up to date with
> this sort of thing. Mind you, since when should I be surprised that the
> British government and/or media are hiding things from the public?
>
> Naive I may be, but one thing I'd love to know: why can't human beings
> just GET ALONG?
They can, if they are all on the same page. Saddam, like Hitler,
Tojo, and many such before them, are reading from a different
page. And those types don't much care about your warm 'n fuzzy
ideas. They'd as soon enslave you or kill you, as look at you. They
are the reason we have such a hard time 'just getting along'. And
we can't ignore them- if we do, then we've learned nothing from
the mistakes of our ancestors- Neville Chamberlain comes readily
to mind.
-Marshall
tcells
short wrote in message ...
>
snip
>> It's an anti-war movement you're talking about. That movement wants the
>> same results, by and large they believe that war will actually worsen the
>> situation or minimally that the costs of a war in terms of human life and
>> later ramifications would be greater than the cost of not having one.
>>
>But what about the long term ramifications of not having one??
Either way it's conjecture. If the status quo were to remain, I expect that
sooner or later Iraq would either see a civil uprising or invasion by one of
it's neighbours (probably Iran) because their defences are being defanged.
As for giving/selling WMDs to terrorists, in the case of not having a war,
it's far less likely those weapons coming from Iraq than other nations
(Saddam knows that inevitably he'd be a likely target for anything he gave
to terrorists). WMDs weren't sourced from anywhere for Sept 11, or Bali -
the majority of active participants were Saudis at anyrate and where were
the training camps?
My personal opinion is that we'll see a lot more terrorism if there is a war
and given Australia's position in the region and extremely loose borders I
really wish we had politicians as ballsy as the Kiwis. We better be getting
a freakin good deal out of this, but knowing Howard's (eg left waiting in
the rain for 3 hrs then to be told Bush was too busy with a local charity
group to see him to which Howard meekly toddles off to his hotel) and
Vaile's track record (about the only thing they've negotiated hard on is a
deal with the Timorese - strange parallel to a pipeline deal into
Afghanistan) it's unlikely.
A friend who was working in Jordan recently was told by friends there that
if war does break out and there is more than an "insignificant" amount of
civilian casualities then he should never return. He asked them if it was
because he's Australian, they said "no", that no European (caucasian for
clarity) would be safe because they'd see it as the west waging war on them
(all Arabs). And, no, they didn't mean wait a year or so until the dust
settles.
If there is a war what happens next?
>
>> It's pretty much accepted in the intelligence world that while the
>> inspectors are there performing their jobs that nothing is going to
>happen -
>> what is best (and cheapest economically or in terms of human life) to
keep
>> inspectors there or wage a war?
>>
>The point is, we shouldn't have to keep the inspectors there.
Agreed, as I'm sure you'd also agree that the point is that there shouldn't
be a need for war. Something needs be done, it's a matter of what and by
whom. The inspectors are UN representatives (I'm not sure about who you
meant as "we").
Remove the
>reason for the inspections (i'm talking about the leader, not the weapons)
>and this whole problem goes away.
Ouch I can't agree with that at all. Look what happened when a certain Shah
was gotten rid of. If Saddam is blithely waged war upon, disposed and a
vacuum left, then you're highly likely to get some sort of self styled new
version Ayatollah - it should be pretty obvious which of the two devils
represents the greater threat to western world especially via terrorism - if
it's not then remember that we backed Iraq in the Iran Iraq war.
You've got to replace the govt properly and support the new one with funds,
imports, & infrastructure for a very long time if stability is the end goal.
There are of course benefits in doing so for the US.
The problem is, no one can actually know
>what will happen after a war, or if we don't have one. I'm of the opinion
>that he has some weapons stashed somewhere, but you never really know, do
>you?
>
If crystal balls worked, it might be simpler. In my own mind I'm certain
that he must have weapons hidden. If he hasn't then the simplest thing to
do would be to leave and let him be ripped to shreds by his neighbours.
>> It's also the wide opinion of agencies in Aus and Britain, and that of
the
>> director of the CIA (so I expect the US also) that there is no love
>between
>> Saddam and the terrorist groups (actually they hate him because his is a
>> secular state and they would have loved to toplle him themselves) and the
>> surest way to ensure that any weapons from Iraq get into the terrorists
>> hands is by backing him into a corner. And you can bet that war will
>bring
>> about a manifest increase in terrorism. There's a big difference between
>> intelligence and what Bush, Blair or Howard put forward.
>>
>Well, there are conflicting reports on this one. Some say he finances
them,
>some say that they don't like him, and some say the terrorists don't like
>him, but still take his money.
>
I did qualify it as "wide" opinion. Sure you'll always get conflicting
reports. There was the killer drone which has just been revealed is made of
balsa wood and in a number of places held together with duct tape.
I'll be interested to hear what Howard has to say today even though he's now
started to water his proof down.
>> Cite from a legitimate source where Iraq is a military threat to either
>the
>> US, UK or Australia.
>>
>Directly or indirectly? Directly, he's not. I don't think he has the
>ability to fly a plane over here and drop a nuke on us. However, I do
think
>he has the ability to invade Kuwait again.
yep. But remember also that there is a large amount of evidence which was
not dismissed to say that he thought that he was invading Kuwait with tassit
approval of the US. Saddam is a monster, but he is not silly, he knows that
if he invaded Kuwait then there'd be nothing stopping swift and immediate
retribution - and his total demise.
Or worse yet, what happens when
>he bombs Israel instead?
What would make it worse about attacking Israel than Kuwait or anywhere else
is not that an Israeli life is worth more than a Kuwaiti life but that it
would be the start of a region wide war. For his own people it would be
worse because Israel have nukes and he doesn't.
Even if he can't get to us directly, there are
>other ways for him to screw up the world. Not to say this is all about
oil,
>but I bed he would LOVE to have some claims on Saudi Arabia too.
>
for sure, but then too would a certain family by the name of Bush who have
had numerous dealings with the Bin Ladens and Taliban on oil deals, to the
extent of allowing quite a number of the Bin Laden family to charter a jet
and fly about (when not many Americans could) in order to leave the US
shortly after Sept 11. Chaney could probably manage Saudi Arabia pretty
well too ;)
>> Given that what the UN has done so far has not lead to widespread killing
>or
>> seeing WMDs get into the hands of terrorists, it would seem sensible to
>> continue down this route.
>>
>Pacifism?
I would hardly consider forcing the acceptance of inspectors at the threat
of war pacifism ;)
>
>> The trouble is that with the developments occuring in the Labour Party
>that
>> Bush might well see himself on a very limitted time scale because if
Blair
>> is toppled over this the "colalition of the willing" becomes a total
>charade
>> in the eyes of the world.
>>
>Well, Bush is definitly not the brights guy we've ever had in the
>WhiteHouse, to say the least. Telling the world that he wanted to bomb
even
>if the UN voted no, is not the smartest/fastest way to win support.
Nothing
>like a big FUCK YOU to the world, eh?
>
If he's hell bent to go down the path of invading Iraq, for whatever reason
and against whatever opposition and argument, I think being open with it was
one of the smarter things he's done. I'm sure he's lost a lot less
credibility for at least being honest about his intentions (not necessarily
motives) than our PM.
When it comes down to it what are the rest of the world willing, let alone
capable of doing? trade sanctions against the US?
tcells
EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ...
>Hail! For short <sho...@zoominternet.net> hath spoken thusly:
>>> BTW, why does everyone hate the French? I have no love for the French
>>> language but I can't say I've met many French people, and I never had
>>> any problems with the ones I have met. <g>
>>>
>>>
>> I really don't have a problem with French people in general, but the
>> country's policies and such towards the United States, and most of our
>> foreign endevours hacks me off.
>>
>> short
>
>Be nice if politicians were representative of the people they govern.<g>
>Right now in the UK most people think Tony Blair is an idiot. Funny, we
>hear from the media what the attitudes of the general public are in the
>UK (and sometimes the US, and sometimes Iraq), but I've never heard what
>the French people think, or the Russian, or the Spanish, etc. Be nice to
>know what everyone thinks.
>
I realised it's actually their language that they are hated for. It is
totally inadequate for effectively communicating in today's world. This was
made very clear by Bush himself just recently when he said "The problem with
the French is that they have no word for entrepreneur".
Boy I bet his minders shuddered when they heard that.
Marshall
LOL! Reminds me of a half-drunken wildman we have around
my small town, who, on a dare, drove his motorcycle through
downtown (heh, about 4 blocks worth) in the raw, with nothing
on but a furry 'viking' helmet (horns 'n all). Crazy barstid.
-Marshall
Marshall
"short" <sho...@zoominternet.net> wrote in message
news:b4o4b2$20tak9$1...@ID-160707.news.dfncis.de...
