OT: Blair plagarizes, Powell quotes and praises it?
Bruce Morgen
Lord Valve
Bruce Morgen wrote:
> <http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/020603_plagiarized.html>
Hmmm...so, how does this tie in with the orders recently
issued by Saddam Hussein that his field commanders
should retaliate with chemical and biological weapons
if attacked? You know - the weapons he swears up and
down he doesn't have? And does the fact that unattributed
quotes were used in the Downing Street document make
them less than true? They were, after all, written by an
eyewitness. Bzzzzzzt, sorry - not good enough. The 101st
is on the way, bye-bye Saddam. Wonder who's next? ;-)
Lord Valve
American
J. Janasov
isn't for an exercise.
Joe J.
"Lord Valve" <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:3E45640F...@ix.netcom.com...
TimePixDC
>From: Lord Valve detr...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: Sat, Feb 8, 2003 3:09 PM
>....does the fact that unattributed
>quotes were used in the Downing Street document make
>them less than true?
It wasn't a case of "unattributed quotes" but one of down right plagiarism...
Of decade old material that they claimed was new.
Bruce Morgen
>
>
>Bruce Morgen wrote:
>
>> <http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/020603_plagiarized.html>
>
>
>
>Hmmm...so, how does this tie in with the orders recently
>issued by Saddam Hussein that his field commanders
>should retaliate with chemical and biological weapons
>if attacked?
Neither I nor any of the
cited writing claimed that
it does.
>You know - the weapons he swears up and
>down he doesn't have? And does the fact that unattributed
>quotes were used in the Downing Street document make
>them less than true?
The accusation is not
about absence of
attribution, it's about
plagarism (of a decade+-
old piece of writing) by
the British PM and
Secretary Powell's
parroting and praising
of it! Iow, the guy was
writing about what was
happening before the
elder Bush's Gulf War!
>They were, after all, written by an
>eyewitness. Bzzzzzzt, sorry - not good enough. The 101st
>is on the way, bye-bye Saddam. Wonder who's next? ;-)
>
Some American troops, lots
of hapless Iraqi conscripts
and civilians, and possibly
a great many Israelis if
Saddam has managed to hide
a few working Scuds along
with the chem./bio. warfare
material. Right now, he's
contained because limiting
his atrocities to his own
citizens allows him to stay
in power. Once Iraq is
invaded, his only reason
for restraint goes away and
desperation sets in.
That said, I hope I'm wrong
and everything goes well,
because there's clearly no
stopping it!
Tung-Sol
heart liberals will finally have something to cry about.
And all their whining won't change a thing.
You know, the good old USA is going to go ahead and do the HARD work,
AGAIN...And afterwards everybody will say,"hey those Americans are All
right".
"J. Janasov" <jkj...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Mxe1a.9951$sU1....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
Dave
"Tung-Sol" <Ye...@right.com> wrote in message
news:b245bd$18m922$1...@ID-180407.news.dfncis.de...
> Yup, by next week all these bleedin'
> heart liberals will finally have something to cry about.
> And all their whining won't change a thing.
> You know, the good old USA is going to go ahead and do the HARD work,
> AGAIN...And afterwards everybody will say,"hey those Americans are All
> right".
Yeah, and imagine if we did nothing to remove such an obvious threat, these
same people would be the first to damn the US when their neighborhood or
country got hit with a terrorist attack and Saddam's involvement was
uncovered. "US Fiddles while Rome Burns"? Ptooey.
Bruce Morgen
And what will the warhawks
say when the Iraq invasion
actually *triggers* a wave
of terrorism and/or a germ-
or poison-laden Scud or two
hitting Israel or Turkey?
Dubya and Rummy are playing
right into the terrorists'
hands, because Saddam
Hussein is no threat until
an invasion corners him --
then he has nothing to
lose by unleashing terror
weapons and/or arming the
Islamicist fanatics who he
is known to detest.
Politics makes strange
bedfellows, desperation
stranger ones yet!
I can't tell you how much I
hope I'm wrong, but I get a
bad feeling about all this.
May whoever or whatever is
in charge of such things
protect our troops -- and
all the innocents caught in
the coming crossfire!
Dave
"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:rcde4v0j1advq4dgg...@4ax.com...
>
> And what will the warhawks
> say when the Iraq invasion
> actually *triggers* a wave
> of terrorism and/or a germ-
> or poison-laden Scud or two
> hitting Israel or Turkey?
That's entirely possible. The US cannot account for this, however, nor is it
to blame for Saddam's dementia. I guess if he gets hit hard enough, and we
sweep the bases clean, the likelihood of this happening is a bit less,
wouldn't you say? As far as Israel, I wouldn't lose any sleep at all over
Sharon and his whole party being collateral damage. Not one bit. YMMV. He's
as much of a grand humanitarian as Saddam. Good riddance, I say. Problem is,
as usual, the ones who really take it on the chin during any war are the
civvies who had nothing to do with any of this BS.
> Dubya and Rummy are playing
> right into the terrorists'
> hands, because Saddam
> Hussein is no threat until
> an invasion corners him --
That's not true and you know it. The biggest reason that we have to invade
to take him out is the very existence of that threat in the first place. If
we left him alone, he'd still be a threat, a bigger one at that, given time
to develop more goodies and plan for their delivery. That threat is implicit
in his willingess to lie to us and inspectors, hide his arsenal, and
generally hamper the process of his disarmament, which he is clearly doing.
He violated an agreement he himself made with the UN, and they're still
waffling around about it, trying to either force optimism or give Saddam
time to bury it deeper. We are being dicked around. The UN has nothing to
lose, neither does France, whom we should cut all diplomatic ties with. We
do. End of story.
> then he has nothing to
> lose by unleashing terror
> weapons and/or arming the
> Islamicist fanatics who he
> is known to detest.
> Politics makes strange
> bedfellows, desperation
> stranger ones yet!
Be easier on him and everyone else if he just played ball like he should,
stepped down and buggered off...we all know THAT ain't gonna happen...so
here we are.
> I can't tell you how much I
> hope I'm wrong, but I get a
> bad feeling about all this.
Yep, me too...if I'm right the repercussions of this event will snowball
into something very big and ugly...funny how I always liked to discount Fate
and Destiny until I see it unfolding in front of my eyes. Ah, well, this too
shall pass...
John Carville
> And afterwards everybody will say,"hey those Americans are All right".
And the guy gets the girl, and they all live happily ever after? Dream
on. I believe they've reissued guidelines on how to apply for a US
passport. Maybe you should give it a try some time.
Meanwhile, Lord Haw-Haw mumbled predictably:
> 'And does the fact that unattributed quotes were used in the Downing Street document make them less than true? They were, after all, written by an eyewitness.'
Does the fact that the material was written and based on observations
over 11 years ago make it less reliable in terms of describing the
current situation? Ehhhh..... Helloooooo?
Also, I can't help recalling how many times Big Daddy Bush used the
tearful 'eyewitness' accounts of the grief-stricken Kuwaiti nurse -
sorry, daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the USA - to justify his
big outing back in 1990-91. Babies pulled out of incubators, my ass!
And you think King George I didn't know that she was working for Hill
& Knowlton? Hello Santa Claus!!!
Hey, let's not forget those promised US satellite pictures of tank
buildups on the Iraqi-Saudi border, the satellite pictures (and tank
buildups) that DID NOT EXIST, as was later established by satellite
pictures from a commercial satellite obtained by an investigative
journalist (hehe... remember investigative journalism, back in the
days before it was ALL PR? How quaint!).
So who's the kneejerk this time, O Vacuous Tube?
All the same, the Empty Vassal continues:
'Bzzzzzzt, sorry - not good enough. The 101st is on the way, bye-bye
Saddam.'
And from there on in it's all just one big
chopper-parade-cum-Rambo-rerun to vicariously wash away the pain of
the Vietnam debacle. Poor old valvie.... Somebody cracked the glass
and it just won't stop leaking.
JC
Bruce Morgen
>
>"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:rcde4v0j1advq4dgg...@4ax.com...
>>
>> And what will the warhawks
>> say when the Iraq invasion
>> actually *triggers* a wave
>> of terrorism and/or a germ-
>> or poison-laden Scud or two
>> hitting Israel or Turkey?
>
>That's entirely possible. The US cannot account for this,
When you extend you military
power that far, you must
"account for this."
>however, nor is it
>to blame for Saddam's dementia.
Obviously.
>I guess if he gets hit hard enough, and we
>sweep the bases clean, the likelihood of this happening is a bit less,
>wouldn't you say? As far as Israel, I wouldn't lose any sleep at all over
>Sharon and his whole party being collateral damage. Not one bit. YMMV. He's
>as much of a grand humanitarian as Saddam. Good riddance, I say. Problem is,
>as usual, the ones who really take it on the chin during any war are the
>civvies who had nothing to do with any of this BS.
Exactly -- in Israel, Iraq
itself and, post 9/11, even
here!
>
>> Dubya and Rummy are playing
>> right into the terrorists'
>> hands, because Saddam
>> Hussein is no threat until
>> an invasion corners him --
>
>That's not true and you know it.
I know no such thing and
neither do you -- we both
depend on what we hear
and read in the media.
Saddam Hussein remains in
power because he has not
been an overt problem for
his region or the world
for over ten years -- he's
contained because he lives
under a microscope. Once
his grip on power is
threatened, he no longer
has anything to lose by
using with Dubya and Rummy
insist he has!
>The biggest reason that we have to invade
>to take him out is the very existence of that threat in the first place. If
>we left him alone, he'd still be a threat, a bigger one at that, given time
>to develop more goodies and plan for their delivery.
The best way to prevent
this is to keep up the
high-profile scrutiny --
as long as he can remain
in power, he won't risk
that power by using the
whatever bio./chem. stuff
he has, once he's
cornered he has nothing
to lose by unleashing
everything he's got.
>That threat is implicit
>in his willingess to lie to us and inspectors, hide his arsenal, and
>generally hamper the process of his disarmament, which he is clearly doing.
I agree that these are his
tactics, but they don't
represent a threat while
he's under international
scrutiny.
>He violated an agreement he himself made with the UN, and they're still
>waffling around about it, trying to either force optimism or give Saddam
>time to bury it deeper. We are being dicked around. The UN has nothing to
>lose, neither does France, whom we should cut all diplomatic ties with. We
>do. End of story.
Childish on your part and
theirs. It's becoming
clear the Dubya and Rummy
want to invade no matter
what concessions Iraq
makes. You don't think
they're going to commit to
a $100 billion deployment
and then pull out, do you?
>
>> then he has nothing to
>> lose by unleashing terror
>> weapons and/or arming the
>> Islamicist fanatics who he
>> is known to detest.
>> Politics makes strange
>> bedfellows, desperation
>> stranger ones yet!
>
>Be easier on him and everyone else if he just played ball like he should,
>stepped down and buggered off...
I couldn't agree more -- but
he's not the type to let go.
>we all know THAT ain't gonna happen...so
>here we are.
>
>> I can't tell you how much I
>> hope I'm wrong, but I get a
>> bad feeling about all this.
>
>Yep, me too...if I'm right the repercussions of this event will snowball
>into something very big and ugly...funny how I always liked to discount Fate
>and Destiny until I see it unfolding in front of my eyes. Ah, well, this too
>shall pass...
So will a big kidney stone,
but that doesn't mean it's
isn't going to hurt -- a
lot.
Lord Valve
John Carville wrote:
> 'Bzzzzzzt, sorry - not good enough. The 101st is on the way, bye-bye
> Saddam.'
>
> And from there on in it's all just one big
> chopper-parade-cum-Rambo-rerun to vicariously wash away the pain of
> the Vietnam debacle. Poor old valvie.... Somebody cracked the glass
> and it just won't stop leaking.
>
> JC
DO something about it. ROFLMBFAO!
Lord Valve
American
RonSonic
wrote:
>
>And what will the warhawks
>say when the Iraq invasion
>actually *triggers* a wave
>of terrorism and/or a germ-
>or poison-laden Scud or two
>hitting Israel or Turkey?
Don't those not exist?
>Dubya and Rummy are playing
>right into the terrorists'
>hands, because Saddam
>Hussein is no threat until
>an invasion corners him --
>then he has nothing to
>lose by unleashing terror
>weapons and/or arming the
>Islamicist fanatics who he
>is known to detest.
But he doesn't have those, isn't that the story?
>Politics makes strange
>bedfellows, desperation
>stranger ones yet!
So we should wait until he has more of them? Or just until he gets a
little less stable.
