John Stossel's rantings
Robert Calvert
Stossel's own chat room to ask him (even though I commend him on that
particular show) why the ABC network is one of the worst violators of
free speech when it comes to positive comments about fiscal liberalism?
And also about wether he thought corporate censorship is more dangerous
than the government version? As it turned out, none of my questions were
answered. But I did notice something strange. Some questions kept
popping up that were almost answered (or maybe I should say ranted) too
quickly to be manually typed. Just out of curiosity, I decided to ask if
anyone was really reading my posts - repeating myself several times. As
it turned out, nobody answered even though somebody was coming or going
every few seconds. So much for free speech at ABC.
While I was there, I noticed that John Stossel posted this url:
http://www.prcfund.org John Stossel even seems to be trying to
indoctrinate school children in the ways of radical Loonytarianism. Go
see for yourself.
Robert
winni...@my-deja.com
The media watch group FAIR has collected quite a file on Stossel's vast
inaccuracy and biases.
FAIR's website can be viewed at:
http://www.fair.org
-WS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
N9NWO
: Stossel's own chat room to ask him (even though I commend him on that
: particular show) why the ABC network is one of the worst violators of
: free speech when it comes to positive comments about fiscal liberalism?
: And also about wether he thought corporate censorship is more dangerous
: than the government version? As it turned out, none of my questions were
: answered. But I did notice something strange. Some questions kept
: popping up that were almost answered (or maybe I should say ranted) too
: quickly to be manually typed. Just out of curiosity, I decided to ask if
: anyone was really reading my posts - repeating myself several times. As
: it turned out, nobody answered even though somebody was coming or going
: every few seconds. So much for free speech at ABC.
:
: While I was there, I noticed that John Stossel posted this url:
: http://www.prcfund.org John Stossel even seems to be trying to
: indoctrinate school children in the ways of radical Loonytarianism. Go
: see for yourself.
Because fiscal liberalism is loony.
Bill
film "Dogma", I was rather surprised, and thought he might have actually
come up with a balanced show, highlighting excesses from all parts of the
political spectrum. No such luck, after the "Dogma" segment, it was nothing
but bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls...
steve
On 28-Jul-2000, "N9NWO" <21...@gte.net> wrote:
> : After watching John Stossel's show about free speech, I decided to go to
> : Stossel's own chat room to ask him (even though I commend him on that
> : particular show) why the ABC network is one of the worst violators of
> : free speech when it comes to positive comments about fiscal liberalism?
> : And also about wether he thought corporate censorship is more dangerous
> : than the government version?
"Corporate censorship" is free speech. By not financing or selling art or
other speech, a corporation does nothing to prevent speech, they simply
refuse to so speak. However, if the corporation is "censoring" in response
to government pressure rather than a free choice not to speak, THAT is
government censorship through the back door.
> While I was there, I noticed that John Stossel posted this url:
> : http://www.prcfund.org John Stossel even seems to be trying to
> : indoctrinate school children in the ways of radical Loonytarianism.
A believer in free speech who is hostile to libertarianism? I guess you
pick and choose your freedoms and accept oppression when you feel it serves
you. Libertarians support freedom generally.
steve
--
"It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
Charlie Wolf
wrote:
....ummm....this is a BAD thing???
Regards,
Mike Hartigan
> When he started the show with a brief segment on Catholics who protested the
> film "Dogma", I was rather surprised, and thought he might have actually
> come up with a balanced show, highlighting excesses from all parts of the
> political spectrum. No such luck, after the "Dogma" segment, it was nothing
> but bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls...
Given that rules to suppress Freedom of Speech originate largely from
the liberal end of the political spectrum (with the occasional "Dogma"
exception), who else should he be bashing on this subject?
--
+-----------------------------------------------+
Mike Hartigan <mi...@hartigan.dot.com>
If I didn't know better, I'd
say it was a sectional sofa.
Bill
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:37:24 -0400, Bill <bwil...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >When he started the show with a brief segment on Catholics who protested the
> >film "Dogma", I was rather surprised, and thought he might have actually
> >come up with a balanced show, highlighting excesses from all parts of the
> >political spectrum. No such luck, after the "Dogma" segment, it was nothing
> >but bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls...
> ....ummm....this is a BAD thing???
Not for Stossel. It's what he gets paid to do.
David L. Moffitt
"Bill" <bwil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39818C93...@ix.netcom.com...
> When he started the show with a brief segment on Catholics who protested
the
> film "Dogma", I was rather surprised, and thought he might have actually
> come up with a balanced show, highlighting excesses from all parts of the
> political spectrum. No such luck, after the "Dogma" segment, it was
nothing
> but bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls...
%%%% You mean balanced reporting from the media don't you!
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,TFA Member----and damn proud of it!
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the
General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the
military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always
distinguished the free citizens of these States...Such men form the best
barrier to the liberties of America." -gazette of the United States, October
14, 1789.
Hercu...@webtv.net
st...@steve.com wrote:
>
>
> On 28-Jul-2000, "N9NWO" <21...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > : After watching John Stossel's show about free speech, I decided to go to
> > : Stossel's own chat room to ask him (even though I commend him on that
> > : particular show) why the ABC network is one of the worst violators of
> > : free speech when it comes to positive comments about fiscal liberalism?
> > : And also about wether he thought corporate censorship is more dangerous
> > : than the government version?
>
> "Corporate censorship" is free speech. By not financing or selling art or
> other speech, a corporation does nothing to prevent speech, they simply
> refuse to so speak. However, if the corporation is "censoring" in response
> to government pressure rather than a free choice not to speak, THAT is
> government censorship through the back door.
>
Whether it's corporate censorship or government censorship, if the effect is
the same, it's still censorship no matter what you choose to call it or how
you choose to justify it.
> > While I was there, I noticed that John Stossel posted this url:
> > : http://www.prcfund.org John Stossel even seems to be trying to
> > : indoctrinate school children in the ways of radical Loonytarianism.
>
> A believer in free speech who is hostile to libertarianism? I guess you
> pick and choose your freedoms and accept oppression when you feel it serves
> you.
Speak for yourself. When the only institution that is elected democratically
by the common person (ie the government) asserts it's authority or censors
information, this is magically "bad". When the only institution that
represents the interests of the rich asserts it's authority or censors
information (ie. the corporate establishment) this is magically "good". "I
guess you" Loonytarians "pick and choose your freedoms and accept oppression
when you feel it serves you". :-)
> Libertarians support freedom generally.
>
The Loonytarian party is second only to the Communist party when it comes to
a violent hatred of freedom. The only difference between Loonytarians and
Communists is the class of people each party intends to oppress and which
equal but opposite deep end each party want's to jump off of. And that's the
literal truth.
Robert
> steve
> --
> "It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
>
M. Simon
Calvert) wrote:
>After watching John Stossel's show about free speech, I decided to go to
>Stossel's own chat room to ask him (even though I commend him on that
>particular show) why the ABC network is one of the worst violators of
>free speech when it comes to positive comments about fiscal liberalism?
What is fiscal liberalism?
Another euphimism for theft by government?
M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port
Joe Steve Swick III
___Robert AKA Hercu...@webtv.net ___
The Loonytarian party is second only to the Communist party when it comes
to a violent hatred of freedom.
Really? What freedoms do Libertarians hate?
___Robert AKA Hercu...@webtv.net ___
The only difference between Loonytarians and Communists is the class of
people each party intends to oppress and which equal but opposite deep end
each party want's to jump off of. And that's the literal truth.
----
Interesting. So, what specific rights of what specific group of individuals
do you think libertarians fail to recognize/intends not to recognize? I
mean, "oppression" must involve the violation of the rights of
individuals... no?
Kindest,
Joe Swick
M. Simon
wrote:
>When he started the show with a brief segment on Catholics who protested the
>film "Dogma", I was rather surprised, and thought he might have actually
>come up with a balanced show, highlighting excesses from all parts of the
>political spectrum. No such luck, after the "Dogma" segment, it was nothing
>but bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls...
He has done hatchet jobs on conservative Drug Warriors.
M. Simon
wrote:
>In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Bill <bwil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> When he started the show with a brief segment on Catholics who protested the
>> film "Dogma", I was rather surprised, and thought he might have actually
>> come up with a balanced show, highlighting excesses from all parts of the
>> political spectrum. No such luck, after the "Dogma" segment, it was nothing
>> but bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls...
>
>Given that rules to suppress Freedom of Speech originate largely from
>the liberal end of the political spectrum (with the occasional "Dogma"
>exception), who else should he be bashing on this subject?
Please explain the Republicans who have authored the various anti-drug
speech acts now before Congress.
Or Bob Barr who wouldn't allow the DC medical marijuana vote to be
counted?
The Rs are no better than the Ds.
steve
On 28-Jul-2000, Hercu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Whether it's corporate censorship or government censorship, if the effect
> is
> the same, it's still censorship no matter what you choose to call it or
> how
> you choose to justify it.
The effect is, in fact, not the same. When a corporation chooses not to
speak, they prevent no one else from speaking. If ICE-T want to sing "Cop
Killer" he can do it. If the government cencored him, he could not. That
is a profound difference.
> > A believer in free speech who is hostile to libertarianism? I guess you
> > pick and choose your freedoms and accept oppression when you feel it
> > serves
> > you.
>
> Speak for yourself. When the only institution that is elected
> democratically
> by the common person (ie the government) asserts it's authority or censors
> information, this is magically "bad".
Not "magically", coercively.
>When the only institution that
> represents the interests of the rich asserts it's authority or censors
> information (ie. the corporate establishment) this is magically "good".
You mean when free people choose not to fund speech with which they
disagree? Sounds like freedom to me.
>"I
> guess you" Loonytarians "pick and choose your freedoms and accept
> oppression
> when you feel it serves you". :-)
Not with rational definitions of "freedom" and "oppression".