Hey, try it out in a wide-open field, maybe you'll get credit
for helping achieve world peace, too!
-Marshall
Orchid
This assumes that people only look at nude bodies that are attractive
which I think is not the case. I'm betting their are psychological
studies that will show people in a society which does no accept public
nudity will gawk at any naked body, beautiful or not. People are
attracted to anything taboo or sensational.
Remember on Friends how they were always looking at "ugly naked guy?"
People didn't think it was unrealistic that they'd keep checking this
guy out as part of the show. It doesn't have to be great-looking bodies
to arouse such interest.
Shari (Orchid)
Simon Righarts
> BTW, why does everyone hate the French? I have no love for the French
> language but I can't say I've met many French people, and I never had
> any problems with the ones I have met. <g>
I don't dislike French people in general ..... but committing
terrorism in a friendly country's territory (
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rainbow+Warrior%22+%2BDGSE&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
), not to mention nuclear tests on a South Pacific island (
http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Bnuclear+%2B%22South+Pacific%22+%2BFrance&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
) doesn't really encourage me to like their politics :-)
Dead Meat
(And DAMN these Road Runner news servers. I check several times a day and STILL missed this reply!)
See below...
On 12 Mar 2003 08:53:30 -0800, mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
>Dead Meat <For_Eyes_Only@Top_Secret.com> wrote in message news:<jm6s6vcnibaaq7deg...@4ax.com>...
>> On 11 Mar 2003 09:25:59 -0800, mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >And before I finish my rant, I would also ask these peaceniks if they
>> >actually support leaving a man in power who to date has been
>> >responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 MILLION people, if they can
>> >justify leaving in power someone who has used WMDs against his OWN
>> >people, and if they have a just and good cause for allowing a man who
>> >has in the last 20 years attack 4 of his neighbors to continue to plan
>> >and plot. Anti-war protests against the Viet Nam war had good cause
>> >for they points of view. The current crop are either stupid, gutless
>> >or French.
>> >
>> >Mickey
>>
>> Much of what you say applies to half the countries in Africa, North Korea and China.
>> Shall we put them next on the list?
>
>Why not? Or are you in favor of a "civilized" world which accepts
>despotic leaders who torture and murder innocents?
OK THEN! Yeah! Lets invade *ALL* the countries of the world! WooHoo!
But we'll have to include our own, if you take Waco and Ruby Ridge into account.
(Or maybe Kent State, or any number of incidents occurring in the deep south of the '60's.)
>
>>
>> Face it, the only reason Bush is out to get Hussein is so we forget about the fact that he NEVER
>> CAUGHT Osama Bin Laden, and the fact that the "9/11" terrorists were SAUDI ARABIANS.
>> (But oops, they sell us oil. Can't attack THEM!)
>
>Says who?
Said several TV and Newspaper accounts at the time of who the hijackers were.
And it IS A FACT that GW has yet to catch OBL.
(You DO remember OBL, the FIRST guy we blamed for "9/11"?)
>
>>
>> Saddam is not a threat to the USA.
>
>Ah, the Oracle speaks. Please let us all have a turn with your crystal
>ball. And even if this pure hogwash were true, so what? He is
>slaughtering people every day, killing innocents a damn load faster
>than American troops ever would, and a threat to all his neighbors.
>Then again, so what, as long as it isn't YOU he is after at the
>moment, right?
>
The crystal ball got fuzzy after you spayed spittle all over it.
Let's see, how many innocent Palestinians has Israel killed during it's occupation?
(Oh, that's right, they're ALL murderous filthy guilty scum..nevermind!)<<SARCASM ALERT!
>> Muslim (or Islamic, they all look the same with ski masks on) extremists are, and we'll have plenty
>> more after attacking Iraq (even though they may very well come from Indonesia next time).
>
>And you of course have proof that Saddam won't give t hese chemical
>and biological weapons to those very same terrorists, right? After
>all, he's too moral a man for that, right?
Never said he was a good guy, but where is the proof that he has supplied anyone with anything?
>
>> He probably IS a threat to those 4 neighbors you allude to but wait, have ANY of them asked to be
>> protected from Iraq?
>
>Only Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Iran hasn't.... yet
>
>> ...(crickets chirp, a tumbleweed rolls by)...
>> Not unless every single news agency AND G.W himself have decided to keep quiet about it!
>
>Or unless you can't read.
Or unless a search on the Internet (on short notice-for this thread) comes up dry.
Since you say I'm wrong, show me a link to a legit story.
>
>>
>> Hell, even ISRAEL is against attacking Iraq!
>
>WHAT????? Do you make this bullshit up yourself, or do you have a crew
>of writers inventing as you go along?
>
A New York Times article stated such.
(Out of touch with reality, er, I mean your own homeland's policies?)
>>
>> Is Saddam an evil, tyrannical despot? Hell YES!
>> Is he *our problem*? HELL no!
>
>Proof of which you cannot supply, other than blowing hot air and
>pontificating.
>
So, your saying he ISN'T evil but IS our problem? (.....just kidding...geez.)
He does NOT have ICBM's, and all links between him and specific terrorists are tenuous at best.
>>
>> If the UN can't agree on the need to attack him (sheesh, now I'm supporting the UN), then we have no
>> business WAGING WAR on Iraq!
>
>Fuck the UN. The UN also didn't agree on stopping the slaughter in the
>Balkans. They are a bunch of fat sheep, devoid of anything that
>remotely could be confused with balls. If you wish to align yourself
>with them, have at, just leave the rest of us out of your party.
>>
Get a clue..start with the implied sarcasm of my "sheesh now I'm supporting the UN" comment.
Maybe I need a cinder block to get through your thick skull...
If we have to accept, for the time being, the presence of the UN, then we should at least TRY to
MAKE it do its JOB!
>> BTW, someone please refresh my memory on when exactly CONGRESS declared war on Iraq?
>
>Ours, 12 years ago, and reafirrmed it last October. As Iraq has
>voilated the terms of their UNCONDITIONAL surrender, the affirmation
>was for show only.
>
>> (It's a CONSTITUTION thing...you wouldn't understand.)
>
>ROFL... And you would? Please point out where the Constitution says
>that war MUST be declared for US forces to go into action. Bet you
>can't!!!
You seem to thrive on misdirection and obfuscation.
But you are right (SHOCK!). American troops have been in several "live fire" situations throughout
history without a state of war being declared. Politicians of late have great disdain for the way
things were meant to happen. But we aren't at that point yet, this time around, and a "state of war"
should be declared BY congress BEFORE we actually get into battle.
And I do not know what implications Iraq violating the surrender has on the state of the PREVIOUS
state of war, but this is a NEW issue, and a NEW state of war should be required.
>
>Mickey
Face it Mic, you just want to bomb the fuck out of all the Arabs, just like they want to do to you.
...
Dead Meat
A leader dying as a consequence of a WAR (as in being in the bunker that got bombed, etc) is not
that same as "killing a leader in a "MILITARY ACTION"". The connotations are entirely different.
And a "military action" is not necessarily a "WAR", therefore it WOULD be an assassination.
AND besides, EvilBill specified "assassination", as reflected in his statement above.
There you go obfuscating again.
...
Warric
>
> "Warric" wrote...
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:19:08 -0500, short wrote:
> > >
> > > So, you're a nudist??
> >
> > I wouldn't describe myself as "being a nudist", rather as "enjoying
> > nude recreation". It's not what I am, more how I do some things,
> > sometimes. I find swimming, sunbathing and having a sauna or jacuzzi
> > much more pleasurable when nude. Riding my motorbike thus, on the
> > other hand, would be reckless!
>
> Hehehe, I enjoy a bit of "nude recreation" myself sometimes. Hence the
> Babies and more Babies post :o)
I appreciate the light-hearted joke (any many conga-rats on the baby
front btw), but for the benefit of the humour-impaired and for those
who can't think such things through for themselves:
Babies are a result of sexual activity, no? It is quite feasible to
have sex while nude, I agree, but it's also quite feasible to have sex
while just about fully clothed. But the same token, it is also
possible to enjoy being nude without sex (or thoughts of sex)
occurring.
It is the non-sexual nude recreation to which I was referring.
--
Warric
short
"tcells" <tce...@Xcapmon.com> wrote in message
news:w5Qba.2$HU1....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
>
> short wrote in message ...
> >
>
> snip
>
> >> It's an anti-war movement you're talking about. That movement wants
the
> >> same results, by and large they believe that war will actually worsen
the
> >> situation or minimally that the costs of a war in terms of human life
and
> >> later ramifications would be greater than the cost of not having one.
> >>
> >But what about the long term ramifications of not having one??