>I can't tell you how much I
>hope I'm wrong, but I get a
>bad feeling about all this.
>May whoever or whatever is
>in charge of such things
>protect our troops -- and
>all the innocents caught in
>the coming crossfire!
That'd be God, most people say. And yes it's a legitimate request as I
understand such things.
Ron
Delenda est Carthago
Bruce Morgen
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:26:57 -0500, Bruce Morgen <edi...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>And what will the warhawks
>>say when the Iraq invasion
>>actually *triggers* a wave
>>of terrorism and/or a germ-
>>or poison-laden Scud or two
>>hitting Israel or Turkey?
>
>Don't those not exist?
I don't know either way
and apparently neither
does Dubya. The pending
invasion seems to be a
big gamble that
he doesn't, justified by
the contention that he
does -- very odd
reasoning!
>
>>Dubya and Rummy are playing
>>right into the terrorists'
>>hands, because Saddam
>>Hussein is no threat until
>>an invasion corners him --
>>then he has nothing to
>>lose by unleashing terror
>>weapons and/or arming the
>>Islamicist fanatics who he
>>is known to detest.
>
>But he doesn't have those, isn't that the story?
I'm not interested in "the
story" from either Rummy
or Saddam Hussein -- before
I commit a quarter-million
troops to combat, I want a
damned good idea of what
they'll be up against and
at this point we apparently
don't know.
>
>>Politics makes strange
>>bedfellows, desperation
>>stranger ones yet!
>
>So we should wait until he has more of them?
There's little evidence
that anyone else in the
region, including Bin
Laden's boys, want
anything to do with
Saddam Hussein -- but
once he feels cornered,
anything can happen!
>Or just until he gets a
>little less stable.
>
I don't know anyone "a
little less stable"
than Saddam Hussein,
unless it's the current
U.S. Attorney General.
:-)
>>I can't tell you how much I
>>hope I'm wrong, but I get a
>>bad feeling about all this.
>>May whoever or whatever is
>>in charge of such things
>>protect our troops -- and
>>all the innocents caught in
>>the coming crossfire!
>
>That'd be God, most people say. And yes it's a legitimate request as I
>understand such things.
>
I'm glad we agree, Ron.
Lord Valve
RonSonic wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:26:57 -0500, Bruce Morgen <edi...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >And what will the warhawks
> >say when the Iraq invasion
> >actually *triggers* a wave
> >of terrorism and/or a germ-
> >or poison-laden Scud or two
> >hitting Israel or Turkey?
>
> Don't those not exist?
Ooooops...those must be the ones Saddamrecently authorized his field
commaders to
retaliate with if attacked by US troops.
You know - the ones he hasn't got.
>
>
> >Dubya and Rummy are playing
> >right into the terrorists'
> >hands, because Saddam
> >Hussein is no threat until
> >an invasion corners him --
> >then he has nothing to
> >lose by unleashing terror
> >weapons and/or arming the
> >Islamicist fanatics who he
> >is known to detest.
>
> But he doesn't have those, isn't that the story?
No, we all know he doesn't have them.
As soon as we find them, we won't take
any pictures of them, so the frogs and
the krauts can keep saying We Told You
So.
>
>
> >Politics makes strange
> >bedfellows, desperation
> >stranger ones yet!
>
> So we should wait until he has more of them? Or just until he gets a
> little less stable.
He's not going to have any more of them,
because he's not using the equipment the
frogs and the krauts didn't sell him to
build them with. Not to mention that
sixty billion dollars worth of oil he didn't
sell to the frogs (while the UN didn't wink
and smirk) that they didn't buy. I don't
know why you're bothering to argue
about this - everyone knows Hussein
doesn't have any poison gas, no weaponized
diseases or nukes, and he's certainly not
going to give any of this stuff he doesn't
have to Al Qaida, which he's never heard
of and doesn't harbor the operatives of
in his mythical capital city of Bagdhad,
which doesn't exist either. Keeping all
of this in mind, no-one should get angry
at us when we put one of our imaginary
nukes up his non-existant ass.
Cyberchondriac
it's inevitable anyway that S.H. will arm terrorists with chemical, bio,
traditional, and, if left unchecked, eventually nuclear arms. I do believe
he has intentions to unleash these agents on us anyway, and has been biding
his time, working on the programs, seething with dreams of revenge for the
past 11 years.
I think it's better to bring it on now than later, when he's had the chance
to stock up and develop more and more, had more time to build more weapons,
more bunkers, and sell more to terrorists. I really don't think it's
totally avoidable. Procrastinating is even more dangerous.
Hitler's damage in the '40s would have been much less had Europe just seen
him for what he was and committed to the fact that war was inevitable back
in '38 or '39. They didn't, and as a result, a lot more people died than
would have. In trying to save peace, they just made it worse.
It's not even a matter of "containment" anymore because that strategy is
totally irrelevant - we're not worried so much about a direct conflict or
strike from Iraq, in the classic sense of war, but his underground
involvement with terrorisim, which would provide him with deniability while
killing untold numbers of us. In this likely scenario, he has nothing to
lose anyway.
We don't like war, we don't want war, but to those of us supporting this
effort, we recognize that it's unavoidable. Better to face it now.
(Just to add, what absolutely floors me is when someone makes the argument
that he has no "delivery" system. People who make this particular claim
obviously learned nothing from 9-11 and should be regarded as mentally
incompetent.)
-Cyb
"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:rcde4v0j1advq4dgg...@4ax.com...
>
Bruce Morgen
>While it's entirely possible this would open up a big can of worms, I think
>it's inevitable anyway that S.H. will arm terrorists with chemical, bio,
>traditional, and, if left unchecked, eventually nuclear arms. I do believe
>he has intentions to unleash these agents on us anyway, and has been biding
>his time, working on the programs, seething with dreams of revenge for the
>past 11 years.
You don't understand the
psychology of bullies.
They don't pick on
anyone unless they think
they can get away with
it. The "intentions" of
a tyrant always begin
with holding on to power
in his own realm --
that's why he hasn't
"unleashed" anything for
over a decade, because
that would be the end of
his power and probably
his life.
It's when that power is
about to end regardless
of what is "unleashed"
that such a bully/tyrant
becomes truly dangerous
-- until then, such
people are a danger only
to the unfortunate
people they tyrannize.
>I think it's better to bring it on now than later, when he's had the chance
>to stock up and develop more and more, had more time to build more weapons,
>more bunkers, and sell more to terrorists.
There's is no convincing
evidence that Iraq has
sold or given even a
single AK-47 "to
terrorists." The quasi-
fascist Arab nationalism
of Baathists like Saddam
Hussein is antithetical
to the Islamicst
fanaticism of the Bin
Laden crowd -- but that
won't stop the fanatics
from using an invasion
of Iraq as a tool to
convince even more
Muslims to hate America,
and that is the real
danger of Dummy and
Rummy's rush toward war.
>I really don't think it's
>totally avoidable. Procrastinating is even more dangerous.
>Hitler's damage in the '40s would have been much less had Europe just seen
>him for what he was and committed to the fact that war was inevitable back
>in '38 or '39. They didn't, and as a result, a lot more people died than
>would have. In trying to save peace, they just made it worse.
Saddam Hussein doesn't
have anything near a
Hitler's ambition -- he
couldn't even hold on
to Kuwait and hasn't
made even a hint of an
aggressive move toward
his neighbors since the
first Gulf War.
Hitler's appetite for
conquest was never
slapped down until there
was a full-scale world
war, Saddam Hussein's
was and he stays in
power only by being
relatively well-behaved.
Once we remove his only
reason to behave, then
he'll become truly
dangerous, but not
before.
>It's not even a matter of "containment" anymore because that strategy is
>totally irrelevant - we're not worried so much about a direct conflict or
>strike from Iraq, in the classic sense of war, but his underground
>involvement with terrorisim, which would provide him with deniability while
>killing untold numbers of us.
Powell and Blair have
failed to make the case
that Iraq is really a
clandestine bulwark of
terrorism. The
lifeblood of Al Quaeda
is Saudi money, not
Iraqi weapons.
>In this likely scenario, he has nothing to lose anyway.
He has a lot to lose if a
terrorist link can really
be established -- his
power!
>We don't like war, we don't want war, but to those of us supporting this
>effort, we recognize that it's unavoidable. Better to face it now.
>
War suddenly became
imperative and unavoidable
after Dubya & Co. couldn't
find Bin Laden, so they
are distracting us from
that failure (and from
the miserable economy and
Ashcroft's authoritarian
power grab at Justice) by
going after a bad guy who
was not in any way involved
with Stateside terrorism.
Effective politics, very
bad and dangerous policy!
>(Just to add, what absolutely floors me is when someone makes the argument
>that he has no "delivery" system. People who make this particular claim
>obviously learned nothing from 9-11 and should be regarded as mentally
>incompetent.)
>
Remember, tyrants hold on
to power first -- so, in
the face of military
superiority, they are
cowards. Fanatics are of
an entirely different ilk
because they are ready
and willing to die --
Saddam Hussein is a
power-hungry coward and
can easily be held in
check using his own fear.
Jeff Engelmann
>that he has no "delivery" system. People who make this particular claim
>obviously learned nothing from 9-11 and should be regarded as mentally
>incompetent.)
This has been so patently obvious to me from the start that I get really
frustrated when others don't/won't see it. Which raises a few questions:
1. Is Bush to blame for failing to make this abundantly clear? ("What, 9/11
not good enough for ya? I gotta draw a friggin' picture, too?") Or has the
news media failed to act responsibly in treating this as just another news
story, complete with enough mock objectivity to numb the mind of god?
2. Are opposition leaders (read: Daschle, Chirac, et al) really that cynical,
that they would risk a disastrous outcome for their own petty political gain?
Or are they simply that stupid/naive?
Discuss amongst yourselves...
Bruce Morgen
You're naive if you don't
see that this whole Iraq
adventure is entirely for
domestic political
consumption in the U.S.
With the economy in the
crapper and Bin Laden
apparently stil at large,
the only way Dubya gets a
second term is to be seen
as a war hero. The fact
that Saddam Hussein is a
liar and a throughgoing
bastard makes him a very
handy adversary, while
the Saudi underpinnings
of Al Quaeda remain
pretty much intact and
the danger of Stateside
terrorism persists and
will likely increase in
the wake of an invasion
of Iraq.
Dave
> "Dave" <sorry...@here.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >news:rcde4v0j1advq4dgg...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> And what will the warhawks
> >> say when the Iraq invasion
> >> actually *triggers* a wave
> >> of terrorism and/or a germ-
> >> or poison-laden Scud or two
> >> hitting Israel or Turkey?
> >
> >That's entirely possible. The US cannot account for this,
>
> When you extend you military
> power that far, you must
> "account for this."
Hmm, we wanted to set up some early line of protection for Turkey,
obviously, but the French pitched in to stop it...who's accounting for what
here?
> >however, nor is it
> >to blame for Saddam's dementia.
>
> Obviously.
>
> >I guess if he gets hit hard enough, and we
> >sweep the bases clean, the likelihood of this happening is a bit less,
> >wouldn't you say? As far as Israel, I wouldn't lose any sleep at all over
> >Sharon and his whole party being collateral damage. Not one bit. YMMV.
He's
> >as much of a grand humanitarian as Saddam. Good riddance, I say. Problem
is,
> >as usual, the ones who really take it on the chin during any war are the
> >civvies who had nothing to do with any of this BS.
>
> Exactly -- in Israel, Iraq
> itself and, post 9/11, even
> here!
Yep. No argument there. And the whole region. If I'm right, the whole world,
even...
> >> Dubya and Rummy are playing
> >> right into the terrorists'
> >> hands, because Saddam
> >> Hussein is no threat until
> >> an invasion corners him --
> >
> >That's not true and you know it.
>
> I know no such thing and
> neither do you -- we both
> depend on what we hear
> and read in the media.
Not always. Maybe you do (perhaps a more bleeding-heart liberal paper than
the one I'm reading...) I have family and friends close to the situation.
And my gut instinct tells me Saddam would (ahem) "lose" some of this stuff
surreptitiously to some militant sect so they could do his dirty work for
him; you yourself have stated this possibility. To think he wouldn't do it
anyway even if we did leave him alone is a naive and dangerous assumption,
and not concurrent with proven facts about his (lack of) character. Would
you bet your life and the lives of your loved ones on this assumption?
Didn't think so.
> Saddam Hussein remains in
> power because he has not
> been an overt problem for
Key word: "overt". Cancer isn't necessarily an "overt" problem until it's
too late...neither is atherosclerosis or Ebola Zaire.You were saying?