N9NWO
protested the
: >> film "Dogma", I was rather surprised, and thought he might have
actually
: >> come up with a balanced show, highlighting excesses from all parts of
the
: >> political spectrum. No such luck, after the "Dogma" segment, it was
nothing
: >> but bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls...
: >
: >Given that rules to suppress Freedom of Speech originate largely from
: >the liberal end of the political spectrum (with the occasional "Dogma"
: >exception), who else should he be bashing on this subject?
:
: Please explain the Republicans who have authored the various anti-drug
: speech acts now before Congress.
:
: Or Bob Barr who wouldn't allow the DC medical marijuana vote to be
: counted?
:
: The Rs are no better than the Ds.
Face it. Those who used illegal drugs are now only 7% of
our population. You have no support among the masses.
And as it is, a good deal of drug usage, to include alcohol
abuse, is done to self medicate for emotional illness. Too
many fatherless boys in America.
Judy Blye Eyes
misunderstood, and never committed any attrocities...
How cute, the left is apologizing and covering up genocidal tendancies... I
wonder if this is a preface to protect themselves, for when they finally
disarm the people, and can round us up into concentration camps???
J
<winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8lr7k6$s6r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <5461-398...@storefull-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> Hercu...@webtv.net (Robert Calvert) wrote:
> > After watching John Stossel's show about free speech, I decided to go
> to
> > Stossel's own chat room to ask him (even though I commend him on that
> > particular show) why the ABC network is one of the worst violators of
> > free speech when it comes to positive comments about fiscal
> liberalism?
> > And also about wether he thought corporate censorship is more
> dangerous
> > than the government version? As it turned out, none of my questions
> were
> > answered. But I did notice something strange. Some questions kept
> > popping up that were almost answered (or maybe I should say ranted)
> too
> > quickly to be manually typed. Just out of curiosity, I decided to ask
> if
> > anyone was really reading my posts - repeating myself several times.
> As
> > it turned out, nobody answered even though somebody was coming or
> going
> > every few seconds. So much for free speech at ABC.
> >
> > While I was there, I noticed that John Stossel posted this url:
> > http://www.prcfund.org John Stossel even seems to be trying to
> > indoctrinate school children in the ways of radical Loonytarianism. Go
> > see for yourself.
> >
> > Robert
>
> The media watch group FAIR has collected quite a file on Stossel's vast
> inaccuracy and biases.
>
> FAIR's website can be viewed at:
> http://www.fair.org
>
> -WS
>
>
winni...@my-deja.com
anything FAIR has done. I have been a subscriber since before the Gulf
War. FAIR did point out that George "Poppy" Bush was arming and
advocating for MORE arms for Saddam until just months before Saddam
invaded Kuwait. And Bush Senior -- along with Dick Cheney, most of the
Republican establishment, some Democrats, and the New Republic
magazine -- were saying nice things about Saddam AS they pushed for
further arms appropriations for him.
So it looks like you are a liar -- unless, of course you can cite the
FAIR article you claimn exists. The only other possibility is that you
are imcompetent. That you have a reading comprehension problem.
What is it, are you a liar or or you incompetent?
If neither is the case then you will OF COURSE be able to provide a
citation for your claim. (That's a laugh.)
There *were* a handful of folks on the left, mostly in sectarian groups
like Workers World, who, with the help of former US Attorney General
Ramsey Clark defended Hussein. FAIR WAS NOT AMONG THEM.
No, it's your your stadard bearer's father, G.H.W. Bush who cozied up
to Saddam until 1989. Sound familiar? I mean, George Bush kissing up to
dictators just before declaring them the focus of evil in the modern
wrold? Does that sound familiar. Remember Manuel Noriega?
I await your cite showing that FAIR "says that Saddam Hussein was really
misunderstood, and never committed any attrocities..."
Unless, of course, you are just a plain old lying right-winger. We'll
know by your response, won't we? Hmmm?
Nice try!
Toodles,
Winnie Smith
In article <VnEg5.745$_G.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
LQuest
Calvert) wrote:
>After watching John Stossel's show about free speech, I decided to go to
>Stossel's own chat room to ask him (even though I commend him on that
>particular show) why the ABC network is one of the worst violators of
>free speech when it comes to positive comments about fiscal liberalism?
>And also about wether he thought corporate censorship is more dangerous
>than the government version? As it turned out, none of my questions were
>answered. But I did notice something strange. Some questions kept
>popping up that were almost answered (or maybe I should say ranted) too
>quickly to be manually typed. Just out of curiosity, I decided to ask if
>anyone was really reading my posts - repeating myself several times. As
>it turned out, nobody answered even though somebody was coming or going
>every few seconds. So much for free speech at ABC.
Of course none of the above, even if true, has any bearing whatsoever on the
meaning, virtue or importance of the CONTENT of his show.
N9NWO
<winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8lv9um$o29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
: You are a liar. There is nothing positive about Saddam Hussein in
: > > >
: > > > While I was there, I noticed that John Stossel posted this url:
winni...@my-deja.com
"N9NWO" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
> Did you serve in the Gulf War??
Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to your *off-
point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
Americans, just BTW.)
-WS
> : > > In article <5461-39810C67-35@storefull-
Bill
> I await your cite showing that FAIR "says that Saddam Hussein was really
> misunderstood, and never committed any attrocities..."
I'll bet that you ever do see a cite, it will have something to do with
de-bunking the "Iraqui soldiers throwing babies out of incubators" story
that the Bush administration cooked up to sell the war to the American
people.
BOO
>I'll bet that you ever do see a cite, it will have something to do with
>de-bunking the "Iraqui soldiers throwing babies out of incubators" story
>that the Bush administration cooked up to sell the war to the American
>people.
Are you saying that the FAIR report is not accurate or that FAIR is wrong to
report that some of the stories printed during the war wre not accurate?
Remember the stories praising the Patriot Missile? As it turned out, the
Patriot was not as effective as claimed; and it actually killed some of the
people for which scuds were blamed.\
Oh yeah, I served in the northern campagn in Turkey during the war.
Judy Blye Eyes
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/gulf-war-not-true.html
Fair goes on at great length to basically claim that Hussein was OK, and
that any claims about his attrocities are greatly exagerated...
J
<winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8lv9um$o29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You are a liar. There is nothing positive about Saddam Hussein in
> anything FAIR has done. I have been a subscriber since before the Gulf
> War. FAIR did point out that George "Poppy" Bush was arming and
> advocating for MORE arms for Saddam until just months before Saddam
> invaded Kuwait. And Bush Senior -- along with Dick Cheney, most of the
> Republican establishment, some Democrats, and the New Republic
> magazine -- were saying nice things about Saddam AS they pushed for
> further arms appropriations for him.
>
> So it looks like you are a liar -- unless, of course you can cite the
> FAIR article you claimn exists. The only other possibility is that you
> are imcompetent. That you have a reading comprehension problem.
>
> What is it, are you a liar or or you incompetent?
>
> If neither is the case then you will OF COURSE be able to provide a
> citation for your claim. (That's a laugh.)
>
> There *were* a handful of folks on the left, mostly in sectarian groups
> like Workers World, who, with the help of former US Attorney General
> Ramsey Clark defended Hussein. FAIR WAS NOT AMONG THEM.
>
> No, it's your your stadard bearer's father, G.H.W. Bush who cozied up
> to Saddam until 1989. Sound familiar? I mean, George Bush kissing up to
> dictators just before declaring them the focus of evil in the modern
> wrold? Does that sound familiar. Remember Manuel Noriega?
>
> I await your cite showing that FAIR "says that Saddam Hussein was really
> misunderstood, and never committed any attrocities..."
>
> Unless, of course, you are just a plain old lying right-winger. We'll
> know by your response, won't we? Hmmm?
>
> Nice try!
>
> Toodles,
> Winnie Smith
>
>
> In article <VnEg5.745$_G.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
> "Judy Blye Eyes" <nuclea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > There is an article on FAIR.org that says that Saddam Hussein was
> really
> > misunderstood, and never committed any attrocities...
> >
> > How cute, the left is apologizing and covering up genocidal
> tendancies... I
> > wonder if this is a preface to protect themselves, for when they
> finally
> > disarm the people, and can round us up into concentration camps???
> >
> > J
> >
> > <winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8lr7k6$s6r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <5461-398...@storefull-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Judy Blye Eyes
> No, it's your your stadard bearer's father, G.H.W. Bush
This is the most rediculous statement I have ever read about me.
I am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of, a member of, or an
apologist for the Republican party or any of its "members."
I am a Libertarian.
J
Judy Blye Eyes
J
<winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8m020g$7rr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Gee, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've met tons of
> Gulf War vets. Not a one has a fraction of the knowledge of the War or
> the area that I do.
>
> As a reporter for the International Herald Tribune I lived and worked
> in half a dozen countries, including in the middle east. I would put my
> knowledge of the area up against yours *any day* junior.
>
> And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the Gulf War
> up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was *NOT* a
> supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf War? You
> want to argue that?
>
> Bring it on, junior. I'll shut you down.
>
> To paraphrase Clemanceau, War is far to important to be left to the
> generals (let alone left to the grunts). But then, Clemanceau -- if you
> even know who he was -- would just be an "armchair politician" to you,
> right? Because you are such a smart cookie, you even know what the
> average Arab thinks!
>
> Give me a fucking break.
>
> Better luck next time, *cookie*.
>
> -WS
>
> In article <I5Lg5.1837$qd1.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "N9NWO" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
> > : > Did you serve in the Gulf War??
> > :
> > : Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to your
> *off-
> > : point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
> > : Americans, just BTW.)
> > :
> >
> > Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
> > way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
> > the Gulf region a new "Germany". For that the average Arab was
> > immensely grateful.
> >
> > What we have in you is an arm chair politician who has never
> > done anything. You are a good reason why we need to return
> > to the draft.
Judy Blye Eyes
would not just attack the right, they would attack the left as well, but
this does not happen. I could not find a single article on their site that
was not a claim of bias against the left.