>
> Either way it's conjecture. If the status quo were to remain, I expect
that
> sooner or later Iraq would either see a civil uprising or invasion by one
of
> it's neighbours (probably Iran) because their defences are being defanged.
>
done about Saddam $ Son. I don't really care who gets it done. And I do
think they should have done it during Desert Storm, instead of now, for
sure.
> As for giving/selling WMDs to terrorists, in the case of not having a war,
> it's far less likely those weapons coming from Iraq than other nations
> (Saddam knows that inevitably he'd be a likely target for anything he gave
> to terrorists). WMDs weren't sourced from anywhere for Sept 11, or Bali -
> the majority of active participants were Saudis at anyrate and where were
> the training camps?
>
Well, thats because they didn't use convential WMD's. Nothing like turning
a civilian airline into a weapon. No one suspected that, for sure. I don't
know if he had any dealings with the terrorists or not, but I think we both
know that if there was a direct link, the US would have bombed the shit out
of him already. I also think that the Terrorist links to Saudi Arabia
should quit getting ignored. I don't know what anyone could actually do
about it though.
> My personal opinion is that we'll see a lot more terrorism if there is a
war
> and given Australia's position in the region and extremely loose borders I
> really wish we had politicians as ballsy as the Kiwis. We better be
getting
> a freakin good deal out of this, but knowing Howard's (eg left waiting in
> the rain for 3 hrs then to be told Bush was too busy with a local charity
> group to see him to which Howard meekly toddles off to his hotel) and
> Vaile's track record (about the only thing they've negotiated hard on is a
> deal with the Timorese - strange parallel to a pipeline deal into
> Afghanistan) it's unlikely.
>
Heh, Bush is an ass, has no tact, and doesn't have the first clue about
international politics, thats for sure. That being said, I still think we
need to put the boot to saddam.
> A friend who was working in Jordan recently was told by friends there that
> if war does break out and there is more than an "insignificant" amount of
> civilian casualities then he should never return. He asked them if it was
> because he's Australian, they said "no", that no European (caucasian for
> clarity) would be safe because they'd see it as the west waging war on
them
> (all Arabs). And, no, they didn't mean wait a year or so until the dust
> settles.
>
Hell I wouldn't go anywhere near there right now! Every other town is a
"holy place", you never what kind of shit you'll get into. You're probably
right about the arab opinion too, seems someone is always starting a war
against them, whether anyone really is or not.
> If there is a war what happens next?
>
Probably the same thing that happens after we win. We'll occupy the
country, give them lots of money, and help them rebuild. Just like we did
with Japan, and everyone else. Of course that will piss off every other
country in the Middle East, but most of them hate us anyway, so no loss
there
> >
> >> It's pretty much accepted in the intelligence world that while the
> >> inspectors are there performing their jobs that nothing is going to
> >happen -
> >> what is best (and cheapest economically or in terms of human life) to
> keep
> >> inspectors there or wage a war?
> >>
> >The point is, we shouldn't have to keep the inspectors there.
>
> Agreed, as I'm sure you'd also agree that the point is that there
shouldn't
> be a need for war. Something needs be done, it's a matter of what and by
> whom. The inspectors are UN representatives (I'm not sure about who you
> meant as "we").
>
I just meant we as in the world :o) Yes, there shouldn't be a need for war,
but IMO there is :) I don't care if the US is involved, or not, but someone
needs to do something.
> Remove the
> >reason for the inspections (i'm talking about the leader, not the
weapons)
> >and this whole problem goes away.
>
> Ouch I can't agree with that at all. Look what happened when a certain
Shah
> was gotten rid of. If Saddam is blithely waged war upon, disposed and a
> vacuum left, then you're highly likely to get some sort of self styled new
> version Ayatollah - it should be pretty obvious which of the two devils
> represents the greater threat to western world especially via terrorism -
if
> it's not then remember that we backed Iraq in the Iran Iraq war.
>
Naah, we'll just give Iraq to Castro, let him go bother someone else.
> You've got to replace the govt properly and support the new one with
funds,
> imports, & infrastructure for a very long time if stability is the end
goal.
> There are of course benefits in doing so for the US.
>
Well, here is where we differ, I think. I agree that someone will have to
be there for a long time, to make sure everything works out, and I think
stability is the end goal. The thing is, are there any countries other than
the US willing to do that? If no one else steps up to the plate, then we
should be getting some benefit out of it. You know, other than saving the
rest of the world the trouble of dealing with it. Besides, the US isn't
going to be the only one benefitting, IMO.
> The problem is, no one can actually know
> >what will happen after a war, or if we don't have one. I'm of the
opinion
> >that he has some weapons stashed somewhere, but you never really know, do
> >you?
> >
>
> If crystal balls worked, it might be simpler. In my own mind I'm certain
> that he must have weapons hidden. If he hasn't then the simplest thing to
> do would be to leave and let him be ripped to shreds by his neighbours.
>
ROFL!! I think I've got a Magic 8 Ball stashed away somewhere. Hehehe,
maybe I should help Bush out, and tell him to give it a shake. But I agree,
he has weapons stashed somewhere, and we'll probably never find them.
> >> It's also the wide opinion of agencies in Aus and Britain, and that of
> the
> >> director of the CIA (so I expect the US also) that there is no love
> >between
> >> Saddam and the terrorist groups (actually they hate him because his is
a
> >> secular state and they would have loved to toplle him themselves) and
the
> >> surest way to ensure that any weapons from Iraq get into the terrorists
> >> hands is by backing him into a corner. And you can bet that war will
> >bring
> >> about a manifest increase in terrorism. There's a big difference
between
> >> intelligence and what Bush, Blair or Howard put forward.
> >>
> >Well, there are conflicting reports on this one. Some say he finances
> them,
> >some say that they don't like him, and some say the terrorists don't like
> >him, but still take his money.
> >
>
> I did qualify it as "wide" opinion. Sure you'll always get conflicting
> reports. There was the killer drone which has just been revealed is made
of
> balsa wood and in a number of places held together with duct tape.
>
LOL!! Yup. Agreed on that one. hehe
> I'll be interested to hear what Howard has to say today even though he's
now
> started to water his proof down.
>
> >> Cite from a legitimate source where Iraq is a military threat to either
> >the
> >> US, UK or Australia.
> >>
> >Directly or indirectly? Directly, he's not. I don't think he has the
> >ability to fly a plane over here and drop a nuke on us. However, I do
> think
> >he has the ability to invade Kuwait again.
>
> yep. But remember also that there is a large amount of evidence which was
> not dismissed to say that he thought that he was invading Kuwait with
tassit
> approval of the US. Saddam is a monster, but he is not silly, he knows
that
> if he invaded Kuwait then there'd be nothing stopping swift and immediate
> retribution - and his total demise.
>
Heh, yup.
> Or worse yet, what happens when
> >he bombs Israel instead?
>
> What would make it worse about attacking Israel than Kuwait or anywhere
else
> is not that an Israeli life is worth more than a Kuwaiti life but that it
> would be the start of a region wide war. For his own people it would be
> worse because Israel have nukes and he doesn't.
>
Thats what I meant. Its not that Israel is more important that Kuwait, but
Kuwait is defenseless on its own. Israel doesn't fart around.
> Even if he can't get to us directly, there are
> >other ways for him to screw up the world. Not to say this is all about
> oil,
> >but I bed he would LOVE to have some claims on Saudi Arabia too.
> >
>
> for sure, but then too would a certain family by the name of Bush who have
> had numerous dealings with the Bin Ladens and Taliban on oil deals, to the
> extent of allowing quite a number of the Bin Laden family to charter a jet
> and fly about (when not many Americans could) in order to leave the US
> shortly after Sept 11. Chaney could probably manage Saudi Arabia pretty
> well too ;)
>
> >> Given that what the UN has done so far has not lead to widespread
killing
> >or
> >> seeing WMDs get into the hands of terrorists, it would seem sensible to
> >> continue down this route.
> >>
> >Pacifism?
>
> I would hardly consider forcing the acceptance of inspectors at the threat
> of war pacifism ;)
>
I think that had more to do with the US than the UN.
> >
> >> The trouble is that with the developments occuring in the Labour Party
> >that
> >> Bush might well see himself on a very limitted time scale because if
> Blair
> >> is toppled over this the "colalition of the willing" becomes a total
> >charade
> >> in the eyes of the world.
> >>
> >Well, Bush is definitly not the brights guy we've ever had in the
> >WhiteHouse, to say the least. Telling the world that he wanted to bomb
> even
> >if the UN voted no, is not the smartest/fastest way to win support.
> Nothing
> >like a big FUCK YOU to the world, eh?