> his region or the world
> for over ten years -- he's
> contained because he lives
> under a microscope.
Tell that to the Kurds. Obviously that microscope cannot see every dark
corner, now, can it?
Once
> his grip on power is
> threatened, he no longer
> has anything to lose by
> using with Dubya and Rummy
> insist he has!
He does have it. He's manufacturing and stockpiling it, and doing his best
to hide it and obstruct efforts leading to discovery of its whereabouts. You
can insist he ain't, but this is just rose-colored optimism.
> >The biggest reason that we have to invade
> >to take him out is the very existence of that threat in the first place.
If
> >we left him alone, he'd still be a threat, a bigger one at that, given
time
> >to develop more goodies and plan for their delivery.
>
> The best way to prevent
> this is to keep up the
> high-profile scrutiny --
The French (Chameleon Bonaparte, anyway) seem to think so, too. I think we'd
have to be up his ass 24-7, and this simply might not be a practical
solution...invasion *may be* cheaper and far more effective in the long run.
So you think we should babysit him until he kicks off or decides to slink
off into the underbrush, while he's funding and otherwise supporting
terrorist groups, izzat it? Why waste the time. Get him out of there. Maybe
if we decided that this monitoring was France's responsibility, and they'd
be held accountable for any slippage thru the cracks, they'd go for this?
Why do I doubt it so much?
> as long as he can remain
> in power, he won't risk
> that power by using the
> whatever bio./chem. stuff
> he has,
Maybe not directly. But what's to stop some of his inventory finding its way
into other hands? Care to lay odds?
once he's
> cornered he has nothing
> to lose by unleashing
> everything he's got.
Ah, so you DO think he has it? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Does he have it or not? Quit waffling and get with the program.
> >That threat is implicit
> >in his willingess to lie to us and inspectors, hide his arsenal, and
> >generally hamper the process of his disarmament, which he is clearly
doing.
>
> I agree that these are his
> tactics, but they don't
> represent a threat while
> he's under international
> scrutiny.
Bullshit. Some of this stuff you can fit into your pocket, and it will kill
hundreds if not thousands if released "properly".
> >He violated an agreement he himself made with the UN, and they're still
> >waffling around about it, trying to either force optimism or give Saddam
> >time to bury it deeper. We are being dicked around. The UN has nothing to
> >lose, neither does France, whom we should cut all diplomatic ties with.
We
> >do. End of story.
>
> Childish on your part and
> theirs.
France has their own agenda. Clearly you are unaware of it. I'll let you in
on a little of it, just the tip of the iceberg, in an attempt to educate:
they have a sweetheart deal with Saddam for oil and it is therefore in their
interests to do exactly what they are doing now, regardless of what Saddam
might do against us, Israel, Kurdistan, Kuwait, Turkey, and Britain in the
future. Here is a link for you:
http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/09feb03si.html
I'm sure you will deny it as propaganda, right? If not (and I hope you are
smarter than that, you certainly seem it), this leaves little doubt as to
his intentions.
You were doing good up until when the ad hominem crap started pouring out of
your nose. Didactic rhetoric and personal affront is not an effective way to
convey your point, or are you just looking for a fight? Furthermore, it is
unclear who the "theirs" is you are referring to. Whereas I can fully
appreciate your moderate perspective (I would rather you were right,
actually, but I know better), I have no patience for your namecalling and
deliberate fence-sitting naivete. I think you're missing a few things here,
and perhaps it is time to clarify my position lest there be any
misunderstanding as to where I am coming from. I am a cynic, not a hawk. I
do not want war. I don't want it to happen at all. I am hoping against all
odds that this will be resolved with as little blood shed as possible. If I
thought for one minute that Saddam *might not* be up to no good, and that
the UN was actually achieving anything worthwhile other than stalling and
posturing, I'd be just as vociferous in my declamation of invasion, for all
the good it would do to change what will happen anyway. Clearly Saddam wants
to push things up until the eleventh hour, and is seriously testing his
limits. Therein lies his unwillingness to cooperate, and his potential for
further wrongdoing. Therefore, one way or another, that fucker has got to
go, pardonnez mon Francais.
It's becoming
> clear the Dubya and Rummy
> want to invade no matter
> what concessions Iraq
> makes.
And what concessions has Saddam made so far? Not many. He still thinks,
apparently, he is in a position to dictate terms to us. But what could they
do if he decides to co-operate unconditionally (FAT CHANCE!). You think they
are that mindlessly hawkish that they would cause that kind of international
embarrassment? Apparently so. I might agree with you re. Rummy, and Dubya
would no doubt enjoy his little sinecure of a typical Republican-style
economic panacea, but Powell is a bit more moderate and he's seen a few
things that:
a) he hasn't shared fully with the press, the public, or the UN
b) put a big bug up his ass
...but the evidence is still right out in the open, if you know where to
look.
You don't think
> they're going to commit to
> a $100 billion deployment
> and then pull out, do you?
Moot point, in'nit? Saddam won't cooperate anyway, and he and his allies
will still continue to orchestrate terror campaigns...I'd bet that
$100,000,000,000 on it. How would you like to spend it, cleaning up Iraq, or
cleaning up after a concerted attack of bioterrorism?
> >> then he has nothing to
> >> lose by unleashing terror
> >> weapons and/or arming the
> >> Islamicist fanatics who he
> >> is known to detest.
> >> Politics makes strange
> >> bedfellows, desperation
> >> stranger ones yet!
> >
> >Be easier on him and everyone else if he just played ball like he should,
> >stepped down and buggered off...
>
> I couldn't agree more -- but
> he's not the type to let go.
Nope. And in your admission of this, perhaps you think also he is the type
of dictator to live and let live, eh? Smells like a contradiction to me. I
think your vision of Saddam is a little unclear. Amazing how someone can
condemn the Dubya Shot Of Rummy in one breath and go to such lengths to
overlook the dark things lurking in Saddam's little rotting box of animal
crackers...that said, unfortunately we live in a world where technology has
evolved far faster than human nature; there are aspects of human nature that
are vicious, repellent, destructive, and abominable, and sometimes the only
way to rid the scenery of it is by application of superior force. That
sometimes means carpet-bombing the hell out of it until it is gone. BOOM!
Buh-bye. End of problem. They want to kill in the name of Allah, perhaps
Allah will reward them when we send them to meet Him. And this applies
equally to Kim Jong Il. I hope he's next on the list for a little
application of corrective rehumanizing...
> >we all know THAT ain't gonna happen...so
> >here we are.
> >
> >> I can't tell you how much I
> >> hope I'm wrong, but I get a
> >> bad feeling about all this.
> >
> >Yep, me too...if I'm right the repercussions of this event will snowball
> >into something very big and ugly...funny how I always liked to discount
Fate
> >and Destiny until I see it unfolding in front of my eyes. Ah, well, this
too
> >shall pass...
>
> So will a big kidney stone,
> but that doesn't mean it's
> isn't going to hurt -- a
> lot.
Absolutely. I sincerely hope this can be resolved without invasion, but it
is increasingly becoming clear to me that it cannot. YMMV.
Here is another link for you, that outlines exactly what will happen when
(not "if") there is no headway made on this, and the shape of things to
come:
http://grouchymedia.iscg.net/grouchymedia/GrouchyMedia_Die_Terrorists_Die_Sm
all.asf
and in higher resolution:
http://grouchymedia.iscg.net/grouchymedia/GrouchyMedia_Die_Terrorists_Die_La
rge.asf
Caution: content has strong language, mature themes, and violent imagery of
military action within, as well as some classic Ampeg and Marshall demented
metal torture...(this oughta practically GUARANTEE a few hits...)
Frankly I'm glad we have a president with a pair big enough to stand up to
this nonsense. For whatever I do not respect of his domestic policies, and
his shell-headed clique's skewed visions of socioeconomics, I support his
hardball politics with Iraq, because they are necessary, and long overdue. I
think Al Gore would have reinvented a rock big enough to hide behind by now,
impossible to say for sure, though.
steve eaton
"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message news:agvg4vol86at5eg7n...@4ax.com...
> "Cyberchondriac" <uhu...@nonono.com> wrote:
>
> >While it's entirely possible this would open up a big can of worms, I think
> >it's inevitable anyway that S.H. will arm terrorists with chemical, bio,
> >traditional, and, if left unchecked, eventually nuclear arms. I do believe
> >he has intentions to unleash these agents on us anyway, and has been biding
> >his time, working on the programs, seething with dreams of revenge for the
> >past 11 years.
>
> You don't understand the
> psychology of bullies.
> They don't pick on
> anyone unless they think
> they can get away with
> it. The "intentions" of
> a tyrant always begin
> with holding on to power
> in his own realm --
> that's why he hasn't
> "unleashed" anything for
> over a decade, because
> that would be the end of
> his power and probably
> his life.
That may be true unless the bully is a phsycotic.
didn't saddam attempt to assasinate Bush Sr.
when he was touring Kuwait after the Gulf war?
That indicates to me that he is not aware of
what he can and cannot get away with.
What did he figure would happen if he had
killed Bush?
War is inevitable with Saddam. He insists
on it.
Kindly leave the partisan bashing out
if you want to discuss the issue.
After all, there was Hill and Billy eh?
seriously, these petty little jabs don't
help a thing.
>
> >I really don't think it's
> >totally avoidable. Procrastinating is even more dangerous.
> >Hitler's damage in the '40s would have been much less had Europe just seen
> >him for what he was and committed to the fact that war was inevitable back
> >in '38 or '39. They didn't, and as a result, a lot more people died than
> >would have. In trying to save peace, they just made it worse.
>
> Saddam Hussein doesn't
> have anything near a
> Hitler's ambition --
And how would you know that?
> he
> couldn't even hold on
> to Kuwait and hasn't
> made even a hint of an
> aggressive move toward
> his neighbors since the
> first Gulf War.
> Hitler's appetite for
> conquest was never
> slapped down until there
> was a full-scale world
> war, Saddam Hussein's
> was and he stays in
> power only by being
> relatively well-behaved.
> Once we remove his only
> reason to behave, then
> he'll become truly
> dangerous, but not
> before.
You seem to be saying that only by the
US being on standby to attack, will Saddam
be contained. And it seems reasonable
to you to do this for how ling?
And billions of dollars, and 250,000 American soldiers stationed
next door. Forget it, the price of peace at all costs is too high.
Perhaps the French would care to pay for it?
John Carville
>
> DO something about it. ROFLMBFAO!
>
> Lord Valve
Try to draw fire away from the real questions as much as you like. We
can all see that you just avoided the issue. Sorry, but you don't set
me off that easily!
JC
Dave
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/aiff/bruces.aiff
"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:agvg4vol86at5eg7n...@4ax.com...
> "Cyberchondriac" <uhu...@nonono.com> wrote:
>
> >While it's entirely possible this would open up a big can of worms, I
think
> >it's inevitable anyway that S.H. will arm terrorists with chemical, bio,
> >traditional, and, if left unchecked, eventually nuclear arms. I do
believe
> >he has intentions to unleash these agents on us anyway, and has been
biding
> >his time, working on the programs, seething with dreams of revenge for
the
> >past 11 years.
And practicing here and there on Kurds when he can.
> You don't understand the
> psychology of bullies.
> They don't pick on
> anyone unless they think
> they can get away with
> it.
You are making a critical mistake in applying basic psychology to the
profile of a two-faced sadistic madman. Sodamn Insane.You need to look a
little deeper than this sophomoric playground psych 101. You need to
understand the fringes of psychopathology too, including chemical imbalance,
which I don't think you really have a handle on. Sure, that basic bully
component exists, but it's only part of a larger twisted pattern and your
reductionist (and that's putting it politely) view will in no way help you
to grasp the complexities of the big picture. So you're saying you can
second-guess Saddam, that it? Amazing...why aren't YOU in charge of all of
this?
The "intentions" of
> a tyrant always begin
> with holding on to power
> in his own realm --
So far, so good...
> that's why he hasn't
> "unleashed" anything for
> over a decade
Bullshit. Again: http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/09feb03si.html I guess
those dirty, rotten Kurds just want to get rid of him is all?
, because
> that would be the end of
> his power and probably
> his life.
It will indeed. It likely is about to be.
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrail.wav/better.wav
> It's when that power is
> about to end regardless
> of what is "unleashed"
> that such a bully/tyrant
> becomes truly dangerous
If that is allowed to happen, yes, very possibly. Not if we take him out
fast and get it over with, instead of rolling out the three-ring circus with
the grand fireworks display as a finale it could very well become.