How about the bias against the right? Especially gun-control... how come
there is never a story about how a civilian with a gun defended himself or
others?
J
<winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > J
> >
> > <winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
Judy Blye Eyes
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:3983A959...@alt.net...
> N9NWO wrote:
> >
> > : > Did you serve in the Gulf War??
> > :
> > : Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to your
*off-
> > : point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
> > : Americans, just BTW.)
> > :
> >
> > Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
> > way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
> > the Gulf region a new "Germany".
>
> onto Baghdad.
How many dead Americans would there be? One is too many, 164 is WAY too
many... How many casualties in house to house fighting in Baghdad?
> It would not have been necessary to kill him, nor even
> to find him. Just occupying the capital would have shown him to be
> impotent in the face of our army. Yes, there would have been the
> expense of funding an army of occupation, while getting the government
> restructured (like we did in Germany and Japan).
>
Like we occupied Beirut? No thank you.
> So, instead, we are running a blockade against Iraq the same way
> we did in the 1920's against Germany. Think about it...we've been
> starving Iraq for 10 years now....kids who were 9 years old at the
> start of the war...and remember the prosperity of those times....are
> now 19....and have seen friends and infants die from malnutrition.
>
> Our failure to deal with Hussein properly, and relying upon embargos
> and blockades, defacto punishment of the Iraqi people is breeding a
> generation of VERY resentful young men...who will do anything for
> revenge.
>
> World War 2 started at Versailles. It just took 15-20 years for it
> to become a shooting war...but when it did...well, it stretched from
> the Atlantic to east of the Volga River, and from the Mediterrainian
> to the Arctic circle. The only thing that could do that is one
> hell of a lot of German boys whipped up into a thirst for revenge.
>
> And we will start to see the same thing from Iraq soon.
> Widespread war? No.
> Terrorism? More than we have ever dreamed.
>
I expect that it will be so bad that eventually, it will be routine
> for the State Department to deny any visa application from an Iraqi
> citizen, unless the applicant has unusual credentials AND gets the
> application passed through special hands.
>
> Then, they will get the aid of of various anti-American clerks
> and paper-pushers within other Arab governments, and start
> coming over, first on Libyan, and Syrian passports, but eventually
> on any passport where a "friendly" clerk can be found to issue
> a passport. This means...if an anti-American faction in Saudi Arabia
> has someone in the right place, they will get the Iraqi terrorist
> a Saudi passport.
>
> And when all of this happens...we are going to feel like Londoners
> during the height of IRA terrorism in the commercial and financial
> districts of London
>
>
> > For that the average Arab was
> > immensely grateful.
>
>
> >
> > What we have in you is an arm chair politician who has never
> > done anything. You are a good reason why we need to return
> > to the draft.
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week refusal to respond to the challenge to
> describe even one philosophical difference between himself and the
> communists demonstrates that, in fact, Loren is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
> C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
> D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
> E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
> G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> H: Knackos...you're a retard.
N9NWO
:
: Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to your *off-
: point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
: Americans, just BTW.)
:
Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
the Gulf region a new "Germany". For that the average Arab was
winni...@my-deja.com
Gulf War vets. Not a one has a fraction of the knowledge of the War or
the area that I do.
As a reporter for the International Herald Tribune I lived and worked
in half a dozen countries, including in the middle east. I would put my
knowledge of the area up against yours *any day* junior.
And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the Gulf War
up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
*disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was *NOT* a
supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf War? You
want to argue that?
Bring it on, junior. I'll shut you down.
To paraphrase Clemanceau, War is far to important to be left to the
generals (let alone left to the grunts). But then, Clemanceau -- if you
even know who he was -- would just be an "armchair politician" to you,
right? Because you are such a smart cookie, you even know what the
average Arab thinks!
Give me a fucking break.
Better luck next time, *cookie*.
-WS
In article <I5Lg5.1837$qd1.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
"N9NWO" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
winni...@my-deja.com
Bill <bwil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I await your cite showing that FAIR "says that Saddam Hussein was
really
> > misunderstood, and never committed any attrocities..."
>
with
> de-bunking the "Iraqui soldiers throwing babies out of incubators"
story
> that the Bush administration cooked up to sell the war to the American
> people.
Yeah, the incubator story was cooked up by the Bush administration AND
the Saudis, with PR firm Hill & Knowlton as the masterminds behind the
hoax. But Saddam Hussein really is a sociopath. You don't have to "cook
up" stories to show that. It's just that Saddam was just as much a
sociopath when Bush & Co. were *supporting* him, as he was after the
invasion of Kuwait.
I agree with your point though. And I can assure you that "Judy Blue
Eyes" will turn up NOTHING by FAIR that says "Saddam Hussein was really
misunderstood" or that he "never committed any attrocities."
It's a lie, plain and simple.
-WS
winni...@my-deja.com
"BOO" <MOL...@WADHAMS-AKRIDGE.COM> wrote:
>
> >I'll bet that you ever do see a cite, it will have something to do
with
> >de-bunking the "Iraqui soldiers throwing babies out of incubators"
story
> >that the Bush administration cooked up to sell the war to the
American
> >people.
>
wrong to
> report that some of the stories printed during the war wre not
accurate?
> Remember the stories praising the Patriot Missile? As it turned out,
the
> Patriot was not as effective as claimed; and it actually killed some
of the
> people for which scuds were blamed.\
>
> Oh yeah, I served in the northern campagn in Turkey during the war.
That's right. The final report on the Patriot concluded that the
missile did not destroy a single SCUD. But it did divert the trajectory
of a couple. According to the report, that was not necessarily a good
thing: By diverting an already terribly inaccurate missiles, the SCUDs,
they may have accidently sent them into more populated areas.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> : > Did you serve in the Gulf War??
> :
> : Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to your *off-
> : point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
> : Americans, just BTW.)
> :
>
> Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
> way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
> the Gulf region a new "Germany".
I don't know about that. I think Bush Sr. screwed up by not driving
onto Baghdad. It would not have been necessary to kill him, nor even
to find him. Just occupying the capital would have shown him to be
impotent in the face of our army. Yes, there would have been the
expense of funding an army of occupation, while getting the government
restructured (like we did in Germany and Japan).
So, instead, we are running a blockade against Iraq the same way
> For that the average Arab was
> immensely grateful.
>
> What we have in you is an arm chair politician who has never
> done anything. You are a good reason why we need to return
> to the draft.
Hercu...@webtv.net
st...@steve.com wrote:
>
> On 28-Jul-2000, Hercu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > Whether it's corporate censorship or government censorship, if the effect
> > is
> > the same, it's still censorship no matter what you choose to call it or
> > how
> > you choose to justify it.
>
> The effect is, in fact, not the same. When a corporation chooses not to
> speak, they prevent no one else from speaking.
Name one major television network that allows the fiscally liberal side of
the story to be heard. Name one opposite but equally ubiquitous counterpart
to Rush Limbaugh. You see, the effect is the same.
> If ICE-T want to sing "Cop
> Killer" he can do it. If the government cencored him, he could not. That
> is a profound difference.
>
If "Ice-t" started to preach the benefits if fiscally liberal policies,
chances are, you would never even know who he was.
> > > A believer in free speech who is hostile to libertarianism? I guess you
> > > pick and choose your freedoms and accept oppression when you feel it
> > > serves
> > > you.
> >
> > Speak for yourself. When the only institution that is elected
> > democratically
> > by the common person (ie the government) asserts it's authority or censors
> > information, this is magically "bad".
>
> Not "magically", coercively.
>
The name is different, but the double standard is the same.
> >When the only institution that
> > represents the interests of the rich asserts it's authority or censors
> > information (ie. the corporate establishment) this is magically "good".
>
> You mean when free people choose not to fund speech with which they
> disagree? Sounds like freedom to me.
>
When you use the words "free people", who are you referring to? Certainly not
the common person who has no alternative but to listen to the relentless
one-sided propaganda from america's corporate controlled mass media. How are
these "free people" any different from the people who controlled the
communist propaganda machine (aside from the fact that one is controlled by
government and the other is controlled by the corporate establishment)?
> >"I
> > guess you" Loonytarians "pick and choose your freedoms and accept
> > oppression
> > when you feel it serves you". :-)
>
> Not with rational definitions of "freedom" and "oppression".
>
By "rational" I suppose you mean narrow-minded?
Robert
> steve
> --
> "It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
>
Hercu...@webtv.net
"Judy Blye Eyes" <nuclea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> While I am at it, If FAIR.org were to have any validity in my book, they
> would not just attack the right, they would attack the left as well, but
> this does not happen. I could not find a single article on their site that
> was not a claim of bias against the left.
>
> How about the bias against the right? Especially gun-control... how come
> there is never a story about how a civilian with a gun defended himself or
> others?
>
Do you mean you didn't hear about that guy in New York who shot those two
muggers who were attacking him? I don't know about you, but I've heard all of
the pro-gun arguments several hundred times over in the mainstream media.
Unfortunately, it is true that firearms are being increasingly regulated as
time goes on. But I would hardly blame this on the mass media's failure to
report the pro-gun side of the story.
I'm a gun owner and lover myself (but unlike most Loonytarians) I keep my
guns for recreation, not out of some anti-government paranoia. Besides, I'm
smart enough to know that if the government came after me, the 19th century
technology that firearms represent wouldn't be very useful in this day and
age.
Robert
> J
>
> <winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8lv9um$o29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > You are a liar. There is nothing positive about Saddam Hussein in
> > anything FAIR has done. I have been a subscriber since before the Gulf
> > War. FAIR did point out that George "Poppy" Bush was arming and
> > advocating for MORE arms for Saddam until just months before Saddam
> > invaded Kuwait. And Bush Senior -- along with Dick Cheney, most of the
> > Republican establishment, some Democrats, and the New Republic
> > magazine -- were saying nice things about Saddam AS they pushed for
> > further arms appropriations for him.
> >
> > So it looks like you are a liar -- unless, of course you can cite the
> > FAIR article you claimn exists. The only other possibility is that you
> > are imcompetent. That you have a reading comprehension problem.