> >
>
> If he's hell bent to go down the path of invading Iraq, for whatever
reason
> and against whatever opposition and argument, I think being open with it
was
> one of the smarter things he's done. I'm sure he's lost a lot less
> credibility for at least being honest about his intentions (not
necessarily
> motives) than our PM.
>
> When it comes down to it what are the rest of the world willing, let alone
> capable of doing? trade sanctions against the US?
>
>
See, thats what gets me. If we don't get UN support, and we Bomb anyway,
then Bush is opening the doors for a whole lot of trouble down the road. If
we can ignore the UN, so can everyone else, and thats not good. I do agree
that saddam needs taken out, but I don't think it is a good idea to go full
steam ahead without UN support/permission.
short
Mickey
> In article <be74c859.0303...@posting.google.com>,
> mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
>
> @Yes, because you, like them, are an idiot.
>
> OK, I was trying to be civil. But fuck you, EOT.
And do you think that being civil excuses ranpant stupidity. I note
that you chose to focus on the one comment, rather than on the text.
We all know that when someone does that, it's a diversionary tactic
intended to dodge the fact that said person had no good reply to the
points made.
Surrender noted
Mickey
B.B.
@"B.B." <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote in message
@news:<F7EFBD17F51CC2BE.E381D21B...@lp.airnews.net>...
@> In article <be74c859.0303...@posting.google.com>,
@> mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
@>
@> @Yes, because you, like them, are an idiot.
@>
@> OK, I was trying to be civil. But fuck you, EOT.
@
@And do you think that being civil excuses ranpant stupidity.
I was hoing just to have a discussion. I presented what I have
observed, and what conclusions I've come to. I wasn't necessarily
trying to convince you to change your mind, I just found it interesting
and wanted to talk about it.
You came back with this trash:
=====
In article <be74c859.0303...@posting.google.com>,
mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
@Bullshit, present evidence of this, or be lumped withthe French.
@Proving that you are a fool of nearly unimaginable proportions. On 3
@Only to a fool. Where are all the chemical and biological agents he
@had when he kicke dthe inspectors out the last time? You are either an
@apologist or an incredible fool.
@I'd just
@LOVE to play poker with you.
@Only for idiots.
@You simply do not get it.
@ROFL... what a sucker you are.
@I see, so you have no problem withthe hundreds of people he tortures
@and kills EVERY week, becausethey aren't YOUR people. You are
@dispicible. Disgusting. A revolting example of self-absorbtion. I
@won't even bother to read or respond to the rest of your drivel, as
@it's a waste of my time to do so and other's time to read it.
=====
@I note
@that you chose to focus on the one comment, rather than on the text.
Your text really was devoid of anyting more than insults or
assertions, or demands that I "prove" my opinion. None of that is
entertaining, informative, or worth looking at for very long.
@We all know that when someone does that, it's a diversionary tactic
@intended to dodge the fact that said person had no good reply to the
@points made.
You're right, I have no good response to a purile tirade.
@Surrender noted
Take it as you will.
@Mickey
I don't want to pollute agd with this thread anymore. If you want to
continue then move this thread to either email or another newsgroup.
Warric
>
> committing terrorism in a friendly country's territory (
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rainbow+Warrior%22+%2BDGSE&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
> ), not to mention nuclear tests on a South Pacific island (
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Bnuclear+%2B%22South+Pacific%22+%2BFrance&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
> ) doesn't really encourage me to like their politics :-)
If liking every policy of your country's political leaders was a
pre-requisite to being allowed to live in a country, very few people
would have anywhere to live!
--
Warric
Warric
>
> You're right, I have no good response to a purile tirade.
And this spelling error invalidates your entire argument, so NYER!!!
--
Warric
Dead Meat
wrote:
>In article <be74c859.0303...@posting.google.com>,
> mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
>
>@"B.B." <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote in message
>@news:<F7EFBD17F51CC2BE.E381D21B...@lp.airnews.net>...
>@> In article <be74c859.0303...@posting.google.com>,
>@> mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
>@>
>@> @Yes, because you, like them, are an idiot.
>@>
>@> OK, I was trying to be civil. But fuck you, EOT.
>@
>@And do you think that being civil excuses ranpant stupidity.
(Sorry, cant resist.....ranpant? stupid is as stupid does!)
>
> I was hoing just to have a discussion. I presented what I have
>observed, and what conclusions I've come to. I wasn't necessarily
>trying to convince you to change your mind, I just found it interesting
>and wanted to talk about it.
> You came back with this trash:
Trash talk is all he has to fall back on once he starts losing it.
ROFLMAO
>
> Take it as you will.
>
>@Mickey
>
> I don't want to pollute agd with this thread anymore. If you want to
>continue then move this thread to either email or another newsgroup.
...
tcells
short wrote in message ...
>
>"tcells" <tce...@Xcapmon.com> wrote in message
>news:w5Qba.2$HU1....@vicpull1.telstra.net...
>>
>> short wrote in message ...
>> >
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> It's an anti-war movement you're talking about. That movement wants
>the
>> >> same results, by and large they believe that war will actually worsen
>the
>> >> situation or minimally that the costs of a war in terms of human life
>and
>> >> later ramifications would be greater than the cost of not having one.
>> >>
>> >But what about the long term ramifications of not having one??
>>
>> Either way it's conjecture. If the status quo were to remain, I expect
>that
>> sooner or later Iraq would either see a civil uprising or invasion by one
>of
>> it's neighbours (probably Iran) because their defences are being
defanged.
>>
>Heh, I'm all for that :o) Actually, I just think that something needs to
be
>done about Saddam $ Son. I don't really care who gets it done. And I do
>think they should have done it during Desert Storm, instead of now, for
>sure.
I think it would be the safest way. I'd like to think that perhaps
something along this line is Bushes masterplan, I don't think so, Powell's
maybe ...
>
>> As for giving/selling WMDs to terrorists, in the case of not having a
war,
>> it's far less likely those weapons coming from Iraq than other nations
>> (Saddam knows that inevitably he'd be a likely target for anything he
gave
>> to terrorists). WMDs weren't sourced from anywhere for Sept 11, or
Bali -
>> the majority of active participants were Saudis at anyrate and where were
>> the training camps?
>>
>Well, thats because they didn't use convential WMD's. Nothing like turning
>a civilian airline into a weapon. No one suspected that, for sure. I
don't
>know if he had any dealings with the terrorists or not, but I think we both
>know that if there was a direct link, the US would have bombed the shit out
>of him already. I also think that the Terrorist links to Saudi Arabia
>should quit getting ignored. I don't know what anyone could actually do
>about it though.
>
It's pretty clear to anyone after Howard's speech yesterday that there is no
link between Iraq and Sept 11. Howard also gave no evidence linking Iraq
funding or supply to other terrorist organisations. He gives a couple of
reasons for invading; to deter rogue states especially making a point that
Nth Korea wouldn't listen to anyone if we do nothing about Iraq (someone
should query him about the chronology of it all) and on humanitarian
grounds.
I agree with you about the Saudis. In someways it seems very much like the
terrorists are a rich person with a good team of lawyers getting off scot
free.
there isn't actually an "everyone else" in this case (well I can't think of
another off the top of my head). I think the US's role in Japan post WWII
was better than could be reasonably expected. I can't think of any other
success story though - point in case Iraq after the gulf war or Afghanistan.
Of course that will piss off every other
>country in the Middle East, but most of them hate us anyway, so no loss
>there
>
I think you're being a bit slap happy and would acknowledge that there's
likely to be a difference in the fruits of that hate.
LOL.
Occasionally I get this idea that we should simply put all of these types
into a big cage, give them a couple of chainsaws and let them do their
damndest to one another. After that alot all the countries to the last
standing but give the people of those countries the right to real voting and
a set of gallows which can be used if the leader ever sets up a secret
police or the equivalent or attempts to politicise the military.
>
>> You've got to replace the govt properly and support the new one with
>funds,
>> imports, & infrastructure for a very long time if stability is the end
>goal.
>> There are of course benefits in doing so for the US.
>>
>Well, here is where we differ, I think. I agree that someone will have to
>be there for a long time, to make sure everything works out, and I think
>stability is the end goal. The thing is, are there any countries other
than
>the US willing to do that?
Well the UN should be willing. The resolution already carries a threat of
incursion, so to make such a resolution they should be prepared to ensure
the whole thing is properly fixxed. You then of course get into the mire of
whether or not the UN would and that of financing and which countries
haven't paid their dues/pledges.
I don't know if there is a difference here in our views. I believe that
it's pragmatism from the start, where as you see it as a payment - each
having the same end meaning.
If no one else steps up to the plate, then we
>should be getting some benefit out of it.