Alternatively, he reverts to his cowardly nature and begs to be spared and
left alone or comped for his resignation like Manny Noriega...
> -- until then, such
> people are a danger only
> to the unfortunate
> people they tyrannize.
Gee, that's great. So let's just leave him there so he can continue to be
their problem and not ours. Right. Gotcha. And what happens when he runs out
of Kurds to gas? Any good ideas?
> >I think it's better to bring it on now than later, when he's had the
chance
> >to stock up and develop more and more, had more time to build more
weapons,
> >more bunkers, and sell more to terrorists.
Yep. http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrail.wav/warned1.wav
> There's is no convincing
> evidence that Iraq has
> sold or given even a
> single AK-47 "to
> terrorists." The quasi-
> fascist Arab nationalism
> of Baathists like Saddam
> Hussein is antithetical
> to the Islamicst
> fanaticism of the Bin
> Laden crowd -- but that
> won't stop the fanatics
> from using an invasion
> of Iraq as a tool to
> convince even more
> Muslims to hate America,
> and that is the real
> danger of Dummy and
> Rummy's rush toward war.
Anti-Western sentiment will happen anyway. Don't you get it? All we are
doing is shovelling shit against the tide.We are talking about a pattern of
destruction that was established thousands of years before American culture,
which has not been helped one bit by our historically embarrassing Mideast
policies. Mr. Peanut Farmer had his shot to help fix it awhile ago, but he
dropped the ball royally. Instead we got lines at the pumps and a hostage
crisis. They already hate us (maybe rightfully so) basically because they
see that we are the bigger bully who is essentially giving Sharon (a weaker
bully) free rein to walk all over them, and that is where the jihad
mentality is easily reinforced. If we are going to be at all instrumental in
promoting peace in the Middle East, we have one long row to hoe, sure, I
agree invasion will be a setback but possibly it could end up working out
for the best depending on how we play our cards, even if we do play the Ace
of Spades in the first round. There is also another big factor. Tyrants like
Saddam need to maintain power and their illusions of holy righteousness by
maintaining a powerful enemy as a constant threat, sort of like McCarthyism
(the Red under the Bed), Islam, Christianity, hell, any ideological
construct with a devil figure or Shaitan. We are their Shaitan. A reason
their "benevolent protectorate" should continue. It is ideological rape,
from a twisted demagogue. Speaking of which, when are you going to stop
preaching behind a jaundiced miasma of leftist partisan politics and stop
parroting that rag you're reading's yellow-journalist editorializing? Forget
what I said earlier about didactic rhetoric, personal attacks and all that.
I warned you to surrender these buried leftist inclinations to the
inspectors while you had time! I'm getting my hands really dirty now. Kid
gloves are off. No more Mr. Nice Guy. You are...all done. Service
disconnected, Mr. Struthio Camelus.
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/yournick.wav
http://www.mahlers.com/womp.htm Here's a buddy of yours. Am I a good yenta
matchmaker or what? Happy nesting. Go hatch a plot somewhere, willya?
Sheesh...
> >I really don't think it's
> >totally avoidable. Procrastinating is even more dangerous.
> >Hitler's damage in the '40s would have been much less had Europe just
seen
> >him for what he was and committed to the fact that war was inevitable
back
> >in '38 or '39. They didn't, and as a result, a lot more people died than
> >would have. In trying to save peace, they just made it worse.
>
> Saddam Hussein doesn't
> have anything near a
> Hitler's ambition
Don't bet on it. He hasn't been granted the means, that's all. Question:
exactly how much time have you spent talking with the guy to figure out his
mindset? Day or two? One torrid night in bed during a layover in Baghdad?
Hour? Minute? 1-900-Sad-Damn? So this is just more baseless speculation on
your part, to add to the growing pile, is what the upshot is, right?
-- he
> couldn't even hold on
> to Kuwait and hasn't
> made even a hint of an
> aggressive move toward
> his neighbors since the
> first Gulf War.
And why do you think that is, pray tell? Because he knows what we will do
again. What we are about to do now.
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrail.wav/death_awaits.wav
> Hitler's appetite for
> conquest was never
> slapped down until there
> was a full-scale world
> war, Saddam Hussein's
> was and he stays in
> power only by being
> relatively well-behaved.
That's right. And he's lately been a ba-a-a-ad boy, and now it is time for
his spanking...
> Once we remove his only
> reason to behave, then
> he'll become truly
> dangerous, but not
> before.
And you know this because...??? OMFG, that's rich! FOMFCROTFLMAO! By your
logic, a gun with a round in the chamber is only truly dangerous with the
safety off. He's always been dangerous.You mean you can sit there blithely
with total assurance of your assumptions? Would you bet your own life on
them? Talk is cheap...hope it helps you sleep.
> >It's not even a matter of "containment" anymore because that strategy is
> >totally irrelevant - we're not worried so much about a direct conflict
or
> >strike from Iraq, in the classic sense of war, but his underground
> >involvement with terrorisim, which would provide him with deniability
while
> >killing untold numbers of us.
Exactly the point http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/aiff/bossman.aiff
is entirely missing.
> Powell and Blair have
> failed to make the case
> that Iraq is really a
> clandestine bulwark of
> terrorism. The
> lifeblood of Al Quaeda
> is Saudi money, not
> Iraqi weapons.
Remember what you said about getting info thru the media? You are about to
eat those words. Open wide. Oopsy-daisy, right, there we go, down the
hatch.Well, have you seen balance sheets of al-Qaeda yearly budget? Ledgers?
Invoices? Follow the paper trail yourself, did you? Why do I bother?
> >In this likely scenario, he has nothing to lose anyway.
>
> He has a lot to lose if a
> terrorist link can really
> be established -- his
> power!
He is going to lose it anyway. Dumbya, Darth Rumsfeld, Powderhorn Powell,
and Evil Muppet Ashcroft all sez so. And so do I. Therefore it will happen.
Any questions?
> >We don't like war, we don't want war, but to those of us supporting this
> >effort, we recognize that it's unavoidable. Better to face it now.
...so we can get it over with, go home, and get on with our lives already...
> War suddenly became
> imperative and unavoidable
> after Dubya & Co. couldn't
> find Bin Laden, so they
> are distracting us from
> that failure
Really? That all that's going on here? Glad you exposed the real truth
behind it all <snicker>. An' I thought their tubes were just biased a little
on the hot side, that's all...
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrail.wav/dontwant.wav
(and from
> the miserable economy and
> Ashcroft's authoritarian
> power grab at Justice)
Wait until Poindexter (remember him from the Raygun years lying under oath)
wraps up his surveillance software package for distributed computing for the
HSA...hope you and your militia cohorts have nothing to hide...
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrail.wav/violence.wav (hehe)
by
> going after a bad guy who
> was not in any way involved
> with Stateside terrorism.
And you can prove this? Maybe you should have been John Gotti's lawyer?
> Effective politics, very
> bad and dangerous policy!
Could be. Could also be they see a legitimate threat that has been a thorn
in their side since Pappy was in office. Could just as easily also be that
conspiracy theory militia rag hoopie you're smoking chapter and verse out of
has addled your reason beyond recovery, however...
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrailPeasants.wav/anyprgs.wav
> >(Just to add, what absolutely floors me is when someone makes the
argument
> >that he has no "delivery" system. People who make this particular claim
> >obviously learned nothing from 9-11 and should be regarded as mentally
> >incompetent.)
> >
> Remember, tyrants hold on
> to power first -- so, in
> the face of military
> superiority, they are
> cowards. Fanatics are of
> an entirely different ilk
> because they are ready
> and willing to die --
With you so far...then you hadda go and blow it all...
> Saddam Hussein is a
> power-hungry coward and
> can easily be held in
> check using his own fear.
You're assuming way too much. Why don't YOU go down there with a whip and a
chair then if it's so easy. Put your money where your mouth is (guarantee
you'll be gargling and rinsing repeatedly in short order). Gotta love this
Tuesday morning armchair quarterbacking. Besides, tyrants cultivate fanatics
like flies on shit. Where do you draw the line? Time to bust out the bivvy
shovel and bury the whole mess. Any further questions?
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrail.wav/nomore.wav ;
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrail.wav/taunt.wav !
Lord Valve
John Carville wrote:
Mr. Carville thinks I actually *care* what some
commie cunt on the other side of the world thinks.
<yawn>
Lord Valve
American
nuke
Bruce wrote:
>You're naive if you don't
>see that this whole Iraq
>adventure is entirely for
>domestic political
>consumption in the U.S.
>With the economy in the
>crapper and Bin Laden
>apparently stil at large,
>the only way Dubya gets a
>second term is to be seen
>as a war hero.
I keep seeing this argument posed by the usual left-wing types.
However, does it stand to reason?
1. There is *plenty* of news coverage of the economy. I did a survery of a
number of newspapers for the last 10 days worth of coverage. Economic news
actually dominates over the Iraq story. (Shuttle news actually topped all other
since the incident). So that isn't working.
2. Bush senior won the war, famously. Under a lot clearer circumstances with
full international support. Yet he was not re-elected. I'd wager that the
current president Bush is aware of this. So that isn't working.
3. There is demonstrable evidence of continued NBC weapons development in Iraq.
Powell's presentation is certainly the tip of the iceberg of the intelligence
information.
4. There is evidence of financial and other connections between Iraq and at
least some important factions of al-Quaeda.
5. A pattern of non-cooperation is well established with Iraq and the UN
weapons inspection process.
6. Iraq's cooperation to this point has only been proffered in light of a
credible threat of war.
Therefore I conclude your position is bunk, the Iraq conflict is not "entirely
for domestic political consumption" with the only purpose a second term for
Bush.
Wars are not popular with the American public and generally never have been.
Having, even winning a war by miraculous margins is not a free ticket to
re-election.
--
Dr. Nuketopia
Spam filtering is off. AO-Hell catches most of it now.
Bruce Morgen
>
>Bruce wrote:
>>You're naive if you don't
>>see that this whole Iraq
>>adventure is entirely for
>>domestic political
>>consumption in the U.S.
>>With the economy in the
>>crapper and Bin Laden
>>apparently stil at large,
>>the only way Dubya gets a
>>second term is to be seen
>>as a war hero.
>
>I keep seeing this argument posed by the usual left-wing types.
>
>However, does it stand to reason?
>
>1. There is *plenty* of news coverage of the economy. I did a survery of a
>number of newspapers for the last 10 days worth of coverage. Economic news
>actually dominates over the Iraq story. (Shuttle news actually topped all other
>since the incident). So that isn't working.
Media placement doesn't
matter. War always trumps
any domestic news, and it
makes people feel unpatriotic
and unsupportive of our
troops to oppose a wartime
president.
>
>2. Bush senior won the war, famously. Under a lot clearer circumstances with
>full international support. Yet he was not re-elected. I'd wager that the
>current president Bush is aware of this. So that isn't working.
Dubya has the advantage of
the very real terrorist
threat to keep the war
drums beating long after a
successful Iraq invasion
-- and post-war occupation
of Iraq will keep the war
mentality going long after
overt hostilities have
ceased. Daddy's war
wasn't a political ploy,
Dubya's is.
>
>3. There is demonstrable evidence of continued NBC weapons development in Iraq.
>Powell's presentation is certainly the tip of the iceberg of the intelligence
>information.
Powell's presentation was
earnest and rhetorically
effective, but rife with
vagueness and references
to anachronistic
plagiarism that is the
subject of this thread.
It too was essentially
preaching to the choir
for domestic consumption
-- it had very little at
the U.N. and the rest of
the world.
>
>4. There is evidence of financial and other connections between Iraq and at
>least some important factions of al-Quaeda.
So far, only vague
insinuations. Frankly,
I think the Saddam Hussein
Osama Bin Laden axis is in
fact being created by the
current invasion threat --
absent a common enemy,
Baathism (secular facism
that embraces much of
western culture) and
Wahabbism (religious
fanaticism based on Islam
circa 1300 AD that rejects
everything western other
than weaponry) are
antithetical and natural
competitors for the
attention of the Arab
masses.
>
>5. A pattern of non-cooperation is well established with Iraq and the UN
>weapons inspection process.
Agreed. Saddam Hussein
is an evasive bastard
and a murderous tyrant
who will do anything he
can to stay in power.
>
>6. Iraq's cooperation to this point has only been proffered in light of a
>credible threat of war.
See above.