> >
> > What is it, are you a liar or or you incompetent?
> >
> > If neither is the case then you will OF COURSE be able to provide a
> > citation for your claim. (That's a laugh.)
> >
> > There *were* a handful of folks on the left, mostly in sectarian groups
> > like Workers World, who, with the help of former US Attorney General
> > Ramsey Clark defended Hussein. FAIR WAS NOT AMONG THEM.
> >
> > No, it's your your stadard bearer's father, G.H.W. Bush who cozied up
> > to Saddam until 1989. Sound familiar? I mean, George Bush kissing up to
> > dictators just before declaring them the focus of evil in the modern
> > wrold? Does that sound familiar. Remember Manuel Noriega?
> >
> > I await your cite showing that FAIR "says that Saddam Hussein was really
> > misunderstood, and never committed any attrocities..."
> >
> > Unless, of course, you are just a plain old lying right-winger. We'll
> > know by your response, won't we? Hmmm?
> >
> > Nice try!
> >
> > Toodles,
> > Winnie Smith
> >
> >
> > In article <VnEg5.745$_G.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
> > "Judy Blye Eyes" <nuclea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > There is an article on FAIR.org that says that Saddam Hussein was
> > really
> > > misunderstood, and never committed any attrocities...
> > >
winni...@my-deja.com
wrote that FAIR "says that Saddam Hussein was really misunderstood, and
never committed any attrocities..."
Now, first things first, huh? Some of us are waiting for your citation.
Remember? As I said, the proof of whether or not you are a common liar
will come when you *attempt* to back up your words. Your words do mean
something, don't they? Show us the FAIR cite and stop fucking around.
More comments below...
In article <h0Og5.7003$_G.19...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
"Judy Blye Eyes" <nuclea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Are your articles in the International Herald Tribune this objective?
The correct form of the verb is "were" -- were my articles this
objective. I've been a magazine wrtiter since 1990. and the answer is,
yes. Please show me the bias in my comments below. Do you duspute any
of my *FACTS*. Because I would be glad to humiliate you even further. I
mean, you have aready apparently admitted to lying about FAIR.
Otherwise, if you aren't lying, then wouldn't you have produced your
evidence by now? Hmmm?
Cheers,
Winnie Smith
\
E
> J
>
> <winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8m020g$7rr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "N9NWO" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
> > > : > Did you serve in the Gulf War??
> > > :
> > > : Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to
your
> > *off-
> > > : point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
> > > : Americans, just BTW.)
> > > :
> > >
> > > Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
> > > way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
> > > the Gulf region a new "Germany". For that the average Arab was
> > > immensely grateful.
> > >
> > > What we have in you is an arm chair politician who has never
> > > done anything. You are a good reason why we need to return
> > > to the draft.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
winni...@my-deja.com
that FAIR "says that Saddam Hussein was really misunderstood, and never
committed any attrocities..."
Now, first things first, huh? Some of us are waiting for your citation.
Remember? As I said, the proof of whether or not you are a common liar
will come when you *attempt* to back up your words. Your words do mean
something, don't they? Show us the FAIR cite and stop fucking around.
Now you've complicated your situation. The article you cite below does
NOT say what you say it does. It does NOT say Saddam was "OK" and it
does NOT say that his atrocities are "exagerated". Much less, it does
NOT come close to substantiating your earlier claim that FAIR "says
that Saddam Hussein was really misunderstood, and never committed any
attrocities..."
Where's your evidence?
The article you have posted goes after the *media* for repeating
stories that were NOT substatiated by any facts. I mean, I guess you're
just a common fucking liar. Is that what you are? You've had several
chances to back up your claims now.
-WS
In article <wZNg5.6985$_G.19...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
"Judy Blye Eyes" <nuclea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the following article:
>
> http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/gulf-war-not-true.html
>
> Fair goes on at great length to basically claim that Hussein was OK,
and
> that any claims about his attrocities are greatly exagerated...
>
> J
>
> <winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > I await your cite showing that FAIR "says that Saddam Hussein was
really
> > misunderstood, and never committed any attrocities..."
> >
> > Unless, of course, you are just a plain old lying right-winger.
We'll
> > know by your response, won't we? Hmmm?
> >
> > Nice try!
> >
> > Toodles,
> > Winnie Smith
> >
> >
> > In article <VnEg5.745$_G.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
> > "Judy Blye Eyes" <nuclea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > There is an article on FAIR.org that says that Saddam Hussein was
> > really
> > > misunderstood, and never committed any attrocities...
> > >
> > > How cute, the left is apologizing and covering up genocidal
> > tendancies... I
> > > wonder if this is a preface to protect themselves, for when they
> > finally
> > > disarm the people, and can round us up into concentration camps???
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > <winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8lr7k6$s6r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <5461-39810C67-35@storefull-
winni...@my-deja.com
the "junior GOP"?
Or do you mean small "l" libertarian?
Because no real libertarian, in the actual tradition of the
philosophical movement (Proudhon, etc.), would ever cheer the Gulf War.
You must be a junior GOPer, not a real libertarian.
You're very confused. If you think you are reflecting well on
libertarianism by lying, as you have above, then god help the
libertarians.
-WS
In article <%_Ng5.6994$_G.19...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
"Judy Blye Eyes" <nuclea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, I was offended by this statement:
>
> > No, it's your your stadard bearer's father, G.H.W. Bush
>
> This is the most rediculous statement I have ever read about me.
>
> I am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of, a member of, or an
> apologist for the Republican party or any of its "members."
>
> I am a Libertarian.
>
> J
>
>
Bill
> >I'll bet that you ever do see a cite, it will have something to do with
> >de-bunking the "Iraqui soldiers throwing babies out of incubators" story
> >that the Bush administration cooked up to sell the war to the American
> >people.
>
> Are you saying that the FAIR report is not accurate or that FAIR is wrong to
> report that some of the stories printed during the war wre not accurate?
How did you get that impression? I'm not sure if FAIR covered this issue, but I
believe it's been conclusively proven that the Bush administration lied to the
American people in order to gather support for the Gulf War.
N9NWO
: Gulf War vets. Not a one has a fraction of the knowledge of the War or
: the area that I do.
:
: As a reporter for the International Herald Tribune I lived and worked
: in half a dozen countries, including in the middle east. I would put my
: knowledge of the area up against yours *any day* junior.
:
: And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the Gulf War
: up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
: *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was *NOT* a
: supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf War? You
: want to argue that?
:
: Bring it on, junior. I'll shut you down.
First off, no one should be hired as a reporter
until he is in his 40s. No kid out of college has
the experience to justify "preaching at the public"
like you assholes like to do.
Second, most reporters should have military or law
enforcement backgrounds. As it the press is so fucking
out of touch with the public that they sound more like
Baptist preachers.
Third, much of your "knowledge" seems out of some
professors lecture. We had the same problem going
into Saudi. All our cultural briefings were either from
Aramco or some professor's book. My unit finally
went out and found Arabs and Muslims who could
give us a better view.
BTW, one of my colonels (he was my senior rater at
the time) is Larry McIntyre. He is on the editorial board
for the Indianapolis Star. Another major in the unit was
Steve Buyer, now a congressman from Indiana (he was
a house manager for Clinton's impeachment).
: To paraphrase Clemanceau, War is far to important to be left to the
: generals (let alone left to the grunts). But then, Clemanceau -- if you
: even know who he was -- would just be an "armchair politician" to you,
: right? Because you are such a smart cookie, you even know what the
: average Arab thinks!
:
: Give me a fucking break.
I spent my time over there getting to know the people.
Almost living with them. I do what the Brits would call
going native, what I call dumpster diving a culture. I go
to the heart of a people.
You sound like someone who has too much education
and very little heart. A typical left wing extremist.
What I see you doing is justifying your "theology"
than real knowledge.
N9NWO
: > :
: > : Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to your
*off-
: > : point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
: > : Americans, just BTW.)
: > :
: >
: > Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
: > way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
: > the Gulf region a new "Germany".
: I don't know about that. I think Bush Sr. screwed up by not driving
: onto Baghdad. It would not have been necessary to kill him, nor even
: to find him. Just occupying the capital would have shown him to be
: impotent in the face of our army. Yes, there would have been the
: expense of funding an army of occupation, while getting the government
: restructured (like we did in Germany and Japan).
Aaron, we only promised to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Not remove
the government of Iraq. That would have destablized the region.
I really do not think people understand the balance of power over
there. Remember our unit had a good number of Civil Affairs personal.
They are Special Operations, a MOS in the intell field, that specializes
in dealing with civilians. That includes civilians on the battlefield
(COB),
running governments like we did with the Kurds (and would have with
the Iraqis) or dealing with host nation issues. Therefore we had some
of the best information going. And the Arabs were very fearful of a US
colonization of the Gulf Region. And they knew how delicate the balance
was in the region.
: So, instead, we are running a blockade against Iraq the same way
: we did in the 1920's against Germany. Think about it...we've been
: starving Iraq for 10 years now....kids who were 9 years old at the
: start of the war...and remember the prosperity of those times....are
: now 19....and have seen friends and infants die from malnutrition.
:
: Our failure to deal with Hussein properly, and relying upon embargos
: and blockades, defacto punishment of the Iraqi people is breeding a
: generation of VERY resentful young men...who will do anything for
: revenge.
We did send in a time to try to kill Hussein. What we found out was
that he had at least 50 look a likes. It would have been an impossible
job to take him. Even if we had invaded. Now, time is doing our work
for us. We westerners are too impatient. The middle east and far east
are far more willing to deal with problems over a 100 years.
: World War 2 started at Versailles. It just took 15-20 years for it
: to become a shooting war...but when it did...well, it stretched from
: the Atlantic to east of the Volga River, and from the Mediterrainian
: to the Arctic circle. The only thing that could do that is one
: hell of a lot of German boys whipped up into a thirst for revenge.