Well if the rumours of French, RUssian and Chinese weaponry is correct; then
you've got to ask why weren't these countries smart enough to step to the
plate immediately and make a deal in a benevolent way to Saddam and thus
cover their own indescretions. Granted, not exactly three huge ecomonies
but they weild enough power for each to have been able to do something on
it's own. We could always move Syria up the charts in the hit parade as
this is the alledged conduit for supplying these weapons - again the on
going theme of the rich getting off.
You know, other than saving the
>rest of the world the trouble of dealing with it. Besides, the US isn't
>going to be the only one benefitting, IMO.
nah don't be so pessimistic ;) But that is the real difference in what
appear to be about the only honest views - one is that the world will be
saved by a war, the other is that the world will be made more perilous due
to a war. I don't believe that any in these two camps think that nothing
needs be done about Saddam.
>
>> The problem is, no one can actually know
>> >what will happen after a war, or if we don't have one. I'm of the
>opinion
>> >that he has some weapons stashed somewhere, but you never really know,
do
>> >you?
>> >
>>
>> If crystal balls worked, it might be simpler. In my own mind I'm certain
>> that he must have weapons hidden. If he hasn't then the simplest thing
to
>> do would be to leave and let him be ripped to shreds by his neighbours.
>>
>ROFL!! I think I've got a Magic 8 Ball stashed away somewhere. Hehehe,
>maybe I should help Bush out, and tell him to give it a shake. But I
agree,
>he has weapons stashed somewhere, and we'll probably never find them.
It would definitely be a plan if it was still Regan. You don't have Nancy's
phone number handy do you ;)
>
snip
>> When it comes down to it what are the rest of the world willing, let
alone
>> capable of doing? trade sanctions against the US?
>>
>>
>See, thats what gets me. If we don't get UN support, and we Bomb anyway,
>then Bush is opening the doors for a whole lot of trouble down the road.
I don't expect the economical ramifications would be that bad. You'd likely
see an increase in terrorism, but no open declarations of war with other
countries. Europe isn't going to place trade sanctions, nor Asia. Perhaps
the only way to really would be a concerted consumer boycott. Never
happened before on a scale which would be necessary to hurt and then it
would need be sustained. Britain would cop it economically a lot worse
probably us too.
If
>we can ignore the UN, so can everyone else, and thats not good.
Your summary puts pay to the "other mongrel states and Nth Korea argument".
The real danger with this is that the US would need walk away from the UN.
What hasn't been said and won't be at this time, is that the US has
exercised its right of veto on a number of occaisions - and on a lot of
occaisions it's just as well they did. If it was to ever reach the stage
that the UN remained intact and a real power without the US there to veto,
things could become a real mess.
I do agree
>that saddam needs taken out, but I don't think it is a good idea to go full
>steam ahead without UN support/permission.
totally agree.
Marshall
>
> of him already. I also think that the Terrorist links to Saudi Arabia
> should quit getting ignored. I don't know what anyone could actually do
> about it though.
While I agree with what you say on principle, reality is a much
messier can of worms, as always. Here's the catch- the Saudi
*leadership* is relatively pro-western, if left to their own
devices... unfortunately, the royal family has been virtually
held hostage by the radical islamic elements in their own soci-
ety for over a decade now, and they very much fear that they
will be overthrown by those radical elements (just like the Shah
got booted out of Iran, not so long ago), if they appear to be lean-
ing too much towards the West, or eating out of Bush's hand. So,
what exactly are we supposed to do about the terrorist links, and
the ready stream of Saudi terrorist recruits, that come out of
Saudi Arabia's radical fundamentalist population?
If the Saudi royals try to crack down on the radical fundamentalist
elements in their own country, they face either a major civil war,
the outcome of which would be *very* much in doubt, or they
would straight-out get tossed out or executed, by their own people.
Not a very happy prospect, for them or us- as much as we may
disdain the Saudi royals and how they run things over there, how
would we like another Iran/Ayatollah there? With a solid front of
radical islamists in firm control of all the Persian Gulf oil, I suspect
we could forever kiss sub-$5-per-gallon gas goodbye. So, we con-
tinue to do exactly what we are doing now- put whatever behind the
scenes diplomatic pressure we can onto the Saudis, and assist their
law-enforcement people to track terrorist activities there and crack
down on them whenever possible. But if we come right out and
tell the Saudi royals that they either declare war on all terrorists
and their supporters in their country right now, or 'else' (whatever
that's supposed to mean- they hold all the cards, in our one-sided
relationship... see: oil), then we are liable to have them tell us to
piss off, in the interest of saving their own royal buns from their
own fundamentalist-sympathising countrymen. There, does that help
clear things up?
-Marshall
Simon Righarts
Ahem, I'm not French ;-)
Orchid
Darn, right you're not! You used to be a pure cheese monkey. Now, you're
simply pure spud.
Shari (Orchid)
legbiter
> Hail! For short <sho...@zoominternet.net> hath spoken thusly:
> >> BTW, why does everyone hate the French? I have no love for the French
> >> language but I can't say I've met many French people, and I never had
> >> any problems with the ones I have met. <g>
> >>
> >>
> > I really don't have a problem with French people in general, but the
> > country's policies and such towards the United States, and most of our
> > foreign endevours hacks me off.
> >
> > short
>
> Be nice if politicians were representative of the people they govern.<g>
> Right now in the UK most people think Tony Blair is an idiot.
Hmmmm, not seeing the evidence for that. Perhaps it's true that most
people oppose his policies on disarming Iraq [i, on the other hand,
support them, and frankly am NOT convinced that the opposing view is
the majority one]. However, the same polls indicate increased respect
for Tony Blair as a leader and conviction politician.
Funny, we
> hear from the media what the attitudes of the general public are in the
> UK (and sometimes the US, and sometimes Iraq), but I've never heard what
> the French people think, or the Russian, or the Spanish, etc. Be nice to
> know what everyone thinks.
The Times did a synopsis of Europe-wide polls on Iraq recently. Alas,
i did not keep the relevant issue or i could have mailed it to you
[you're also South-coast of England-based, right?]. You can probably
find it in your local library.
legbiter
Anti-war protests against the Viet Nam war had good cause
> for they points of view. The current crop are either stupid, gutless
> or French.
>
> Mickey
i think that's over-charitable. Some of them know perfectly well what
is going on, and prefer the Fascist Dictatorship of Iraq and its
terrorist tools to the proposed alternative. Sometimes this is because
they are theocratic fascists, and sometimes it is because they are so
anti-american that they feel their perceived enemy's enemy must be a
friend.
However, in fairness to the anti-war brigade at least here in the uk
[and i do agree with you that most of their arguments are pathetic]
there is ONE point i've heard which could be valid, and it goes
roughly like this: might it not be more dangerous to drive the
rightist Ba'ath clique to desperate measures than it would be to buy
them off? After all, as tcells points out somewhere else, the West DID
use the rightist Ba'athists [and the taleban] as instruments for a
while. My answer to that is twofold: [a] look where supporting the
rightist Ba'athists and the Taleban got us in the past! Shouldn't we
acknowledge our past mistakes and try to make amends for them? [b] it
IS true that Mr Bush and Mr Blair MIGHT be making a terrible mistake.
However, in their position, i would be making the same mistake.
legbiter
> Hail! For tcells <tce...@Xcapmon.com> hath spoken thusly:
> >
> > The trouble is that with the developments occuring in the Labour
> > Party that Bush might well see himself on a very limitted time scale
> > because if Blair is toppled over this the "colalition of the willing"
> > becomes a total charade in the eyes of the world.
> >
>
How do you make that out, fellow-countryman? Do you, perhaps, think
that there is some alternative to fighting theocratic terrorism and
its secular fascist allies? What do you think that alternative might
be?
right now I find it hard to believe
> that I'm living in the same country that produced Churchill...
i feel the same way. i can't BELIEVE the degree of lip-wobbling that
we've seen here recently. But actually, it was the same back in
Churchill's day - the gutless or foolish majority thought there was
some way to deal with Hitler. Luckily for us and the world, this time
we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to swim against that tide,
and an ally upon whom we can count.
> To be honest, while Labour has done a few good things for this country,
> for the last couple of years they've been just as bad as John Major's
> Tory government.
What, you mean Labour have done something as bad as privatising the
railways? That Labour have perpetrated an ERM-type catastrophe? That
Labour ministers have extracted or tried to extract money from
newspapers by lying? That Labour ministers have taken bribes from
businessmen to harass commercial rivals through Commons questions? i'm
not seeing the evidence for any of that, though i accept that no
government, including ours, is perfect. Not to seek perfection is the
beginning of wisdom.