>
>Therefore I conclude your position is bunk, the Iraq conflict is not "entirely
>for domestic political consumption" with the only purpose a second term for
>Bush.
OK, opinion noted.
>
>Wars are not popular with the American public and generally never have been.
That's why this one has
been sold so hard and long.
>Having, even winning a war by miraculous margins is not a free ticket to
>re-election.
Agreed, but under current
conditions it's a credible,
viable tactic to that end.
John Carville
>
> Mr. Carville thinks I actually *care* what some
> commie cunt on the other side of the world thinks.
> <yawn>
>
Willie Witless in Colorado might do well to bear in mind that many
people here actually be pleased if they heard a lot less of what he
*thinks* too. In the meantime, if he is going to continue to bray like
a donkey with a carrot stuffed where the sun don't shine, he's gonna
have to accept that people may wish to come with a counterweight to
his vicious redneck hatespeak.
Why not do us all a favour? Forget the windows... Tape your mouth!
:-D
JC
Tung-Sol
"John Carville" <joker...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:29f76996.03021...@posting.google.com...
> "Tung-Sol" <Ye...@right.com> wrote:
>
> > And afterwards everybody will say,"hey those Americans are All right".
>
> And the guy gets the girl, and they all live happily ever after? Dream
> on. I believe they've reissued guidelines on how to apply for a US
> passport. Maybe you should give it a try some time.
What the fuck do I need a passport for?
I 'm a proud American Veteran.
They're gonna let me live here for the rest of my life.
Free Medical to boot.
Fuck you and the Camel you rode in on.
John Carville
>
> What the fuck do I need a passport for?
> I 'm a proud American Veteran.
> They're gonna let me live here for the rest of my life.
> Free Medical to boot.
> Fuck you and the Camel you rode in on.
LMAO!!!! They must have lax height restrictions in the US armed
forces. My comment wasn't exactly flying at a high altitude but it
still went straight over!
Let me spell it out for ya then. Get out a bit more, and not just when
you're wearing a uniform and carrying a gun. You'll soon find out just
how likely that the world's gonna say that 'those merkins are
allright'. They're not. It just ain't gonna happen. Huge portions of
the world's population are simply fed up with US belligerence,
warmongering, aggression and downright hypocrisy. I think you'll find
out just what the rest of the world thinks about your current invasion
plans if you take a look at coverage of the demonstrations around the
world this Saturday. Or you would if you had a more honest press....
Better still. Forget the passport. Stay at home!
JC
Tung-Sol
Bingo.
I'm where I want to be. There is absolutely nothing for me
In any country that I have ever seen Besides America.
Still got that camel?
Lord Valve
Mr. Carville's meal ticket is punched daily by
communists. His outfit is solidly in bed with
the UN (UNESCO, etc.), the organization
which has recently put Khadaffi in charge
of human rights, and Hussein in charge of
disarmament. His vicious anti-American
screeds are done *for money* - this puts
him in the same camp as TamPaxDC,
i.e., a person who is paid by an organization
with an anti-American agenda. Fuck him
and the flea he rode in on.
Lord Valve
American
Lord Valve
An apparatchik decreed:
> take a look at coverage of the demonstrations around the
> world this Saturday.
Sorry, I'll be at the pro-war rally on the west steps
of the Colorado Capitol building - no time for
leftwing TV viewing, thank you.
Lord Valve
American
TimePixDC
>From: "Tung-Sol" Ye...@right.com
>Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2003 12:52 PM
>There is absolutely nothing for me In any country that I have ever seen
Besides >America.
Ah. The Ugly American.
TimePixDC
>From: Lord Valve detr...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2003 2:59 PM
>His vicious anti-American screeds are done *for money*
As opposed to YOUR anti-American screeds that are only done for love....
TimePixDC
>Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2003 3:06 PM
>I'll be at the pro-war rally on the west steps
>of the Colorado Capitol building
Make sure that you and your buddy don't get too cold.
steve eaton
"John Carville" <joker...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:29f76996.03021...@posting.google.com...
Carville, do you even own an amp?
I got a better idea, why don't YOU get a passport, come and
visit, let me know I'll be happy to meet you at the airport, you crooked fuck.
Do you get paid by the word or by per sleazy lie?
Tung-Sol
Tung-Sol
"steve eaton" <steve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4lfqsk...@corp.supernews.com...
Oddly enough, I was going to ask that same question.
I don't think any of these idiots even play.
Lord Valve
The Repair Guy wrote:
> Lord Valve <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.prio.no/
> >http://www.prio.no/staff/john
> >
> >Mr. Carville's meal ticket is punched daily by communists.
> >His outfit is solidly in bed with the UN (UNESCO, etc.),
> >the organization which has recently put Khadaffi in charge
> >of human rights, and Hussein in charge of disarmament.
> >His vicious anti-American screeds are done *for money* -
> --snip--
>
> Sort of like how Ann Coulter writes for money, you mean?
Ms. Coulter does not post to AGA.
LV
Jeff Engelmann
>> out just what the rest of the world thinks about your current invasion
>> plans if you take a look at coverage of the demonstrations around the
>> world this Saturday. Or you would if you had a more honest press....
>>
>> Better still. Forget the passport. Stay at home!
>>
>> JC
>
>
>
>> Better still. Forget the passport. Stay at home!
>>
>> JC
And close the damned borders already.
Jeff Engelmann
>visit, let me know I'll be happy to meet you at the airport, you crooked
>fuck.
>Do you get paid by the word or by per sleazy lie?
>
>From: "steve eaton"
Hey Steve, let us know what time and which airport. We'll have a par-tay.
Jeff Engelmann
CHICKENSHIT
@See.Comment.Header.gmsociety.org (Emily Pasty)
>Date: 2/12/03 9:04 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <LR1LJEWO3766...@anonymous.poster>
>
>NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
>No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>Garsh, two of Load Toad's dickless wonders are planning to take their penis
>substitutes to the airport and "par-tay" with John. Har har.
>
You've really gotta quit hitting the gay porn sites. It seems to have left a
bad taste in your mouth.
Lord Valve
The Repair Guy wrote:
> And Carville does?
Do you actually *read* AGA, or do you just post here
for show? Carville's anti-American spew is all over
this NG. In fact, he's on this very thread four times - so
far. Newsreader working ok? I'm sure you can find it.
Lord Valve
American
John Carville
>
> > And afterwards everybody will say,"hey those Americans are All right".
> > >
> I'm where I want to be. There is absolutely nothing for me
> In any country that I have ever seen Besides America.
Say, how's the weather in Pleasantville? I guess that explains how you
manage to live in a fairytale in which everyone's gonna say 'hey those
merkins are allright'. But in the real world, the big part of it that
you generally need a passport to get to.... LMAO!!!!! I guess that's
why you're taping up your windows right now. So the light won't get in
to spoil the re-runs of the Waltons?
But why da fuck d'ya keep harping on about camels? Are you trying to
say that if I'm not with Bush I must be a member of al-Qaeda. Is that
what you're getting at? Shit Toto, I guess we're not in Kansas
anymore.... Good job you don't get around much these days. Could cause
serious cognitive dissonance if you step outside the city limits of
Pleasantville and discover that... shock horror... there are no camels
in Scandinavia (outside of zoos and circuses)!!!!! And, you don't have
to be an Arab to criticize US foreign policy, let alone a 'terrorist'.
You just have to open your eyes and ears and think a little bit for a
change. Too much work? Thank God for sport!
Of course, if you ask about the AK-47 and the headscarf under my
bed... ROFLMAO!!! I've also got a bag labelled 'swag' back from my
days as a burglar.... Damn! Must remember that North Americans are not
renowned for their sense of irony. If the Fourth Reich has it's way,
I'll probably end up in a gulag somewhere in Nevada in about 10 years'
time for even daring to make such jokes.
JC
Not with Bush
Not with the terrorists
John Carville
> > >
> Carville, do you even own an amp?
Marshall JMP 2204, Marshall Studio 15 and MESA Tremoverb at present
(plus an ENGL Tubetoner preamp that I use when I wanna go direct)
though I've been through a number of others over the years. You could
probably have found that out yourself if you wanted to. Does it answer
your question?
>
> I got a better idea, why don't YOU get a passport, come and
> visit, let me know I'll be happy to meet you at the airport, you crooked fuck.
> Do you get paid by the word or by per sleazy lie?
I have a passport, but I have little desire to visit the USA during
the current hysteria sweeping your country. Crooked fuck? Straight
fuck? Let's see. No, I don't just do the missionary position, and the
slight curving of my shaft simply adds to the stimulation in that
special zone, I've been told. Nothing but positive feedback on that
account. Plus, I heard it was pretty normal, though I haven't compared
it with others (maybe you have a better overview of such things). I
mean, shit, I'd be pretty concerned if I could hold a straight edge to
any part of my anatomy. We just ain't built that way, you know. I get
paid by the hour. Happy now?
JC
John Carville
>
> Oddly enough, I was going to ask that same question.
> I don't think any of these idiots even play.
It think it's more likely that some idiots don't know how to do a Google search.
JC
John Carville
> >I got a better idea, why don't YOU get a passport, come and
> >visit, let me know I'll be happy to meet you at the airport, you crooked
> >fuck.
>
Steve Eaton wrote:
>
> Hey Steve, let us know what time and which airport. We'll have a par-tay.
Spoken like true brownshirts. What kind of 'par-tay' did ya have in
mind, Jeff? A National Socialist German Workers Par-tay?
Oh, I forgot, Germany's not in favour with you guys anymore.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!
I think the Cheney-Bush junta has seriously miscalculated on Iraq.
People all around the world are starting to actually ask questions
about what the USA is doing in the world. Soon they're gonna be
looking at the whole election scandal again too. And I doubt that
there's ever been a time when more people in the world were realizing
just how many people in US administrations have backgrounds in the oil
and defence industries. Big mistake.... I guess the powers-that-be
will be looking to let Georgie-boy take a fall in the next election if
they don't manage to scrape through the current PR disaster. LOL!
Maybe the Democrats should start getting their act together....
John Carville
arse again.
These claims are just too ridiculous to merit serious attention. Did
you happen to spot any World Bank funding while you were there? Or a
few US foundations? No? Selective attention?
Is the UN a communist front now? Is UNESCO? The logic in your post is
seriously flawed, Lord Vacuum Tube. You aren't even that dumb, so you
know that too, yet you stoop to this to try to throw some shit around.
You losing faith in your own powers of argumentation? LOL! This is
pretty desperate stuff.... And this isn't the 1950s anymore.
JC
Not a merkin
John Carville
> Here Here.
Try 'Hear! Hear!'. You might appear a bit smarter, despite the rah-rah
skirt and pompoms.
JC
John Carville
Carville's anti-American spew is all over
> this NG. In fact, he's on this very thread four times - so
> far. Newsreader working ok? I'm sure you can find it.
>
> Lord Valve
> A merkin
Hello? I hadn't posted once in this thread at all when I read the
above comments. What are you talking about? Are you losing it, Empty
Vassal? And is *your* newsreader working ok? Have you forgotten:
'Referring to allegations of anti-Americanism, to use the obvious
example - and you're a coward if you dismiss it under some so-called
internet 'rule' because here it's very relevant - were the Germans who
criticized Hitler's regime anti-Germany? Or were they anti-Nazi? There
is a difference, and it should be pretty obvious to a person of even
average intelligence. Bear it in mind.'
Try to pay attention now!
JC
crow
> >"Tung-Sol" <Ye...@right.com> wrote in message
news:b2er7o$1brmpf$1...@ID-180407.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Here Here.
>
I guess we all know who's hole is being tongued here...
epp
John Carville
>
> >I'll be at the pro-war rally on the west steps
> >of the Colorado Capitol building
TimePix wrote:
>
> Make sure that you and your buddy don't get too cold.
LOL! Woolly Witless and his lonely crusade for TWAT! (The War Against
Terror, of course.... What did ya think I meant?) Maybe he'll be
wearing a TWAT T-shirt:
http://www.buy-tees.com/zoom.aspx?zoom=2234426. Photoshop anyone?
=:-D
JC
Not with Bush
Not with the terrorists
Definitely not with LV (is anybody?)
Greg D
I hereby apply for Administrative Director as advertised below:
http://www.prio.no/announcements/administrative_director.asp
I have all the qualifications needed: Human Resources, Finance, etc and am
familiar with the American computer technology you use on your web site
(ASP and Microsoft).
As for being able to speak Norwegian, I can't but I learn fast and
understand that all I have to do is simply add a well-placed "Jørg",
"fordelingen", "Krysstabeller" here and there and I'm home free.