:
: And we will start to see the same thing from Iraq soon.
: Widespread war? No.
: Terrorism? More than we have ever dreamed.
Saddam will die of cancer soon. As it is Syria just lost
its leader. Even Iran is in a weak state. Time does solve
most problems.
: I expect that it will be so bad that eventually, it will be routine
: for the State Department to deny any visa application from an Iraqi
: citizen, unless the applicant has unusual credentials AND gets the
: application passed through special hands.
:
: Then, they will get the aid of of various anti-American clerks
: and paper-pushers within other Arab governments, and start
: coming over, first on Libyan, and Syrian passports, but eventually
: on any passport where a "friendly" clerk can be found to issue
: a passport. This means...if an anti-American faction in Saudi Arabia
: has someone in the right place, they will get the Iraqi terrorist
: a Saudi passport.
:
: And when all of this happens...we are going to feel like Londoners
: during the height of IRA terrorism in the commercial and financial
: districts of London
We would have had much worst terrorism had we been an occupying
army.
N9NWO
: the Saudis, with PR firm Hill & Knowlton as the masterminds behind the
: hoax. But Saddam Hussein really is a sociopath. You don't have to "cook
: up" stories to show that. It's just that Saddam was just as much a
: sociopath when Bush & Co. were *supporting* him, as he was after the
: invasion of Kuwait.
:
: I agree with your point though. And I can assure you that "Judy Blue
: Eyes" will turn up NOTHING by FAIR that says "Saddam Hussein was really
: misunderstood" or that he "never committed any attrocities."
:
: It's a lie, plain and simple.
What happened during the Bush administration was that we cleaned
house. All those dictators that we needed during the Cold War were
taken out. Remember, the CIA even told democrats how to run foreign
policy back then.
It will take a few more years to sweep away all aspects of the Cold War.
Thankfully that also means that we will see the left wing dead and gone
as well.
N9NWO
Most of the time those of us in government ignore you. Now if you piss
us off, we will come for you. Just like we did at the WTO riots. (BTW
watch the fun at the LA democratic convention)
What you fail to note is that government does crime prevention very poorly.
For one thing most big city mayors use the money raised for police and fire
protection as bait to get votes. It often goes into projects that make the
mayor
look good or to bribe some voting block.
Then we really do not have enough law enforcement to keep the current
state of affairs stable in America. We currently have 650,000 law
enforcement
officers (LEO) in the US. About 65,000 work for 44 agencies at the Federal
level. Of the rest, over half work for local departments which have less
than
17 officers. Most big city departments could use 10 TIMES the number of
LEOs than what they have now. In reality our nation needs about 5 million
LEOs, not 500,000, on the streets.
As the old saying goes, if you want something done right then do it
yourself.
That is very true when it comes to self defense.
Don Barzini
Don't worry, Winnie. Greggie Dean (aka N9NWO) doesn't have any idea what
he's talking about. All we hear from him is "bring back the draft." You
could be talking about particle physics and this moron would find a way to
insert his insane rant. BTW, you gave it to that idiot good.
I've met tons of
> Gulf War vets. Not a one has a fraction of the knowledge of the War or
> the area that I do.
>
> As a reporter for the International Herald Tribune I lived and worked
> in half a dozen countries, including in the middle east. I would put my
> knowledge of the area up against yours *any day* junior.
>
> And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the Gulf War
> up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was *NOT* a
> supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf War? You
> want to argue that?
>
> Bring it on, junior. I'll shut you down.
>
> To paraphrase Clemanceau, War is far to important to be left to the
> generals (let alone left to the grunts). But then, Clemanceau -- if you
> even know who he was -- would just be an "armchair politician" to you,
> right? Because you are such a smart cookie, you even know what the
> average Arab thinks!
>
> Give me a fucking break.
>
> Better luck next time, *cookie*.
>
> -WS
>
> In article <I5Lg5.1837$qd1.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "N9NWO" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
> > : > Did you serve in the Gulf War??
> > :
> > : Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to your
> *off-
> > : point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
> > : Americans, just BTW.)
> > :
> >
> > Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
> > way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
> > the Gulf region a new "Germany". For that the average Arab was
> > immensely grateful.
> >
> > What we have in you is an arm chair politician who has never
> > done anything. You are a good reason why we need to return
> > to the draft.
> >
> >
>
Don Barzini
"N9NWO" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
> : Gee, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've met tons of
> : Gulf War vets. Not a one has a fraction of the knowledge of the War or
> : the area that I do.
> :
> : As a reporter for the International Herald Tribune I lived and worked
> : in half a dozen countries, including in the middle east. I would put my
> : knowledge of the area up against yours *any day* junior.
> :
> : And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the Gulf War
> : up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> : *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was *NOT* a
> : supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf War? You
> : want to argue that?
> :
> : Bring it on, junior. I'll shut you down.
>
> until he is in his 40s. No kid out of college has
> the experience to justify "preaching at the public"
> like you assholes like to do.
Assholes like you think they have something worthwhile to say. You don't.
> Second, most reporters should have military or law
> enforcement backgrounds. As it the press is so fucking
> out of touch with the public that they sound more like
> Baptist preachers.
Baptist preachers are the ones who are out of touch. So are you.
> Third, much of your "knowledge" seems out of some
> professors lecture. We had the same problem going
> into Saudi. All our cultural briefings were either from
> Aramco or some professor's book. My unit finally
> went out and found Arabs and Muslims who could
> give us a better view.
Your 'unit' was stuck in a tent away from the locals. Quit your lying.
> BTW, one of my colonels (he was my senior rater at
> the time) is Larry McIntyre. He is on the editorial board
> for the Indianapolis Star. Another major in the unit was
> Steve Buyer, now a congressman from Indiana (he was
> a house manager for Clinton's impeachment).
So he's an idiot as well as a REMF. Not a good endorsement.
>
> : To paraphrase Clemanceau, War is far to important to be left to the
> : generals (let alone left to the grunts). But then, Clemanceau -- if you
> : even know who he was -- would just be an "armchair politician" to you,
> : right? Because you are such a smart cookie, you even know what the
> : average Arab thinks!
> :
> : Give me a fucking break.
>
> I spent my time over there getting to know the people.
> Almost living with them. I do what the Brits would call
> going native, what I call dumpster diving a culture. I go
> to the heart of a people.
More like the backside.
> You sound like someone who has too much education
> and very little heart. A typical left wing extremist.
Gee, Winnie gave no clue as to political association. You just made it up.
You have a habit of making things up.
> What I see you doing is justifying your "theology"
> than real knowledge.
Please start writing coherently.
Don Barzini
> > >
> > > : > Did you serve in the Gulf War??
> > > :
> > > : Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to your
> *off-
> > > : point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
> > > : Americans, just BTW.)
> > > :
> > >
> > > Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
> > > way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
> > > the Gulf region a new "Germany".
> >
> > onto Baghdad.
>
> many... How many casualties in house to house fighting in Baghdad?
And how fast would the coalition have broken up?
> > It would not have been necessary to kill him, nor even
> > to find him. Just occupying the capital would have shown him to be
> > impotent in the face of our army. Yes, there would have been the
> > expense of funding an army of occupation, while getting the government
> > restructured (like we did in Germany and Japan).
> >
>
> Like we occupied Beirut? No thank you.
We'd be there to this day.
> > So, instead, we are running a blockade against Iraq the same way
> > we did in the 1920's against Germany. Think about it...we've been
> > starving Iraq for 10 years now....kids who were 9 years old at the
> > start of the war...and remember the prosperity of those times....are
> > now 19....and have seen friends and infants die from malnutrition.
> >
> > Our failure to deal with Hussein properly, and relying upon embargos
> > and blockades, defacto punishment of the Iraqi people is breeding a
> > generation of VERY resentful young men...who will do anything for
> > revenge.
> >
> > World War 2 started at Versailles. It just took 15-20 years for it
> > to become a shooting war...but when it did...well, it stretched from
> > the Atlantic to east of the Volga River, and from the Mediterrainian
> > to the Arctic circle. The only thing that could do that is one
> > hell of a lot of German boys whipped up into a thirst for revenge.
> >
> > And we will start to see the same thing from Iraq soon.
> > Widespread war? No.
> > Terrorism? More than we have ever dreamed.
> >
> I expect that it will be so bad that eventually, it will be routine
> > for the State Department to deny any visa application from an Iraqi
> > citizen, unless the applicant has unusual credentials AND gets the
> > application passed through special hands.
> >
> > Then, they will get the aid of of various anti-American clerks
> > and paper-pushers within other Arab governments, and start
> > coming over, first on Libyan, and Syrian passports, but eventually
> > on any passport where a "friendly" clerk can be found to issue
> > a passport. This means...if an anti-American faction in Saudi Arabia
> > has someone in the right place, they will get the Iraqi terrorist
> > a Saudi passport.
> >
> > And when all of this happens...we are going to feel like Londoners
> > during the height of IRA terrorism in the commercial and financial
> > districts of London
> >
> >
> > > For that the average Arab was
> > > immensely grateful.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > What we have in you is an arm chair politician who has never
> > > done anything. You are a good reason why we need to return
> > > to the draft.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > ICQ # 3056642
> >
> > I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> > premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> > you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> > you are lazy, stupid people"
> >
> > J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week refusal to respond to the challenge to
> > describe even one philosophical difference between himself and the
> > communists demonstrates that, in fact, Loren is a COMMUNIST ***hole
> >
> > A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
> >
> > B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
> >
> > C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> > sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> > that she doesn't like.
> >
> > D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
> >
> > E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> > ...despite (D) above.
> >
> > F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> > response until their behavior improves.
> >
> > G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> > adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
> >
> > H: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Gee, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've met tons of
> Gulf War vets. Not a one has a fraction of the knowledge of the War or
> the area that I do.
>
> As a reporter for the International Herald Tribune I lived and worked
> in half a dozen countries, including in the middle east. I would put my
> knowledge of the area up against yours *any day* junior.