>
> BTW, why does everyone hate the French? I have no love for the French
> language but I can't say I've met many French people, and I never had
> any problems with the ones I have met. <g>
>
i am pro-French, and ESPECIALLY pro-French language. Jacques Chirac
is, however, a disgrace. He is there because of certain sad facts
about French history, into which it would be un-neighbourly to pry too
deeply. Who is to say that we would have done better? O wait, we did.
Anyway, who cares. Going to war without the French is like going
deer-hunting without an accordion, as a recent letter to the Daily
Cheapsheet so movingly put it.
Mickey
Nor to any facts therein. Noted.
>
> @Surrender noted
>
> Take it as you will.
I already did. You posed some PURE garbage supported by ZERO facts
(especially about Israel being opposed to the war), I called you on
it, you had NOTHING in the way of a reply and chose to focus on the
verbage rather than the content, and now you absquatulate. A coward to
the bitter end.
Mickey
Mickey
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:35:45 -0600, "B.B." <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <be74c859.0303...@posting.google.com>,
> > mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
> >
> >@"B.B." <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> wrote in message
> >@news:<F7EFBD17F51CC2BE.E381D21B...@lp.airnews.net>...
> >@> In article <be74c859.0303...@posting.google.com>,
> >@> mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
> >@>
> >@> @Yes, because you, like them, are an idiot.
> >@>
> >@> OK, I was trying to be civil. But fuck you, EOT.
> >@
> >@And do you think that being civil excuses ranpant stupidity.
> (Sorry, cant resist.....ranpant? stupid is as stupid does!)
> >
> > I was hoing just to have a discussion. I presented what I have
> >observed, and what conclusions I've come to. I wasn't necessarily
> >trying to convince you to change your mind, I just found it interesting
> >and wanted to talk about it.
> > You came back with this trash:
>
> Trash talk is all he has to fall back on once he starts losing it.
Yup, and of course, facts.... those damn pesky facts... shame about
them, as without them, you cowards would actually make a remote bit of
sense.
I mean image anyone being fool enough to claim that Israel is against
removing Saddam.... Let us revisit the last go round, shall we......
Iraq invades Kuwait
The world (minus Israel, I should note), attacks Iraq
Saddam's response? Why to fire 37 SCUD missiles into Israel, or
course...
And the Israeli's don't want him out? Anyone who posts that is either
a fool or a bald faced liar. I chose to give him the benefit of the
doubt, and you and he see that as an attack. What was it Einstein
said..... Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe.
Mickey
Mickey
> "B.B." <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> looked up
> from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is
> good, the signs say:
>
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/03/naked.protest/
> >
> > I really don't understand this phenominon. I mean, I'm all for
> >protesting the "war," but why get naked?
>
> Uh, from the article at the link you've posted:
>
> "Reasons for the nakedness: one is that it is total vulnerability," said
> Australian singer and peace activist Grace Knight , who organized the
> Sydney protest.
>
> "It's absolute complete vulnerability, and in that vulnerability there's
> also an awful lot of power, there's a mighty well of power there."
I'd be interested to know what she thinks she is MORE vulnerable to
without her clothes on.... except maybe ridicule......
Mickey
Mickey
> On 12 Mar 2003 08:53:30 -0800, Mickey wrote:
> >
> > are you in favor of a "civilized" world which accepts
> > despotic leaders who torture and murder innocents?
>
> authorised the execution of a *single* innocent person while Governor
> of Texas, then the question starts looking much more entertaining from
> a European POV ;-)
A: Firstly, he did not authorize anything, he allowed the state to
proceed according to laws passed by the people. Iraq has no laws
allowing for the torture of citizens.
B: It also assumes that by doing so, Dubya would then qualify as a
despotic leader, which he would not.
>
> > > BTW, someone please refresh my memory on when exactly CONGRESS
> > > declared war on Iraq?
> >
> > Ours, 12 years ago, and reafirrmed it last October.
>
> Hmmmmm, but 3 (three) minutes after you posted this, you posted:
> > For the record, the COngress has
> > declared war ONLY 3 times, the Spanish/American war, WWI and WWII.
Sorry, Congress AUTHORIZED action in the gulf. There was no FORMAL
declaration of war. The point is that some people bleat constantly
about a delcaration of war, when it is not nor has it ever been a
pre-requisite for US forces going into active combat.
> Not that I care much, but you might want to clarify this apparent
> contradiction.
BTW Rick, how the hell are ya? I haven't spoken to you in a age and a
day.
Mickey
dave...@spamcop.net
> Sorry, Congress AUTHORIZED action in the gulf. There was no FORMAL
> declaration of war. The point is that some people bleat constantly
> about a delcaration of war, when it is not nor has it ever been a
> pre-requisite for US forces going into active combat.
To follow that thought through, I seem to recall a distinct lack of
an end to that particular hostility and/or authorization. So, if
it has been authorized, and not de-authorized, then...
(If I'm wrong on that, please cite something that I can go read to
correct myself).
Just because the last President fell asleep at the switch doesn't
mean this one has to as well.
Dave Hinz
B.B.
mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
@I already did. You posed some PURE garbage supported by ZERO facts
@(especially about Israel being opposed to the war)
Odd, I don't recall saying anything about Israel....hmm...nope, can't
find it. You seem to be mixing up everybody into one big, evil
caracature of reality. Perhaps it would help you to calm yourself down
a bit and consider your reply before you post it.
Seriously, I don't believe even a tenth of what you accuse me of
believing. If we had an actual discussion rather than a flamewar then I
just might be able to clear up any confusion you have.
And perhaps I am wrong, maybe I should support invading Iraq.
Flaming me and calling me an idiot won't exactly convince me of that.
B.B.
@Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote in message
@news:<pusr6vgmisrde3djk...@4ax.com>...
@> "B.B." <DoNotSpa...@airmail.net.com.org.gov.tw.ch.ru> looked up
@> from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is
@> good, the signs say:
@>
@> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/03/naked.protest/
@> >
@> > I really don't understand this phenominon. I mean, I'm all for
@> >protesting the "war," but why get naked?
@>
@> Uh, from the article at the link you've posted:
@>
@> "Reasons for the nakedness: one is that it is total vulnerability," said
@> Australian singer and peace activist Grace Knight , who organized the
@> Sydney protest.
@>
@> "It's absolute complete vulnerability, and in that vulnerability there's
@> also an awful lot of power, there's a mighty well of power there."
@
@I'd be interested to know what she thinks she is MORE vulnerable to
@without her clothes on.... except maybe ridicule......
@
@Mickey
Chilly air.
SteveT
"Dead Meat" <For_Eyes_Only@Top_Secret.com> wrote in message
where it states "Targeting of Leaders of States during Military Engagment"
ie; its considered a War Crime.
As for laws against Political Assassination by the US Goverment , there was
never a law against it because it never was a law it was an Executive Order
and as such is not bound by Constitutional Law or review.
Good Day
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/10/03
SteveT
<snip>
If you're lucky, you get
> a smart one who says "until they find all the weapons." Now you can
> really start to have fun, by asking "OK, and then what?" Now the
> gobbledy gook starts in earnest. Firstly, it assumes that the
> inspectors will ever find it all, an assumption only a complete and
> total idiot would make.
Excuse my snipage but this is the great flaw of what these peaceniks fail to
understand. They are INSPECTORS not DETECTIVES , the very word means to
inspect not detect (find). Their mandate is to report back to the UN what
they are being shown and as of today they have been shown NOTHING to
validate Iraqs deposal of its WMD's and have discovered numberous violations
of its terms of surrender ie; disarming , like the al-sumud (scud2) ,
unmanned drones etc.
For those that just dont get it about why America and its allies have to
disarm Hussein , think of this way.
Saddam Hussein is a convicted murderer , his surrender at the end of the
Gulf War is de facto a guilty plea to the World Court and as such would you
allow a convicted felon to carry a concealed weapon let alone the remote
possibilty of him carrying weapons of mass destruction ?
Not I, not for a minute!
Good day
Dead Meat
wrote:
>In article <be74c859.03031...@posting.google.com>,
> mic...@comcast.net (Mickey) wrote:
>
>@I already did. You posed some PURE garbage supported by ZERO facts
>@(especially about Israel being opposed to the war)
>
> Odd, I don't recall saying anything about Israel....hmm...nope, can't
>find it.
That's because I am the one who said it.
And after going back to the news article, and actually READING IT this time, I find that I
misunderstood the headline.
So Mickey, I was wrong about Israel not supporting the war.
I apologize.
(But i would still like to see a news article that shows Iraq's neighbors asking for us to either
fight this war and or take Saddam out of power.)
Here is a copy of the article (From the NY Times online):
Not Urging War, Sharon Says
By JAMES BENNET
JERUSALEM, March 10 — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel praised President Bush today for his
pursuit of a possible war in Iraq, while seeking to disavow any Israeli involvement.