As for peace, I'm all for it! "Give peace a chance", "I fall to pieces",
"Take another little piece of my heart"...
As for salary, I'm open. Anything over $250,000EU and 36 weeks of vacation
per year, as is the norm, will be acceptable.
Please direct all offers to my manager Lord Valve as he will screen each
for legitimacy.
Sincerely,
Greg
DBCooper41
>From: Lord Valve detr...@ix.netcom.com
>Lord Valve
>Amerkin
thanks lard vulva!!!!
you finally posted a link to a decent site. i hope you took the opportunity to
read about some of their wonderful projects.
what a great organization PRIO is!
Mr Carville should be extremely proud to be associated with such a group!!
hugs and kisses to your family. we missed them in church last sunday.
see ya saturday at the peace rally, son.
PEACE
Lord Valve
The Repair Guy wrote:
> Lord Valve <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >The Repair Guy wrote:
> --snip--
> >> >> Sort of like how Ann Coulter writes for money, you mean?
> >> >
> >> >Ms. Coulter does not post to AGA.
> >>
> >> And Carville does?
> >
> >Do you actually *read* AGA, or do you just post here
> >for show?
>
> Both. You?
>
> >Carville's anti-American spew is all over this NG. In fact,
> >he's on this very thread four times - so far. Newsreader
> >working ok? I'm sure you can find it.
>
> I just checked with Google, since I don't save everything.
> Carville posted ONCE to this thread (prior to your above
> post). Newsreader working OK?
>
> The Repair Guy
> http://repairguy.hypermart.net
I re-titled the thread in the middle. He has four posts on
top of the one I made. Yes, my newsreader works fine -
way better than Google, in fact.
LV
Bruce Morgen
Right, and "commie" isn't a
scare word any more, unless
you're living in a time
warp, pining away for the
heyday of HUAC.
There's a definite split
personality among the
rightys in these parts --
they hate and mistrust the
federal government and
don't want to pay taxes,
but they're in the bleachers
with popcorn and "We're #1"
foam fingers when our
children are shipped out to
beat on a toothless tyrant
at taxpayer expense or when
Ashcroft insists on putting
someone who dispensed pot to
cancer patients in prison
for 80+ years.
So which is it, rightys?
Libertarian (don't touch my
guns, stay out of my life
and away from my money) or
Authoritarian (impose the
Federal government's will on
everyone and everything from
tinpot dictators on the other
side of the world to your
daughter's ovaries and I'll
obediently pay for it)?
You folks are seriously
confused these days! :-)
fishhead
>
> http://www.prio.no/
>
> http://www.prio.no/staff/john
>
> Mr. Carville's meal ticket is punched daily by
Don't worry, nobody takes this clown, or his
idiot wife seriously.
They are both sad tools, who (have) profit(ed)
from the "Ooo-Ahh! They are the real 'Odd Couple'"
shtick that is the cornerstone of big corporate
media.
They are both useless sellout whores, IMO.
There are far better people to...even...recognize...
much less take seriously, than these two dung heaps.
TimePixDC
>Lord Valve
>A merkin
How true.
TimePixDC
>From: fishhead fish...@earthlink.net
>Date: Thu, Feb 13, 2003 10:13 PM
>Don't worry, nobody takes this clown, or his
>idiot wife seriously.
Hey. Rank on LV as much as you like but leave his wife out of it.
fishhead
Mind your own wife...or whatever damaged, sad...male or female...
with whom you share your pitiful, bitter existence.
Sad piss that you are.
And you know it.
steve eaton
"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message news:ucjo4votkobvg0p7k...@4ax.com...
> There's a definite split
> personality among the
> rightys in these parts --
> they hate and mistrust the
> federal government and
> don't want to pay taxes,
> but they're in the bleachers
> with popcorn and "We're #1"
> foam fingers when our
> children are shipped out to
> beat on a toothless tyrant
> at taxpayer expense or when
> Ashcroft insists on putting
> someone who dispensed pot to
> cancer patients in prison
> for 80+ years.
I think Bruce, that, bombast aside, you are, as are many
liberal thinkers, focused on the politics more than the issues.
The issue isn't whether GW gets better polling for 2K4. (well
at least for we conservatives). The issue is way bigger than that.
Some of us are concerned that a poor decision here may well
lead to a much more dangerous world. Yes, I will back the Gov.
on this issue. Not because I trust them implicitly, but because I
believe that they are right in this case.
You guys can worry about the election if you want, and you can
continue to make this thing out as a partisan issue rather than
an issue of security and of moral consequence (when the
victims de jur of Saddam are considered).
When this is dealt with Ashcroft will pay for whatever excesses
he may have been guilty of, and those other issues will be dealt with.
I think that the problem is that for your people, the elections ARE
everything, and everything is considered in thier light. You then
assume that conservatives are the same. I'm not, and neither are
the others I know. Some things are bigger (for the moment) than
Ashecroft. After this though, he will be the big issue for the Libertarians
I can assure you.
Consevatives, being a practical sort are able to deal with
this sort of complicated goings on without confusing our ideology
with the present reality.
Even if they ARE full of it here, and there IS a conspiracy afoot to
steal our freedom, it's not too late......we have a right to bear arms.
....well, unless you liberals who, apparently don't trust your government
at all........talk the government into taking them all away.
LOL!
But, I wish you all well in the 2K4 elections, as you really HAVE
put your soul into winning them.
>
> So which is it, rightys?
> Libertarian (don't touch my
> guns, stay out of my life
> and away from my money) or
> Authoritarian (impose the
> Federal government's will on
> everyone and everything from
> tinpot dictators on the other
> side of the world to your
> daughter's ovaries and I'll
> obediently pay for it)?
>
> You folks are seriously
> confused these days! :-)
Sort of like the disconnect between the liberals who want the government
to step in and regulate every facet of life, from healthcare to fast food burgers,
and who show no mistrust when asking the rest of us to donate a huge portion
of our income to the Gov. to do as they see fit. Or who don't trust the Government
to provide for our defense,yet would trust them to keep all our guns for us.
Or like the Kosevo episode, all the Liberals were on board there.
I guess it's OK to use military force IF a Democrat pulls the trigger
AND there is no American self interest involved.
But let us defend our OWN interest or if there is a Republican involved
who might (or might not) get some grateful votes next election as a reward
for upholding our interests.....Weeeell..........
Bruce Morgen
>
>"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message news:ucjo4votkobvg0p7k...@4ax.com...
> > There's a definite split
>> personality among the
>> rightys in these parts --
>> they hate and mistrust the
>> federal government and
>> don't want to pay taxes,
>> but they're in the bleachers
>> with popcorn and "We're #1"
>> foam fingers when our
>> children are shipped out to
>> beat on a toothless tyrant
>> at taxpayer expense or when
>> Ashcroft insists on putting
>> someone who dispensed pot to
>> cancer patients in prison
>> for 80+ years.
>
>I think Bruce, that, bombast aside, you are, as are many
>liberal thinkers, focused on the politics more than the issues.
I'm just trying to understand
the so-called "conservative"
mindset, so please do
continue!
>The issue isn't whether GW gets better polling for 2K4. (well
>at least for we conservatives). The issue is way bigger than that.
>Some of us are concerned that a poor decision here may well
>lead to a much more dangerous world.
Exactly my concern so far!
>Yes, I will back the Gov.
>on this issue. Not because I trust them implicitly, but because I
>believe that they are right in this case.
>
>You guys can worry about the election if you want, and you can
>continue to make this thing out as a partisan issue rather than
>an issue of security and of moral consequence (when the
>victims de jur of Saddam are considered).
Saddam's only victims for
the past twelve years have
been the citizens of Iraq.
He has been abetted in
this by Mrs. Albright's
"economic sanctions."
which have Dubya's tacit
approval. The world has
lots of dictators who use
their country's citizens
very badly. Women and
Christians have far more
in the way of rights and
freedom in Iraq than they
do in Saudi Arabia, for
one example.
>
>When this is dealt with Ashcroft will pay for whatever excesses
>he may have been guilty of, and those other issues will be dealt with.
>
I'm glad you're not turning
a blind eye to that, thanks
for the heads-up.
>I think that the problem is that for your people, the elections ARE
>everything, and everything is considered in thier light. You then
>assume that conservatives are the same. I'm not, and neither are
>the others I know. Some things are bigger (for the moment) than
>Ashecroft. After this though, he will be the big issue for the Libertarians
>I can assure you.
That's good to know. You're
assumptions about my concerns
are incorrect, but I see now
that you've simply put all
domestic concerns in your
back pocket because you really
believe Iraq is a serious
threat -- I think that's
ridiculous, but I salute your
sincerity even if I don't
understand such an m.o.
>
>Consevatives, being a practical sort are able to deal with
>this sort of complicated goings on without confusing our ideology
>with the present reality.
I have no trouble sorting
though this at all, and I
don't believe it's all that
complicated. Both the pending
war and Ashcroft's
transgressions are part of an
authoritarian continuum
coming out of Washington that
"practical" conservatives are
watching unfold with nary a
worry or a whimper because the
current wannabe authoritarians
lean right.
>
>Even if they ARE full of it here, and there IS a conspiracy afoot to
>steal our freedom, it's not too late......we have a right to bear arms.
Nothing you can holster or
shoulder will help, Steve.
Dubya's gang has a "Christian
Nation" agenda that will erode
freedom via subtler, more
gradual means than Mao's
"barrel of a gun."
>....well, unless you liberals who, apparently don't trust your government
>at all........talk the government into taking them all away.
>
>LOL!
It ain't been about guns for
a long time. If you think
small arms will help, you're
seriously deluded. The Feds
will always have more and
better guns, and that's been
true for a long, long time.
>
>But, I wish you all well in the 2K4 elections, as you really HAVE
>put your soul into winning them.
>
Frankly, I don't see a whole
lot of hope for unseating
Dubya unless the war is an
unmitigated disaster --
which, for the sake of our
children overseas and
millions of civilians in
harm's way, I fervently hope
doesn't happen.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> So which is it, rightys?
>> Libertarian (don't touch my
>> guns, stay out of my life
>> and away from my money) or
>> Authoritarian (impose the
>> Federal government's will on
>> everyone and everything from
>> tinpot dictators on the other
>> side of the world to your
>> daughter's ovaries and I'll
>> obediently pay for it)?
>>
>> You folks are seriously
>> confused these days! :-)
>
>Sort of like the disconnect between the liberals who want the government
>to step in and regulate every facet of life, from healthcare to fast food burgers,
>and who show no mistrust when asking the rest of us to donate a huge portion
>of our income to the Gov. to do as they see fit. Or who don't trust the Government
>to provide for our defense,yet would trust them to keep all our guns for us.
I don't want the government
to keep anyone's guns, I
want firearms registered
and users licensed the way
motor vehicles are -- for
the same reason, that being
that safe use of both guns
and cars requires a modicum
of knowledge, skill, and
accountability.
>
>Or like the Kosevo episode, all the Liberals were on board there.
>I guess it's OK to use military force IF a Democrat pulls the trigger
>AND there is no American self interest involved.
There is no current war of
extermination going on in
Iraq -- if we were sending
in troops to demonstrably
save lives instead of
obviously grabbing power
and influence on behalf of
Big Oil and/or the
Christian Right I'd be more
inclined to consider
supporting Dubya. Other
than those two interest
groups, I don't see how
"American self interest" is
served by the pending
invasion. Containing Iraq
with a few hundred
inspectors on an ongoing
basis is far safer and more
economical that invading
Iraq with a few hundred
thousand of our children
and a few billion dollars
worth of weaponry and
ordnance imo.
>
>But let us defend our OWN interest or if there is a Republican involved
>who might (or might not) get some grateful votes next election as a reward
>for upholding our interests.....Weeeell..........
>
Beyond cheap petrol and
making Robertson, Falwell,
et al happy, I don't see
where "our OWN interest"
is served in any way,
shape, or form. The real
threat is Bin Laden's
fanatics, who are still
being armed and trained
with Saudi money. Iraq
is old news made new for
political (and perhaps
psychological) reasons
that have nothing to do
with the prosperity, safety,
or well-being of the vast
majority of Americans.
steve eaton
"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message news:52to4vkel3q521niu...@4ax.com...
> "steve eaton" <steve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message news:ucjo4votkobvg0p7k...@4ax.com...
> >continue to make this thing out as a partisan issue rather than
> >an issue of security and of moral consequence (when the
> >victims de jur of Saddam are considered).