>
> And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the Gulf War
> up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was *NOT* a
> supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf War? You
> want to argue that?
>
> Bring it on, junior. I'll shut you down.
>
> generals (let alone left to the grunts). But then, Clemanceau -- if you
> even know who he was -- would just be an "armchair politician" to you,
> right? Because you are such a smart cookie, you even know what the
> average Arab thinks!
>
> Give me a fucking break.
>
You write like a self-deluded fool.
Why is that?
>
> -WS
>
> In article <I5Lg5.1837$qd1.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "N9NWO" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
> > : > Did you serve in the Gulf War??
> > :
> > : Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to your
> *off-
> > : point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
> > : Americans, just BTW.)
> > :
> >
> > Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
> > way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
> > the Gulf region a new "Germany". For that the average Arab was
> > immensely grateful.
> >
> > What we have in you is an arm chair politician who has never
> > done anything. You are a good reason why we need to return
> > to the draft.
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> wrote in message
> news:3983A959...@alt.net...
> > >
> > > : > Did you serve in the Gulf War??
> > > :
> > > : Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to your
> *off-
> > > : point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
> > > : Americans, just BTW.)
> > > :
> > >
> > > Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
> > > way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
> > > the Gulf region a new "Germany".
> >
> > onto Baghdad.
>
> How many dead Americans would there be? One is too many, 164 is WAY too
> many... How many casualties in house to house fighting in Baghdad?
Done properly, not many.
Simply lay seige to the city until it surrenders.
A couple of days without food is all it would take.
>
> > It would not have been necessary to kill him, nor even
> > to find him. Just occupying the capital would have shown him to be
> > impotent in the face of our army. Yes, there would have been the
> > expense of funding an army of occupation, while getting the government
> > restructured (like we did in Germany and Japan).
> >
>
> Like we occupied Beirut? No thank you.
We would have had the support of a vast portion of the Iraqi populace.
> > > For that the average Arab was
> > > immensely grateful.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > What we have in you is an arm chair politician who has never
> > > done anything. You are a good reason why we need to return
> > > to the draft.
> >
> >
Hunter Putnam
N9NWO <21...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:cjEg5.1128$qd1.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> : >> When he started the show with a brief segment on Catholics who
> protested the
> : >> film "Dogma", I was rather surprised, and thought he might have
> actually
> : >> come up with a balanced show, highlighting excesses from all parts of
> the
> : >> political spectrum. No such luck, after the "Dogma" segment, it was
> nothing
> : >> but bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls, bash lib'ruls...
> : >
> : >Given that rules to suppress Freedom of Speech originate largely from
> : >the liberal end of the political spectrum (with the occasional "Dogma"
> : >exception), who else should he be bashing on this subject?
> :
> : Please explain the Republicans who have authored the various anti-drug
> : speech acts now before Congress.
> :
> : Or Bob Barr who wouldn't allow the DC medical marijuana vote to be
> : counted?
> :
> : The Rs are no better than the Ds.
>
> Face it. Those who used illegal drugs are now only 7% of
> our population.
Your source for this "fact"?
> You have no support among the masses.
No shit. Neither did the abolitionists in the early days of slavery. But
that didn't mean slavery was right.
> And as it is, a good deal of drug usage, to include alcohol
> abuse, is done to self medicate for emotional illness.
Again, no shit. But they're doing it even though the behavior is
criminalized--how is the law stopping them???
> Too
> many fatherless boys in America.
I agree that there are too many one parent families, but there are plenty of
"dead beat dads" who don't use illegal drugs--the problem is lack of
morality. The following is from Healing Our World by Dr. Mary
Ruwart--Chapter 15, Dealing In Death:
Using aggression to stop drug abuse kills more people than the drugs
themselves!
If we honored our neighbor's choice, the people now enforcing the minimum
wage and licensing laws would be available to go after the real criminals.
In 1987, drug offenders made up 36% of the federal prison population. (1) As
the War on Drugs escalates, more of our law enforcement dollar will be spent
on drug-related crimes and less on rapists, murderers, and thieves. Is this
the best way to deal with the drug problem?
Aggression Didn't Work Then...
People who drink an alcoholic beverage in the privacy of their own homes are
not using first-strike force, theft, or fraud against anyone else. Nor is a
person smoking a joint or snorting cocaine, under the same conditions,
guilty of anything more sinister than trying to feel good. We see no
contradiction in arresting the cocaine user while we enjoy our favorite
cocktail. Are we once again sanctioning aggression- through- government in
an attempt to control the lives of others?
In the early 1900s, many people supported aggression through-government to
stop the consumption of alcoholic beverages. As we all know, Prohibition was
tried, but it just didn't work. People still drank, but they had to settle
for home-brews, which were not always safe. Some people even died from
drinking them. (2) Since business people could no longer sell alcohol,
organized crime did. Turf battles killed innocent bystanders, and law
enforcement officials found they could make more money taking bribes than
jailing the bootleggers. Aggression was ineffective - and expensive, both in
terms of dollars and lives.
When Prohibition was repealed, people bought their alcohol from professional
brewers instead of criminals. As a result, they stopped dying from bathtub
gin. The turf fighting subsided, since there was no turf to fight about. The
murder and assault rate that had skyrocketed during Prohibition fell
steadily after its repeal. (3)
Today, Americans are switching from hard liquor to beer and wine. (4)
Educating people about the deleterious effects of alcohol has proven more
effective than force. Those concerned about alcohol abuse are educating and
treating addicts rather than jailing them (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous).
Aggression Isn't Working Now!
An estimated 20% of adults age 20 to 40 years use illegal recreational drugs
regularly. (5) The death toll from overdose was 7,000 in 19886 while 100,000
to 200,000 died from alcohol-related causes, (7) and 320,000 to 390,000 died
from tobacco. (8) Tobacco is the hardest drug in terms of addictiveness. (9)
Its popularity makes it the most serious drug-related threat to worldwide
health. However, the biggest killer of all is overeating, believed to be
responsible for 500,000 to 1,000,000 cardiovascular deaths each year. (10)
Much effort and expense is being directed at a relatively minor problem,
most of which comes from the aggression we are using to stop it!
For example, approximately 80% of the 7,000 deaths attributed to drug
overdose would probably not have occurred if the recreational drugs had been
marketed legally. (11) Legal drugs are tested for safety, while street drugs
are sold even when they are highly toxic. They are frequently cut with other
substances, such as quinine, caffeine, and amphetamines, which makes them
even more dangerous. The user seldom knows how much drug is actually being
administered, making overdose - death - much more likely. Once again,
prohibition puts more people at risk.
Street drugs are 100 times more expensive than their legal counterparts.
(12) The safer oral route is shunned by drug users, because much more drug
is needed to get the desired effects. Instead, users take the expensive
drugs intravenously, sometimes producing fatally high blood levels. When
users get in trouble, they delay seeking medical help for fear of arrest.
The basketball player Len Bias had three seizures before his friends finally
called the medics. By then, it was too late. (13)
If the estimate is correct that 80% of drug overdose deaths are needless,
the true U.S. death toll caused by the inherent toxicity of recreational
drugs would be closer to 1400 per year. In Amsterdam, where the drug user is
not criminalized, there are only 60 drug-induced deaths per year, in a
population 20 times smaller than that of the United States. (6) Thus, the
estimate of an 80% overkill caused by drug prohibition appears to be very
close.
In addition, prohibition causes some indirect deaths. Each year,
approximately 3,500 drug users contract AIDS from sharing nee-dles. (14) In
Hong Kong, where needles can be bought without a prescription, AIDS is not
spread by contaminated needles. (15)
Approximately 750 people are killed annually during black market turf
fighting. (16) Each year 1,600 innocent individuals are killed while being
robbed by users. (16) These robberyrelated deaths would be unlikely if
recreational substances could be sold legally, just as alcohol is. How many
alcoholics need to steal to support their habit?
More than 11,000 people die each year because we succumb to the temptation
to use aggression to control others. If we honored our neighbor's choice,
fewer people would die each year, unless drug use increased eightfold. Given
the current estimates of drug use, almost the entire U.S. population would
have to take drugs for this level to be reached. The War on Drugs kill more
people than the drugs themselves!
Who profits from these deaths? The money goes directly to the people in
organized crime, just as it did during Prohibition. Our Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) sometimes protects and aids these people to get information or
to pay for activities that Congress won't fund! (17) Our eagerness to
control our neighbors creates and sustains those with motives more sinister
than just getting high!
Our own choices are compromised when we refuse to honor the choices of
others. Recent changes in our laws allow the police to confiscate the
property of presumed drug dealers before they are proven guilty. (18) In the
Pittsburgh Press' 10-month study of such confiscations, 80% of the people
subjected to seizure were never even charged with a crime! (19) A vindictive
neighbor could falsely accuse us of drug trafficking, and we could lose
everything even though we were innocent. Our desire to control our neighbors
gives them power over us. We create a world that sustains the Mafia,
unauthorized CIA projects, punishment without a trial, and false
accusations.
How much of the drug traffic do we stop after paying this enormous price?
Estimates suggest that only 10% of the street drugs are interdicted before
sale.20 Clearly, our aggression hasn't solved the problem - it simply has
created a more deadly one!
The Easy Way Out
If aggression aggravates rather than solves the drug problem, there is no
sense in continuing this "prohibitive" licensing. When marijuana was
legalized in Alaska, consumption went down. (21) The Netherlands had a
similar experience. (22) In Amsterdam, heroin addiction is half that of the
U.S. rate, and crack is not widely available. (6)When we honor our
neighbor's choice, he or she will often act differently than we would have
predicted.
To get drugs out of our schools, we need to take aggression out of our legal
code. The excessive profit that comes from prohibitive licensing would not
exist in the self-regulating marketplace ecosystem. Alcohol and cigarettes,
which are illegal for minors, are less of a problem because they are less
profitable.