The finely calibrated statement reflected concerns at the top of the government that many of the
war's critics in the United States, Europe and elsewhere were identifying Israel as an instigator.
Mr. Sharon sought to split Israel's support for a war from any responsibility for it.
"I wish to emphasize, we are not involved in this war," Mr. Sharon said in a meeting of his party,
Likud. "We are neither pressing to move it forward, nor do we seek to postpone it. We know that this
is a necessary attempt to bring an end to the capability of tyrannical regimes, such as the one in
Iraq, to tangibly endanger the entire world."
The Israeli government strongly supports changing the leadership in Iraq as potentially furthering
Israel's interests. Officials have publicly held out the hope that it could lead to a new Middle
East more friendly to Israel. Looking past an Iraq war, the defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, has urged
the United States to prepare to put diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran.
Mr. Sharon's statement came after a day of news reports here that the Bush administration was
furious with Israeli officials for leaking sensitive information. Anonymous Israeli officials were
quoted as saying that interviews by Israeli officials in the news media were creating the impression
that Israel was urging the United States to go to war.
Today, the newspaper Maariv cited "Israeli sources" in reporting that, after continued Israeli
leaks, "The Americans have lost hope and have absolutely despaired in this matter."
A senior Israeli official disputed that account.
[END QUOTED ARTICLE]
...
SteveT
<snip>
Anti-war protests against the Viet Nam war had good cause
> for they points of view. The current crop are either stupid, gutless
> or French.
>
> Mickey
Oops i snipped again but I keep hearing about anti-war protests from the
Vietnam era. Lets refresh our memories about the quasi protests from that
bygone era and let me give a new prospective from an inside the protest
movement view from so long ago.
I took part in the protests so long ago and it really stirs my ire to hear
these revisionist claim that the protest were anti-war when in fact they
were not *gasp*. Where were the protests in 1960-65 ? It wasn't until LBJ
stepped up the involvement in 66-67 that the protest really started to
become vocal and with the increase in manpower came the increase of draft
registration and this is where the real protest revolved around , thats
right it wasn't anti-war it was anti-draft. What were they burning at those
protest rallies , not flags , some reefer but mainly draft cards. This
anti-war crap boggles the mind and after they went to the lottery draft they
desipated then when they did away with the draft all together they utterly
dissappeared even today while the media would have you think these modern
day war protests are massive are in reality small in comparison and worse
the people attending them are even more uneducated than we were some 40
years ago. But from the rally I attended here in Dallas the reefer is still
as good.
Besides where was a teenager able to get his hands on some good weed , thats
right the protest provided a smorgesborg of quality reefer and still do =)
Good Day
EvilBill[AGQx]
>> govern.<g>
>> Right now in the UK most people think Tony Blair is an idiot.
>
> Hmmmm, not seeing the evidence for that. Perhaps it's true that most
> people oppose his policies on disarming Iraq [i, on the other hand,
> support them, and frankly am NOT convinced that the opposing view is
> the majority one]. However, the same polls indicate increased respect
> for Tony Blair as a leader and conviction politician.
>
I guess I'm just seriously disillusioned with politics, politicians,
spin, outright lies, scandal and bull... there hasn't been one British
leader in my lifetime that I've been able to outright respect. Thatcher
was a very strong woman but her policies were pretty despicable. John
Major was just weak and pitiful. And Blair's too full of spin, I don't
trust him further than I could throw him (and with my bad shoulder that
wouldb't be far!)
>
> The Times did a synopsis of Europe-wide polls on Iraq recently. Alas,
> i did not keep the relevant issue or i could have mailed it to you
> [you're also South-coast of England-based, right?].
South-west, yeah. I tend to keep up via the TV news rather than the
papers.
> You can probably
> find it in your local library.
>>
I'll take a look next time I'm in there, thanks for the pointer. :)
--
--
* All your .sig are belong to us.
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> How do you make that out, fellow-countryman? Do you, perhaps, think
> that there is some alternative to fighting theocratic terrorism and
> its secular fascist allies? What do you think that alternative might
> be?
>
I don't have an alternative. But I'd like to see Saddam disarmed and
al-Qaeda and so forth defeated without collateral damage. I'd rather not
see a repeat of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in my lifetime.
> right now I find it hard to believe
>> that I'm living in the same country that produced Churchill...
>
> i feel the same way. i can't BELIEVE the degree of lip-wobbling that
> we've seen here recently. But actually, it was the same back in
> Churchill's day - the gutless or foolish majority thought there was
> some way to deal with Hitler. Luckily for us and the world, this time
> we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to swim against that tide,
> and an ally upon whom we can count.
>
I'm not averse to swimming against the tide, and I know Saddam & Son
have to go. Just don't want to see innocents caught in the crossfire,
especially since the vast majority of Iraqis despise and fear the
regime... there's been enough death on this planet over the last century
to more than rival the worst excesses of the previous ten millennia...
>> To be honest, while Labour has done a few good things for this
>> country,
>> for the last couple of years they've been just as bad as John Major's
>> Tory government.
>
> What, you mean Labour have done something as bad as privatising the
> railways? That Labour have perpetrated an ERM-type catastrophe? That
> Labour ministers have extracted or tried to extract money from
> newspapers by lying? That Labour ministers have taken bribes from
> businessmen to harass commercial rivals through Commons questions? i'm
> not seeing the evidence for any of that, though i accept that no
> government, including ours, is perfect. Not to seek perfection is the
> beginning of wisdom.
>>
I'm afraid I'm very much a perfectionist, I just think it'd be nice if
politicians were... a bit more selfless. Although I will credit Labour
with giving rural areas decent bus services! <g>
>> BTW, why does everyone hate the French? I have no love for the French
>> language but I can't say I've met many French people, and I never had
>> any problems with the ones I have met. <g>
>>
> i am pro-French, and ESPECIALLY pro-French language.
Still, ancient Egyptian is easier to learn than French. <g>
> Jacques Chirac
> is, however, a disgrace.
Well, he is a politician... an honest politician is like a peaceful
terrorist, there's no such thing.
> He is there because of certain sad facts
> about French history, into which it would be un-neighbourly to pry too
> deeply. Who is to say that we would have done better? O wait, we did.
> Anyway, who cares. Going to war without the French is like going
> deer-hunting without an accordion, as a recent letter to the Daily
> Cheapsheet so movingly put it.
--
Marshall
"SteveT" <creepingxdeath@"removeNOSPAM"attbi.com> wrote in message
news:kTpca.98492$qi4.54923@rwcrnsc54...
Amen. Well said. The inspectors are a pointless exercise, something
the weinie 'avoid war now at all costs, despite the terrible future con-
sequences' crowd just doesn't have the brain-matter or the cojones
to comprehend.
-Marshall
Marshall
> Hail! For legbiter <legb...@mailandnews.com> hath spoken thusly:
> > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilb...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Blair's just Bush's personal slave;
> >
> > How do you make that out, fellow-countryman? Do you, perhaps, think
> > that there is some alternative to fighting theocratic terrorism and
> > its secular fascist allies? What do you think that alternative might
> > be?
>
> I don't have an alternative. But I'd like to see Saddam disarmed and
> al-Qaeda and so forth defeated without collateral damage. I'd rather not
> see a repeat of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in my lifetime.
The old saying "you can't make an omelet without breaking some
eggs", is just pure truth, sorry. Everybody wants something for
nothing, but it doesn't happen that way. You can't just 'wish' bad
apples out of the barrel, you have to dig down with your bare
hands and root them out. Well, enough metaphorosis, for a bit.
As for not seeing a repeat of Hiroshima or Nagasaki in your life-
time, the best bet for accomplishing that, will be to remove the
criminals who run countries like Iraq (and N. Korea, but that's
another wormy apple story), so that they can never supply nukes
or bubonic plague or nerve gas in industrial quantities to Al Queda
and other human abortions of their ilk, who have no qualms what-
soever about using those things in your very back yard, and vapor-
izing your arse to kingdom come. Some idiots will say "oh, if we
just leave them alone, and don't mess with Iraq, we won't be stirring
them up and causing more terrorist attacks against us". Yeah,
right. Like our leaving them all alone and not attempting to root out
the world terrorist orgs or Saddam for the past decade managed to
prevent 9/11 from happening. There is only one thing to be done
about menacing evil of Saddam Hussein's or Al Queda's ilk... destroy
it, kill it as fast as you can, and prevent the inevitable future 9/11's
from happening, that they plan even now. Mad dogs always need
to be put down- it's just better and safer to do it sooner, than later.