>
> Saddam's only victims for
> the past twelve years have
> been the citizens of Iraq.
Oh.Well then, never mind it's only Iraqi citizens.
Not like real victims or anything.
> He has been abetted in
> this by Mrs. Albright's
> "economic sanctions."
> which have Dubya's tacit
> approval.
Do you reckon the fact that the sanctions are in place due to a UN
resolution might come into play. BTW what were those "arms" we sold
Iraq. Vaccines? so maybe we just sending "arms".
tell me, what happened to the oil for food provision?
No sir. those are 100% Saddams victims.
The fact that he will hold his own citizens hostage does not make us
guilty of doing anything to them, we are now trying to fix the situation.
Arguably we should have sooner, but that doesn't mean much now.
> The world has
> lots of dictators who use
> their country's citizens
> very badly.
Oh well, so much for MY moral argument eh?
I guess if EVERYONE is doing it?
> Women and
> Christians have far more
> in the way of rights and
> freedom in Iraq than they
> do in Saudi Arabia, for
> one example.
ah! The point!
Maybe or maybe not. But if you think that somehow, you are
the only one who has considered the fact the Saudi Arabia
may well be a bigger enemy in the long run, you are mistaken.
The Sauds are had already, the Al Queda have already infiltrated
the Saudi institutions, such as the religious police. the Saudi's are
the equivilent of malevolent Jed Clampetts, they are goat hearders
that shot at some food, up through the ground came abubbling crude.
they couldn't have lasted too long no matter how you cut it. For them it is
a matter of signing on with us and pissing off the fumdamentalist Muslims
and getting thier heads lopped off, or going with the Extremists and
buying themselves some time. t.
We all know that the Saudis will be reckoned with as well. Just who will
be in control of it when that happens, might be an interesting point.
The shit is hitting the fan WAY bigger than a matter of trying to pick the
worst cruel and malicious regime out of the many possibilities.
I hope that when Saudi Arabia does become the focus of rooting out
the terrorists, we have a reasonable, steady, and secure source of oil.
of course we DO have our own oil but.......jeez, we'd have to drill it.
Yeah, the oil does matter.
> >
> >When this is dealt with Ashcroft will pay for whatever excesses
> >he may have been guilty of, and those other issues will be dealt with.
> >
> I'm glad you're not turning
> a blind eye to that, thanks
> for the heads-up.
I don't think many are buying his ranting and police state rhetoric.
some of those Patriot act points are really sore spots, and we all
have noted that they don't have sunset clauses either.
It's a good thing that they can be voted out again, because I don't
think that we would stand for it except in an emergency. Save the
arguments about this being a false emergency based on whatever.
I am already wholly convinced that we are in the early days of WW3.
the whole Bin Laden thing is the tip of the iceberg. this is not
arresting Noreiga, and it ain't WW2, One way or another
the entire world's dynamic is changing big time, it is time for countries
to stop behaving as if their motives remain what they were 60 years
ago in the wake of WW2 and come to the table wearing thier own self
interest on thier foreheads. Maybe, MAYBE if things were to be approached that
honestly, WW3 will be a could'a been. Ashcroft is a beerfart in the scheme of things.
>
> >I think that the problem is that for your people, the elections ARE
> >everything, and everything is considered in thier light. You then
> >assume that conservatives are the same. I'm not, and neither are
> >the others I know. Some things are bigger (for the moment) than
> >Ashecroft. After this though, he will be the big issue for the Libertarians
> >I can assure you.
>
> That's good to know. You're
> assumptions about my concerns
> are incorrect, but I see now
> that you've simply put all
> domestic concerns in your
> back pocket because you really
> believe Iraq is a serious
> threat --
Yes, I suppose that is it. And I am aware that some feel that
that is just what the evil ones want me to think. I don't believe that.
You know so far, in a country with an open press (the US), that has
just given dagerous new rights to the police and Feds, I haven't
of any abuses. Unless you consider denying lawyers a right to
publisize intell interveiws of suspected and known terrorists abuse.
I for one, see that sort of thing as why the exceptions are needed to begin with.
Remember that a military trial is not the same as an unfair trial.
> I think that's
> ridiculous, but I salute your
> sincerity even if I don't
> understand such an m.o.
Thanks...... I think?
> >
> >Consevatives, being a practical sort are able to deal with
> >this sort of complicated goings on without confusing our ideology
> >with the present reality.
>
> I have no trouble sorting
> though this at all, and I
> don't believe it's all that
> complicated.
I do.In fact I think it's 10 times more complicated than that.
for example, trying to figure out what effect cell phones
have on a mall would be magnitudes easier than figuring the
geopolitical situation right now. though cell phone matter here too.
No, it's a dynamic that is more complicated than any one will ever
be able to understand. Boiling it down to a conspiracy where
Bush at the head of some evil fascist cabal is trying to foist a
Christian Authoritarian system on us is way too simple, and if it were
totally true, it would still be the tip of the iceberg.
> Both the pending
> war and Ashcroft's
> transgressions are part of an
> authoritarian continuum
> coming out of Washington that
> "practical" conservatives are
> watching unfold with nary a
> worry or a whimper because the
> current wannabe authoritarians
> lean right.
I don't buy that. Bush has got a 4 year term.
Vote him out. Maybe the somewhat right just
reflects the veiws of many Americans.
We aren't stupid people, and you seem, by your veiws to believe so.
I'll tell you this, in my neck of the woods, there are many farmers,
craftsmen and other wily types that aren't by any means fools, nor are they
easy to pull one over on, and yes, many ARE combat vets. Many vote
Democratic but still support the Bush Admin on this. It's traditional
values country here, but we are not dupes. The thing is that there
are more people like that in the US than there are pointy heads that
can look at you with a straight face and say right and wrong is relative.
But I've yet to hear anyone but pinko's and dopers that are worried
about any threat to themselves over Ashcrofts programs.
And I'm not worried about the terrorist's rights. At all.
It's true that there is room for abuse and it seems likely that some will occur.
But I think that the feelings of those few innocent victims will heal quicker
than, say the feelings of those who's loved one's died in the WTC.
Those are odds I would have to take anyway..
> >
> >Even if they ARE full of it here, and there IS a conspiracy afoot to
> >steal our freedom, it's not too late......we have a right to bear arms.
>
> Nothing you can holster or
> shoulder will help, Steve.
> Dubya's gang has a "Christian
> Nation" agenda that will erode
> freedom via subtler, more
> gradual means than Mao's
> "barrel of a gun."
Yeah, so does everybody else. in case you haven't noticed
somebody is always trying to get in your pocket, mind or conscience.
Somethings never change. but again you appear to believe that we conservatives
are just too stupid to see things like this.
Let me just say that an armed revolution pretty much always gets some attention paid,
no matter how slick the agenda is.
>
> >....well, unless you liberals who, apparently don't trust your government
> >at all........talk the government into taking them all away.
> >
> >LOL!
>
> It ain't been about guns for
> a long time. If you think
> small arms will help, you're
> seriously deluded. The Feds
> will always have more and
> better guns, and that's been
> true for a long, long time.
And if you think that our son's daughter's and grandchildren
will man those better guns against us, then you should
reconsider the low regard that you hold the rest of your fellow
citizens.
Now on the other hand, if we just sign on to the whole UN program
the US could have foriegn troops in to do it.
It's a laugher anyway, there is no way that the US military could take and
hold it's own country, given 4 or 5,000,000 armed individuals that say
no. Maybe parts, like NY where only cops and crooks have guns, but
there is no way that the military could hold the heartland without the assent
of the people. The entire military couldn't root out the Viet Cong.
> >
> >But, I wish you all well in the 2K4 elections, as you really HAVE
> >put your soul into winning them.
> >
> Frankly, I don't see a whole
> lot of hope for unseating
> Dubya unless the war is an
> unmitigated disaster --
Not True!
Look at George the Sr.
What would help the Democrats chances though, is if they woulld
actually have something to offer other than snipes at Bush.
i see nothing comming out of the Democratic party at all.
And nobody to say it to boot.
get a program, a vision and a spokesmen, that is what would beat Bush.
The war is a crap shoot no matter how it goes.
> which, for the sake of our
> children overseas and
> millions of civilians in
> harm's way, I fervently hope
> doesn't happen.
Well, I agree with you here 100%.
I hope that Saddam shares our good will.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Sort of like the disconnect between the liberals who want the government
> >to step in and regulate every facet of life, from healthcare to fast food burgers,
> >and who show no mistrust when asking the rest of us to donate a huge portion
> >of our income to the Gov. to do as they see fit. Or who don't trust the Government
> >to provide for our defense,yet would trust them to keep all our guns for us.
>
> I don't want the government
> to keep anyone's guns, I
> want firearms registered
> and users licensed the way
> motor vehicles are -- for
> the same reason, that being
> that safe use of both guns
> and cars requires a modicum
> of knowledge, skill, and
> accountability.
As an idealogue, I disagree with any restrictions at all on either
autos or guns, but as a practical idealogue, I'd have to say that
some sort of standards regarding both need to be applied.
But carefully.
> >
> >Or like the Kosevo episode, all the Liberals were on board there.
> >I guess it's OK to use military force IF a Democrat pulls the trigger
> >AND there is no American self interest involved.
>
> There is no current war of
> extermination going on in
> Iraq -- if we were sending
> in troops to demonstrably
> save lives
I believe that sending in troops will save lifes, but unfortunately
this is a Schrodingers cat, and we'll never know either way.
> instead of
> obviously
It's not obvious Bruce, with all due respect it is just obviously your
opinion that it is so. That doesn't make it fact, or false either.
>grabbing power
> and influence on behalf of
> Big Oil and/or the
> Christian Right I'd be more
> inclined to consider
> supporting Dubya. Other
> than those two interest
> groups,
I believe the "Big Oil" boys in this particular case are French and Russian.
IIRC, the French already have contracts on about 85% of Iraqs oil production.
But being able to buy oil on an open market at a fair price IS of concern to us all.
We aren't in this to own oil, just to preserve our right to pay for it. That will also
be a good thing for the people of Iraq, who as you have noted are by and large a modern
and civilized people and should with that oil as capital be able to build a fine country.
I hope in the future that the Iraqi's will be sharing those things that they are known for
with us, the art, the philosophy, and music and not Saddam's mental illness.
I mean this sincerely, I know quite a few Iraqis and they are a proud people with
a vast cultural history, and the world needs them on board.
The Christian Right? left field bruce, left Field.
believing in God and being a Republican at the same time
does not add up to belonging to The Cross and Sword.
jeez...Bush is an ex- drunk driving doper. he has way more in common
with me than he does with the Ashcroft crowd. (But Ashcroft does have to go
next time if GW wants MY vote)
I don't see how
> "American self interest" is
> served by the pending
> invasion. Containing Iraq
> with a few hundred
> inspectors on an ongoing
> basis is far safer and more
> economical that invading
> Iraq with a few hundred
> thousand of our children
> and a few billion dollars
> worth of weaponry and
> ordnance imo.
On the face of it I'd agree, but it occurs to me that if it weren't
for that multi-billion dollar machine ready to grind him up, we
would not even have the inspectors there at all.
So the way I see it is if france, germany, and all the rest want to
pay an equal share of the dues, sure let's just pin him down.
But I believe that even then it would be a matter of time before Saddam
threw feces at the gawkers. And I don't want to pay the cost of waiting
for him to do it, he already has, nor am I willing to endanger our kids
for years of fending off human murder bombs and terrorist attacks while they sit in a barracks
over there in that insane part of the world waiting for this clown to say boo..
So given that Saddam will go ape sooner or later, let's just get it over with now.
> >
> >But let us defend our OWN interest or if there is a Republican involved
> >who might (or might not) get some grateful votes next election as a reward
> >for upholding our interests.....Weeeell..........
> >
> Beyond cheap petrol and
I don't think that petrol will be particularly cheap, but I'd settle for
a market price and available, the alternative is ugly.
> making Robertson, Falwell,
> et al happy, I don't see
> where "our OWN interest"
> is served in any way,
> shape, or form.
I don't think that Falweel or Roberson have anything to do with it.
The "Christian Right" is a Boogieman left over from the campaigns
of the 80's. And whatever weight the fringe there have is pretty
fairly evened out by the one world fringe on the left. So really neither group
matters much IRL.
> The real
> threat is Bin Laden's
> fanatics, who are still
> being armed and trained
> with Saudi money. Iraq
> is old news made new for
> political (and perhaps
> psychological) reasons
> that have nothing to do
> with the prosperity, safety,
> or well-being of the vast
> majority of Americans.