If recreational drugs were legal, their medicinal properties could be more
easily studied and employed. Today, red tape discourages physicians from
giving marijuana to their patients, even though it can slow the progress of
glaucoma, keep cancer patients from being nauseated by chemotherapy, and
help treat multiple sclerosis. (23) Until it became illegal, marijuana was
listed in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia for some of these purposes. (24)
Instead, our enforcement agents seized the marijuana plants of a retired
postal worker suffering from cancer. Robert Brewser had used them to control
the pain and nausea from his radiation therapy. The agents also took -
without trial- the van his wife used to take him to the hospital for
treatment! (19). How much universal love do we show our neighbors when we
support laws that make this possible?
Without the aggression of prohibitive licensing, scientists would study how
they work and find out why people take them. The money now spent on
aggression could be directed toward education and research. We would have a
chance at really winning the war on drugs, just as we are now winning the
war on alcohol, not by Prohibition, but by the only method that really
works - convincing people that drug abuse is not in their best interest.
For the most part, drug abusers hurt only themselves. If they threaten to
harm others, they should be held responsible for their actions.
Cravings for illegal recreational drugs may have both physiological and
emotional components. Alcoholism is a disease. Dependence on drugs is a
medical problem as well. People who are willing to sacrifice their health,
wealth, and social standing for chemical highs require our help, not our
condemnation, especially when we may inadvertently contributed to their
distress.
Aggression-through-government sets the stage for drug problems. When we
discriminate against disadvantaged workers through minimum wage and
licensing laws, we frustrate their economic goals. Getting high is certainly
more attractive when other parts of one's life don't seem to be working.
Selling drugs certainly seems like a lucrative career for a ghetto youth
banned from legitimate paths of creating wealth. In addition to the other
deleterious effects of licensing laws, they may well contribute to the drug
problem.
Drug prohibition is counterproductive. We resist this conclusion, however,
because we want to control other people's choices. Some people will indeed
make what we consider to be poor choices for themselves. People who overeat,
drink heavily, or engage in dangerous activities may prefer a shorter, more
exciting, and intense life to a longer one with different rewards. They may
prefer gratification over longevity. It is their life and their choice - if
only we would honor it.
We cannot protect people from themselves. When we honor their choice of
food, drink, drugs, or activities, we free our police to focus on
individuals who would directly and purposefully harm us through force,
theft, or fraud. When we stop trying to control others, we can more readily
prevent aggressors from controlling us, as described in the following
chapter.
Quotes:
"Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in search after his own
happiness. In vices, the very essence of crime-that is, the design to injure
the person or property of another-is wanting."
- Lysander Spooner
"The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be... Try to
make people moral, and you lay the groundwork for vice."
- Lao-tsu, TAO TE CHING
"If the government cannot stop people from using drugs in the prisons over
which it has total control, why should Americans forfeit any of their
traditional civil rights in the hope of reducing the drug problem?"
- Inmate, Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno, Oklahoma, Time
Magazine, October 16, 1989
"Elvy Musikka... was arrested last month for possession of 4 marijuana
plants. "I can't think of any crime that should be punished by blindness,"
Elvy said.... Doctors at Bascome Palmer Eye Clinic in Miami have said that
without marijuana, her glaucoma is getting worse."
- On The Freedom Trail, May 1988
"If even a small fraction of the money we now spend on trying to enforce
drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and drug rehabilitation, in an
atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in
the harm done to users could be dramatic."
- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner, Economics
"The real question is why are millions of people so unhappy, so bored, so
unfulfilled, that they are willing to drink, snort, inject or inhale any
substance that might blot out reality and give them a bit of temporary
relief."
- Ann Landers, syndicated columnist
Stupendous Man
>
> You are a liar. There is nothing positive about Saddam Hussein in
> anything FAIR has done. I have been a subscriber since before the Gulf
> War. FAIR did point out that George "Poppy" Bush was arming and
> advocating for MORE arms for Saddam until just months before Saddam
> invaded Kuwait.
Unless unFAIR pointed out that the Soviets were the ones supplying
the actual WEAPONS (along with China, Germany and France) and
that the US was supply things like computers, then unFAIR would be
telling a lie.
> And Bush Senior -- along with Dick Cheney, most of the
> Republican establishment, some Democrats, and the New Republic
> magazine -- were saying nice things about Saddam AS they pushed for
> further arms appropriations for him.
Because he was fighting the even more vile Iranians. Let the two kill
each
other, much like the Nazis and Soviets in WWII.
...
> What is it, are you a liar or or you incompetent?
"Ditto".
unFAIR always has a problem with people who tell the truth. Those
people tend to make unFAIR look bad.
A decade after the infamous Super Bowl wife beating hoax we're still
waiting for an apology from that lunatic fringe outfit.
Stupendous Man
http://reagan.webteamone.com/
http://www.buyntrade.com/
Stupendous Man
...
> And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the Gulf War
> up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was *NOT* a
> supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf War? You
> want to argue that?
Name the major weapon systems in Saddam's arsenal and which country
provided them.
Go ahead, we'll wait.
Here's a hint, the countries are: the Soviet Union; France; Germany;
China.
>
> Bring it on, junior. I'll shut you down.
Put your money where your mouth is.
Stupendous Man
http://reagan.webteamone.com
http://www.buyntrade.com/
Stupendous Man
>
> Do you mean that you are a member of the Libertarian Party,
> the "junior GOP"?
The LP criticizes the GOP as much as the Trial Lawyer..I mean Democrat
Party.
>
> Or do you mean small "l" libertarian?
>
> Because no real libertarian, in the actual tradition of the
> philosophical movement (Proudhon, etc.), would ever cheer the Gulf War.
There you go again, lying. As a libertarian I fully supported the Gulf
War.
Perhaps now you have learned not to speak for others.
> You must be a junior GOPer, not a real libertarian.
Oops, there you go again.
> You're very confused. If you think you are reflecting well on
> libertarianism by lying, as you have above, then god help the
> libertarians.
Who are in far better shape than the ideology that says you have
to lie about other people's position to make your own look better.
winni...@my-deja.com
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@alt.net> wrote:
> winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Gee, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've met tons
of
> > Gulf War vets. Not a one has a fraction of the knowledge of the War
or
> > the area that I do.
> >
> > As a reporter for the International Herald Tribune I lived and
worked
> > in half a dozen countries, including in the middle east. I would
> > knowledge of the area up against yours *any day* junior.
> >
War
> > up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> > *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was *NOT*
a
> > supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf War?
You
> > want to argue that?
> >
> >
> > generals (let alone left to the grunts). But then, Clemanceau -- if
you
> > even know who he was -- would just be an "armchair politician" to
you,
> > right? Because you are such a smart cookie, you even know what the
> > average Arab thinks!
> >
> > Give me a fucking break.
> >
> > Better luck next time, *cookie*.
>
> You write like a self-deluded fool.
>
> Why is that?
Gee, I laid out facts -- or at least allegations which can be tested
for veracity. And I provided an *argument* from those facts. Would you
kindly point out what is "deluded" about what I have written? I mean,
you do know what an argument is, don't you?
Let me explain to you what is NOT an argument. It is not an argument to
childishly fling a name or accusation with NO evidence or explanation.
This is what you have done. In other words, you have childishly claimed
I am deluded with no argument, that's about as mature as claiming that
I have "cooties".
Now, if you could just grow up and explain your "deluded" charge?
-WS
-WS
> >
> > -WS
> >
> > In article <I5Lg5.1837$qd1.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> > "N9NWO" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
> > > : > Did you serve in the Gulf War??
> > > :
> > > : Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to
your
> > *off-
> > > : point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
> > > : Americans, just BTW.)
> > > :
> > >
> > > Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
> > > way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
> > > the Gulf region a new "Germany". For that the average Arab was
> > > immensely grateful.
> > >
> > > What we have in you is an arm chair politician who has never
> > > done anything. You are a good reason why we need to return
> > > to the draft.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
Hunter Putnam
Stupendous Man <you_wish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3984F0...@aol.com...
> winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ...
> > And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the Gulf War
> > up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> > *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was *NOT* a
> > supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf War? You
> > want to argue that?
>
> provided them.
>
> Go ahead, we'll wait.
Yeah, we're waiting, winnie...
>
> Here's a hint, the countries are: the Soviet Union; France; Germany;
> China.
>
> >
> > Bring it on, junior. I'll shut you down.
Is everybody a junior to you, winnie? You 90 years old or something?
>
> Put your money where your mouth is.
She can't, she's broke.
winni...@my-deja.com
you_wish...@aol.com wrote:
> winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ...
> > And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the Gulf
War
> > up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> > *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was *NOT*
a
> > supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf War?
You
> > want to argue that?
>
> Name the major weapon systems in Saddam's arsenal and which country
> provided them.
> Go ahead, we'll wait.
>
> China.
Easy Junior! I think you might be in over your head.
Those are not ALL the countries that provided important weapons,
expertise and technology. And MORE importantly many of the systems that
Saddam Hussein ended up with, though not products of the US per se,
were the products of deals brokered by the *US* and by US companies
with the permission of the White House and State Dept.
Having acknowledged your flawed question and hints, I'll go for it
anyway:
* Germany provided atomic, biological and chemical weapons parts and
technology (AKA "ABC" technology). Germany also provided parts and
technology to increase the range of the Soviet SCUD missiles mentioned
below;
* Soviet Union and China: mostly tanks, missiles, and amunition;
* France: artillery (mostly modern 155mm Hows), armed helicopters and
anti-aircraft systems;
I've probably forgotten something here-or-there over the years. But
you? YOU missed several entire NATIONS. Your list is incomplete. For
instance where on your list are:
* The United States: computer technology (which ran virtually all of
the Iraq's anti-aircraft installations), Bell Helicopters, Hughes
helicopters. In addition the US provided direct "aid" and brokered MANY
other arms deals. Oh, and on a lighter note, it was several Bush
friends who furnished Saddam and his armies with their spiffy uniforms.