> > i feel the same way. i can't BELIEVE the degree of lip-wobbling that
> > we've seen here recently. But actually, it was the same back in
> > Churchill's day - the gutless or foolish majority thought there was
> > some way to deal with Hitler. Luckily for us and the world, this time
> > we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to swim against that tide,
> > and an ally upon whom we can count.
>
> I'm not averse to swimming against the tide, and I know Saddam & Son
> have to go. Just don't want to see innocents caught in the crossfire,
> especially since the vast majority of Iraqis despise and fear the
> regime... there's been enough death on this planet over the last century
> to more than rival the worst excesses of the previous ten millennia...
Do you think the French (heh- ironic, isn't it?) would have wanted us
to avoid invading France and killing quite a few of their civilians in
the process back in 1944, just so noone would get hurt in the act of
evicting Hitler from their country? Pretty similar situation, actually-
the evil, oppressive dictator just came from within this time, instead of
from a neighboring country. And unlike our invasion of France in 1944,
our weaponry is quite a bit more accurate and less 'area of effect', than
the munitions used back then. Of course, the German army wasn't
composed of pathetic animals who would deliberately use civilians
as shields in every possible situation, either. Just more proof that
Saddam doesn't deserve to live, let alone be allowed to continue ruling
a country and aquiring more WMD's.
-Marshall
Marshall
LOL! Protesting has to have it's benefits, I reckon ;-)
-Marshall
Warric
>
> Warric <sp...@housemartin.f9.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ro6v6vono472ucdp5...@4ax.com>...
> > On 12 Mar 2003 08:53:30 -0800, Mickey wrote:
> > >
> > > are you in favor of a "civilized" world which accepts
> > > despotic leaders who torture and murder innocents?
> >
> > Careful Mickey, you're close to the thin ice here. If Dubya
> > authorised the execution of a *single* innocent person while Governor
> > of Texas, then the question starts looking much more entertaining from
> > a European POV ;-)
>
> A: Firstly, he did not authorize anything, he allowed the state to
> proceed according to laws passed by the people. Iraq has no laws
> allowing for the torture of citizens.
>
> B: It also assumes that by doing so, Dubya would then qualify as a
> despotic leader, which he would not.
You should remember me better than that, Mickey <g> I never claimed
that he'd score on both counts by one simple expedient. I was merely
going to say that his hands would, implicitly, have the blood of
innocents on them. From where I'm sitting, I can have fun just
watching.
If only I could say that I lived in a country where I could possibly
approve of what our illustrious leader does in my name, I could
perhaps hold my own head up a little higher.
> > Not that I care much, but you might want to clarify this apparent
> > contradiction.
<Apparent contradiction cleared up>
> BTW Rick, how the hell are ya? I haven't spoken to you in a age and a
> day.
Oh, still alive, still working for the same outfit, still doing much
the same old stuff, although we got bought out (again) by a US crew.
But if it brings a wage enough for me to be able to support the family
and have my own fun as well, I know I'm onto a good thing ;-)
As for D2, I'm mostly avoiding realms due to b.net's continuing
apparent adherence to the maxim "we're worth every penny". The few
realm chars I do have are on Europe, but I've never really played them
much. I miss the old crowd, that's for sure.
--
Warric
EvilBill[AGQx]
>> al-Qaeda and so forth defeated without collateral damage. I'd rather
>> not see a repeat of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in my lifetime.
>
> The old saying "you can't make an omelet without breaking some
> eggs", is just pure truth, sorry. Everybody wants something for
> nothing, but it doesn't happen that way. You can't just 'wish' bad
> apples out of the barrel, you have to dig down with your bare
> hands and root them out.
Yeah, I know. Doesn't stop me hating the idea though. I can't help but
think, one of those innocent Iraqi families that gets killed, could have
been mine if I'd been born in Iraq instead of the UK.
> Well, enough metaphorosis, for a bit.
>
> As for not seeing a repeat of Hiroshima or Nagasaki in your life-
> time, the best bet for accomplishing that, will be to remove the
> criminals who run countries like Iraq (and N. Korea, but that's
> another wormy apple story), so that they can never supply nukes
> or bubonic plague or nerve gas in industrial quantities to Al Queda
> and other human abortions of their ilk, who have no qualms what-
> soever about using those things in your very back yard, and vapor-
> izing your arse to kingdom come.
So the US, the UK and the rest of the UN can promise that they will
never use nukes?
> Some idiots will say "oh, if we
> just leave them alone, and don't mess with Iraq, we won't be stirring
> them up and causing more terrorist attacks against us". Yeah,
> right. Like our leaving them all alone and not attempting to root out
> the world terrorist orgs or Saddam for the past decade managed to
> prevent 9/11 from happening. There is only one thing to be done
> about menacing evil of Saddam Hussein's or Al Queda's ilk... destroy
> it, kill it as fast as you can, and prevent the inevitable future
> 9/11's from happening, that they plan even now. Mad dogs always need
> to be put down- it's just better and safer to do it sooner, than
> later.
>
Al-Qaeda and their ilk wouldn't make deals with Saddam if he was the
last weapons-dealer on Earth, they despise him because he's not a
religious fanatic like them. And al-Qaeda really *do* need to be wiped
out. But while Saddam's a bastard, he's not a moron. He knows that if he
ever attempted to use WMDs against the US or its allies, that his
country would most likely cease to exist. So in all honesty -
considering that we haven't focused on Iraq in years anyway - we can
afford to wait until we've dealt with Bin Laden and his buddies first, I
feel.
>>
>> I'm not averse to swimming against the tide, and I know Saddam & Son
>> have to go. Just don't want to see innocents caught in the crossfire,
>> especially since the vast majority of Iraqis despise and fear the
>> regime... there's been enough death on this planet over the last
>> century to more than rival the worst excesses of the previous ten
>> millennia...
>
> Do you think the French (heh- ironic, isn't it?) would have wanted us
> to avoid invading France and killing quite a few of their civilians in
> the process back in 1944, just so noone would get hurt in the act of
> evicting Hitler from their country? Pretty similar situation,
> actually- the evil, oppressive dictator just came from within this
> time, instead of from a neighboring country. And unlike our invasion
> of France in 1944, our weaponry is quite a bit more accurate and less
> 'area of effect', than the munitions used back then. Of course, the
> German army wasn't
> composed of pathetic animals who would deliberately use civilians
> as shields in every possible situation, either.
Although I bet they'd have used Jews, gays, and gypsies in that capacity
had they thought of it.
> Just more proof that
> Saddam doesn't deserve to live, let alone be allowed to continue
> ruling
> a country and aquiring more WMD's.
> -Marshall
I do see your point, honestly. I just hate war and conflict (except a
good NG debate! <g>), and surely it's about time the human race just
*grew up* and stopped squabbling like kids in a playground. Pity there
aren't the interplanetary equivalent of teachers around to punish the
bullies!
short
> good NG debate! <g>), and surely it's about time the human race just
> *grew up* and stopped squabbling like kids in a playground. Pity there
> aren't the interplanetary equivalent of teachers around to punish the
> bullies!
>
>
The problem is, no one wants to admit that is what the US is trying to do
:o)
short
EvilBill[AGQx]
>> good NG debate! <g>), and surely it's about time the human race just
>> *grew up* and stopped squabbling like kids in a playground. Pity
>> there aren't the interplanetary equivalent of teachers around to
>> punish the bullies!
>>
>>
> What do you mean? That is what this is all about, punishing the
> bullies.
Yeah, but it's the punishing some of the nice kids along with it I don't
like. I know, like Marshall said, can't make an omelette... but still.
It just... doesn't *feel* right.
> The problem is, no one wants to admit that is what the US is
> trying to do
>> o)
>
> short
--
Virtual Den
> same missles as he destroys the ones the inspectors found. I'd just
> LOVE to play poker with you.
>
> > was not, according to the president, so more exact language is
necessary.
>
> Only for idiots.
>
> > People argue that the threat of force made Saddam comply. I agree.
> > And there is nothing to stop us from coming back if he fucks up again.
> > Let's leave with the notice that if he ever disallows inspectors to
> > enter a site we will bomb it into atoms.
>
> Again, for how long will we keep inspectors in Iraq? Saddam's
> lifetime? His son's as well? You simply do not get it.
>
> > As it is, Saddam is in no position to develop or buy any wepons as
> > long as inspections are going on. So he presents less of a threat than
> > before. Despite having zero evidence that he was a threat before.
>
> ROFL... what a sucker you are.
>
> > we did ever have a justifiable reason for going to war, the inspections
> > will have provided a great deal of information.
>
> Information which gets to Saddam 20 seconds after the US gives it to
> the inspectors. WONDERFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > So I have no problem with leaving Saddam there.
>
> I see, so you have no problem withthe hundreds of people he tortures
>
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/usa.html
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030307/index.php
:)))
VD