Well, when the war on worldwide terrorism focuses on Saudi Arabia, which
it must do, and when the Saudis turn on us, which they are doing, we will still
need oil. that has everything to do with the prosperity, safety, and well being
of not only all Americans, but the rest of the civilized world as well.
Eventually we may need to drill our own reserves anyway, but the later the better.
>
Lord Valve
there's nothing at all I can do to help you. By all
means - be stupid.
LV
Lord Valve
attack-lizard from the Klintoon Disadministration.
John Carville is a leftist loser who pollutes the NGs
with his useless commie spew, originating from Norway.
LV
The Repair Guy
>You're thinking of James Carville, reptillian leftoid
>attack-lizard from the Klintoon Disadministration.
>John Carville is a leftist loser who pollutes the NGs
>with his useless commie spew, originating from Norway.
>LV
That's the same mis-identification I made originally.
John Carville
work, guys. Hmmm... I think I'm gonna aim for a bit more of that
around here too. While I agree with much more of Bruce's post than
Steve's reply, some of Steve's points also caused me to pause for
reflection. Isn't that what we should be aiming for?
For me, one of the few positives in the current world situation is
that I see a lot of people beginning to think more about what's
happening in our world. People are just getting more involved in
issues that matter than I have ever seen them before. That's something
I welcome very much. The next step is for us to try to pool and share
our knowledge in constructive ways, I guess.
Despite being accused in the very title of this thread of being a
professional communist propagandist, I'll take this opportunity to say
that my view has always been that it is less important to have all the
answers than to encourage people to ask the questions. Human beings
are pretty smart in a lot of ways. If enough people took the trouble
to really learn and think about the way things are, I do believe that
we would stand a chance of making a much better world for most if not
all of us on this earth. If that's communism, then I'll be damned. I
always thought that that was democracy!
Have a good weekend everyone!
JC
John Carville
> If you think the UN isn't a communist organization,
> there's nothing at all I can do to help you. By all
> means - be stupid.
> LV
>
LV, you could explain what you define as communism and why the UN
meets this definition. I'm sure a number of us would be interested to
find out what you mean when you make this claim. I certainly would,
though, as you have said, that is not something you really care about.
All the same, what about it?
JC
TimePixDC
>Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2003 4:21 AM
>If you think the UN isn't a communist organization
It isn't and anyone that thinks it is, is delusional and paranoid.
LV to a "t".
TimePixDC
>Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2003 9:59 AM
>LV, you could explain what you define as communism
Simple. Anyone that disagrees with LV is automatically branded a "communist".
The American right have used the tactic for decades.
John Carville
>
> thanks lard vulva!!!!
> you finally posted a link to a decent site. i hope you took the opportunity to
> read about some of their wonderful projects.
> what a great organization PRIO is!
> Mr Carville should be extremely proud to be associated with such a group!!
Thanks! Yeah, I don't have any shame about working in the field of
peace research. And if LV's posting encourages others to find out more
about PRIO's work (www.prio.no) and other aspects of peace studies,
well that's gotta be a good thing in my book.
It would be nice if we did get a bit of funding now and then from the
UN though, since research funding for an independent institute is a
bit tight these days. Actually, PRIO's primary funders are the
Norwegian Foreign Ministry, the Norwegian Research Council, and the
Norwegian Ministry of Defence (ahem), though other project funding has
come from the World Bank, the Ford Foundation and (if I remember
correctly) the Macarthur Foundation. We have projects in collaboration
with the Norwegian Red Cross and the Nansen Academy in Lillehammer,
Norway, too. Not exactly a communist front organization by most
people's standards, but ya never know with some people. We have a
program that helps humanitarian mine action agencies develop
priority-assessment to best take account of local capacities and needs
in mine-affected countries too, which is one that I'm particularly
proud of having worked with.
I should point out that I don't speak on behalf of PRIO here. In fact,
no one speaks on behalf of PRIO. Under the institute's statutes
(available at the website), all staff have freedom of expression. This
goes both ways, in that no one speaks for the institute and the
institute speaks for none of the staff. Here at AGA, I'm just another
radical guitarist with a Les Paul and a half-stack!
Have a nice weekend!
JC
The Repair Guy
Sometimes "liberal" is used in place of "communist".
Pete Kerezman
>>If you think the UN isn't a communist organization
>
>It isn't and anyone that thinks it is, is delusional and paranoid.
>LV to a "t".
I agree that the UN probably isn't communist. However it IS the
next best thing to useless.
Texas Pete
Goldtop71deluxe
witty, pithy or in some way
worth the time to read. This schoolyard ranting is rote, unamusing, not
well thought out and, well - boring.
If you are going to be a right-wing mouthpiece please take the time to add
more issue related content and
less outhouse invective.
A loyal LV tube customer
"The Repair Guy" <repair...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p%63a.3364$6a2.1...@kent.svc.tds.net...
Goldtop71deluxe
"The Repair Guy" <repair...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:np83a.3371$6a2.1...@kent.svc.tds.net...
steve eaton
"John Carville" <joker...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:29f76996.03021...@posting.google.com...
> An interesting exchange carried out with courtesy and restraint! Nice
> work, guys. Hmmm... I think I'm gonna aim for a bit more of that
> around here too. While I agree with much more of Bruce's post than
> Steve's reply, some of Steve's points also caused me to pause for
> reflection. Isn't that what we should be aiming for?
Yes, it is IMO.
Too many people are afraid to give up any little bit of a point,
they feel that it shows weakness, and I suspect, fear that
thier entire world view may unravel, if given a start.
After all things change fast and often, why should minds be so rigid?
It would seem maladaptive.
>
> For me, one of the few positives in the current world situation is
> that I see a lot of people beginning to think more about what's
> happening in our world. People are just getting more involved in
> issues that matter than I have ever seen them before. That's something
> I welcome very much. The next step is for us to try to pool and share
> our knowledge in constructive ways, I guess.
I am thinking that right now, is an amazing time to be living, for the first
time in history, almost anyone can talk to almost anyone else one on one
via the Internet. We don't have to depend on the news-droids or the
fact spinners to formulate our opinions for us.
for the first time the populace has much the same info as the leaders,
and also for the first time the populace can exchange ideas.
I suspect that many of the more repressive elements in the world
have noted this too, so we should make the most of it while the
window of opportunity is here in front of us. Not to blather out our
particular ideology, or to stir up shit.
We should use this gift to find a way of looking at things that everyone
can live with.
Ok, (Rose coloured glasses off now)
steve eaton
"Goldtop71deluxe" <goldtop...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:A%93a.11518$Rx3.2...@news1.west.cox.net...
> Leftist, commie spew, loser, etc. "Lord McCarthy" at least make it amusing,
> witty, pithy or in some way
> worth the time to read. This schoolyard ranting is rote, unamusing, not
> well thought out and, well - boring.
> If you are going to be a right-wing mouthpiece please take the time to add
> more issue related content and
> less outhouse invective.
>
> A loyal LV tube customer
I would ask the same of the leftist snipes and vipers as well.
Spewing hate doesn't really help anything, it just adds to
the crap that we are all swimming in anyway.
At least people.......make a point please.
It's not nessecary for everyone to know that you hate Clinton, LV,
the US or Socialist thought, to discuss your ideas. In fact couching
your opinion in destructive rhetoric lessens the chance that anyone will
even consider your point of view at all. Be direct, be honest, speak up
and be respectfull. (Now when I can manage to do this,I'll get back to you all)
Goldtop71deluxe
question "How long will it take an infinite
amount of monkeys typing randomly to complete the works of Shakespear" or
something similar.
"It's OK to pray for food, but better to pick up a hoe"
"steve eaton" <steve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4qruvs...@corp.supernews.com...
fishhead
>
> You're thinking of James Carville, reptillian leftoid
> attack-lizard from the Klintoon Disadministration.
> John Carville is a leftist loser who pollutes the NGs
> with his useless commie spew, originating from Norway.
> LV
James, John, Potato, Tomato...
Which one sold those ersatz 'Fudgie the Whale' cakes?
Dingbats. All of em!
RonSonic
wrote:
You mostly ignore one extremely important point.
The war.
In the one instance that you make any mention of it at all you
describe the war as it were in the future and was imposed upon us by
the government. The war is here. Either the President deals with it,
or we get a new one who will.
This week's official right-wing talking point, delivered fresh from
the cabal:
The American Street - there is one - They are pissed. Not in a march
in the streets burning shit kind of way, but in a quiet, resolved way.
>You folks are seriously
>confused these days! :-)
Not us, just different priorities this week. Do check out the Lileks
piece.
Ron
Delenda est Carthago
RonSonic
If I were writing the history books the ongoing enmity with the Soviet
Union would be WWIII.
>the whole Bin Laden thing is the tip of the iceberg. this is not
>arresting Noreiga, and it ain't WW2, One way or another
>the entire world's dynamic is changing big time, it is time for countries
>to stop behaving as if their motives remain what they were 60 years
>ago in the wake of WW2 and come to the table wearing thier own self
>interest on thier foreheads. Maybe, MAYBE if things were to be approached that
>honestly, WW3 will be a could'a been. Ashcroft is a beerfart in the scheme of things.
I think it's much like the cold war, not only a matter of defeating a
military enemy, the fight was and is as much with a utopian vision
bait-and-switch that's part of the enemy's profile. Afghanistan had
the misfortune of being visited by both.
I'm going to butt out now, the rest of this post is freeking
excellent.
Ron
Delenda est Carthago
steve eaton
"RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:jd9r4v87th3ll4i62...@4ax.com...
Hmmm....OK, I can see that. But I'm squinting a little.
I guess that the fact that there was no one major theater
of contest threw me. But given that the entire world WAS
drawn into the battle and there were at least 20 years of
mini wars all over the globe based on, and backed by
the majors, I'd have to agree. (1)
(1) Please change my statement in the previous post to read
"I am already wholly convinced that we are in the early days of WW4" :-)
>
> >the whole Bin Laden thing is the tip of the iceberg. this is not
> >arresting Noreiga, and it ain't WW2, One way or another
> >the entire world's dynamic is changing big time, it is time for countries
> >to stop behaving as if their motives remain what they were 60 years
> >ago in the wake of WW2 and come to the table wearing thier own self
> >interest on thier foreheads. Maybe, MAYBE if things were to be approached that
> >honestly, WW3 will be a could'a been. Ashcroft is a beerfart in the scheme of things.
>
> I think it's much like the cold war, not only a matter of defeating a
> military enemy, the fight was and is as much with a utopian vision
> bait-and-switch that's part of the enemy's profile. Afghanistan had
> the misfortune of being visited by both.
True, and arguably the US performed it's own version in the
first Gulf Battle, by dangling freedom in front of the Kurds as bait,
then leaving them with Saddam after they were caught with thier hands
in the cookie jar,so to speak. ( Or at least my Kurdish friends see it that way)
That I think was a big error on our part.
A mistake made with good intentions I think, but a mistake no less.
Oh Well..You know what they say the road to hell is paved with.
>
> I'm going to butt out now, the rest of this post is freeking
> excellent.
Thank you for the compliment.
RonSonic
<steve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ya know, I still don't know what was up with that. An incomprehensible
blunder on our part. Was it that we wanted to confront Saddam on
another front while hostilities were going on, but then our usual
foreign policy obsessive-compulsive rain-man like demand for
"stability" take over? Was it that the terms we had offered prohibited
our assistance to the rebels. In either case it was a goof.
>A mistake made with good intentions I think, but a mistake no less.
>
>Oh Well..You know what they say the road to hell is paved with.
Bright and shiny ones too.
Ron
Delenda est Carthago
John Carville
>
> LV, you could explain what you define as communism and why the UN
> meets this definition. I'm sure a number of us would be interested to
> find out what you mean when you make this claim. I certainly would,
> though, as you have said, that is not something you really care about.
> All the same, what about it?
>
LV, I see you've started a new thread on this, posting a few URLs but
not actually answering the question. What about giving us a definition
of what you mean by 'communism' *in your own words* and perhaps a
short explanation of why the UN is a communist organization? I know
I'm not the only one who'd like to hear what *you* mean by these
epithets that you throw around - dare I say - willy-nilly!
Providing your answers in context, i.e. within the thread in which the
questions were originally asked, would be much appreciated. I think we
should credit most people here with the ability to keep track of a
thread in which they are interested.
Looking forward to your reply. Seems like you've been dodging straight
questions for a while now.
JC