Bush friends including John Mitchell, Spiro Agnew and Colonel Jack
Brennan (Nixon's chief of staff ), who was in the Bush White house
during the Gulf War. They made tens of millions off the deal;
* South Africa: advanced artillery (by way of Austria);
* Brazil: armored vehicles and nuclear expertise;
* Chile: cluster bombs;
I could go on and on but what is the point? And what is your point? I
answered your questions and *trumped* you by showing that your question
badly informed and incomplete.
You seem to suggest here at the end that you would like to make a
wager. I'm opened to that. Let's hear the terms.
Oh, and I reserve the right to quiz you now.
Cheers,
Winnie Smith
> >
> > Bring it on, junior. I'll shut you down.
>
> Put your money where your mouth is.
>
> Stupendous Man
> http://reagan.webteamone.com
> http://www.buyntrade.com/
>
>
winni...@my-deja.com
you_wish...@aol.com wrote:
> winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > You are a liar. There is nothing positive about Saddam Hussein in
> > anything FAIR has done. I have been a subscriber since before the
Gulf
> > War. FAIR did point out that George "Poppy" Bush was arming and
> > advocating for MORE arms for Saddam until just months before Saddam
> > invaded Kuwait.
>
> Unless unFAIR pointed out that the Soviets were the ones supplying
> the actual WEAPONS (along with China, Germany and France) and
> that the US was supply things like computers, then unFAIR would be
> telling a lie.
Actually you are inaccurate, incomplete and you use a double standard.
In this very post you say that FAIR would be telling a "lie," if they
left out something-or-other. Are you are liar? Because you left a LOT
out, Sonny. I'll show you in a minute, but first let me say, FAIR would
be WRONG to follow your silly advice.
Let me help you to see the great irony in your post. You say that FAIR
would be a liar if they didn't "point out" certain information. Now you
have NOT cited any examples of FAIR failing to do so, you simply say
they would be liars *if* they did. Well, your post is riddled with
omissions. What does that make you? Like the guy in the Charmin ad you
have been caught doing something that you've preached against. And, you
have NO examples of FAIR doing it. You are hilarious.
ON to the issues: Arms, ordnance and equipment came from many countries
to Iraq, not limited to the 5 you name above. You included the US in
this post but you left the US out of your other post in this thread
(yet another "lie" by you?). You also leave out the UK, Italy, South
Africa, Chile, Brazil, Austria...( I could go on). Gee, I guess you are
a liar I mean you neglected to "point out" all these facts. The exact
same thing that you say FAIR would be lying if they did it.
And how come you left out the US role in supplying Bell helicopters and
Hughes helicopters. That's in addition to the computer systems you
mention, but you don't say that those computers ran virtually all of
Iraq's anti-aircraft defenses as well as other systems.
But there's much, much more. The US government gave direct aid to Iraq
and, along with US corporations (which mostly had US government
permission) BROKERED many of the other arms deals, regardless of where
the weapons or technology "actually" came from.
By your own standards -- at least the ones you want to apply to FAIR --
you are a "liar". But then you use a double standard don't you?
You really hung yourself using that intemperate language. Don't you
feel foolish? I don't use a double standard. I will say that you don't
really know very much about Iraq, but I won't call you a liar.
After all, more than a dozen countries armed Iraq, the most important
being the US and Germany. The Soviet Union with its decrepit SCUDs
barely comes in third. But you left the US *entirely* out of your other
post, and, in this one, you named only a tiny part of the enormous role
the US played in arming Iraq.
Hey Stupendous Man, Better luck next time, huh!
Cheers,
Winnie Smith
P.S. What about that wager?
> > And Bush Senior -- along with Dick Cheney, most of the
> > Republican establishment, some Democrats, and the New Republic
> > magazine -- were saying nice things about Saddam AS they pushed for
> > further arms appropriations for him.
>
> Because he was fighting the even more vile Iranians. Let the two kill
> each
> other, much like the Nazis and Soviets in WWII.
>
> ...
> > What is it, are you a liar or or you incompetent?
>
> "Ditto".
>
> unFAIR always has a problem with people who tell the truth. Those
> people tend to make unFAIR look bad.
>
> A decade after the infamous Super Bowl wife beating hoax we're still
> waiting for an apology from that lunatic fringe outfit.
>
> Stupendous Man
> http://reagan.webteamone.com/
winni...@my-deja.com
you_wish...@aol.com wrote:
> winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Do you mean that you are a member of the Libertarian Party,
> > the "junior GOP"?
>
> The LP criticizes the GOP as much as the Trial Lawyer..I mean
Democrat
> Party.
>
> >
> > Or do you mean small "l" libertarian?
> >
> > Because no real libertarian, in the actual tradition of the
> > philosophical movement (Proudhon, etc.), would ever cheer the Gulf
War.
>
> There you go again, lying. As a libertarian I fully supported the
Gulf
> War.
I won't call you a liar. But let me submit, dear *boy*, that you do NOT
have a clue what libertarianism is. You are confused by the US party
that calls itself Libertarian (Large "L"). Actually they are really
just another property party like the GOP.
Yes, the Large Ls sometimes give a little lip service to drug laws and
selective, but where are their words and actions on police violence,
foreign intervention, the extension of legal standing to inanimate
objects (corporations).
These are but a few of the issues real libertarians are concerned
about. But not the "Libertarians". You really should do a little
reading, you should discover the actual history and tradition of
libertarianism. It's not a right-wing thing at all.
-Cheers,
Winnie Smith
> Perhaps now you have learned not to speak for others.
>
> > You must be a junior GOPer, not a real libertarian.
>
> Oops, there you go again.
>
> > You're very confused. If you think you are reflecting well on
> > libertarianism by lying, as you have above, then god help the
> > libertarians.
>
> Who are in far better shape than the ideology that says you have
> to lie about other people's position to make your own look better.
>
winni...@my-deja.com
about FAIR?
Remember, you claimed that FAIR said Saddam Hussein was "OK", and that
he was "misunderstood" and that he "never committed any atrocities." So
far you haven't shown a single citation supporting any of you
accusations, though you continue to write aboput FAIR.
The great irony here is, you began by calling into question FAIR's
dedication to the *truth*, but in the end, YOU apparently turn out to
be the liar!
It's sublime.
Now, come on, you gotta admit that's pure irony. Ah, to see a hypocrite
get their just desserts so elegantly.
-WS
In article <LcOg5.7088$_G.19...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
"Judy Blye Eyes" <nuclea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> While I am at it, If FAIR.org were to have any validity in my book,
they
> would not just attack the right, they would attack the left as well,
but
> this does not happen. I could not find a single article on their site
that
> was not a claim of bias against the left.
>
> How about the bias against the right? Especially gun-control... how
come
> there is never a story about how a civilian with a gun defended
himself or
> others?
>
> J
>
> <winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8lv9um$o29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > You are a liar. There is nothing positive about Saddam Hussein in
> > anything FAIR has done. I have been a subscriber since before the
Gulf
> > War. FAIR did point out that George "Poppy" Bush was arming and
> > advocating for MORE arms for Saddam until just months before Saddam
> > invaded Kuwait. And Bush Senior -- along with Dick Cheney, most of
the
> > Republican establishment, some Democrats, and the New Republic
> > magazine -- were saying nice things about Saddam AS they pushed for
> > further arms appropriations for him.
> >
> > So it looks like you are a liar -- unless, of course you can cite
the
> > FAIR article you claimn exists. The only other possibility is that
you
> > are imcompetent. That you have a reading comprehension problem.
> >
> > What is it, are you a liar or or you incompetent?
> >
> > If neither is the case then you will OF COURSE be able to provide a
> > citation for your claim. (That's a laugh.)
> >
> > There *were* a handful of folks on the left, mostly in sectarian
groups
> > like Workers World, who, with the help of former US Attorney General
> > Ramsey Clark defended Hussein. FAIR WAS NOT AMONG THEM.
> >
> > No, it's your your stadard bearer's father, G.H.W. Bush who cozied
up
> > to Saddam until 1989. Sound familiar? I mean, George Bush kissing
up to
> > dictators just before declaring them the focus of evil in the modern
> > wrold? Does that sound familiar. Remember Manuel Noriega?
> >
> > I await your cite showing that FAIR "says that Saddam Hussein was
really
> > misunderstood, and never committed any attrocities..."
> >
> > Unless, of course, you are just a plain old lying right-winger.
We'll
> > know by your response, won't we? Hmmm?
> >
> > Nice try!
> >
> > Toodles,
> > Winnie Smith
> >
> >
> > In article <VnEg5.745$_G.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
> > "Judy Blye Eyes" <nuclea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Stupendous Man
Taking a thousand words to wave your hands is quite
an achievement, though.
Here's the score:
Me 1
You 0
And the Soviets?
T-72 tanks, the primary offensive weapon of the war on the
Iraqi side.
MiG fighters, the primary air weapon of Iraq.
HIND combat helicopters, the primary weapon against
Iraqi rebels.
AK-47 assualt rifles, the primary weapon of the Iraqi soldier.
The US?
Computers and non-combat helicopters.
Wow, those evil, evil Americans!
Try again winnie, your propaganda is withering under
the glare of reality.
Stupendous Man
http://reagan.webteamone.com/
http://www.buyntrade.com/
winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <3984EF...@aol.com>,
> you_wish...@aol.com wrote:
> > winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > You are a liar. There is nothing positive about Saddam Hussein in
> > > anything FAIR has done. I have been a subscriber since before the
> Gulf
> > > War. FAIR did point out that George "Poppy" Bush was arming and
> > > advocating for MORE arms for Saddam until just months before Saddam
> > > invaded Kuwait.
>
> >
> > > And Bush Senior -- along with Dick Cheney, most of the
> > > Republican establishment, some Democrats, and the New Republic
> > > magazine -- were saying nice things about Saddam AS they pushed for
> > > further arms appropriations for him.
> >
> > Because he was fighting the even more vile Iranians. Let the two kill
> > each
> > other, much like the Nazis and Soviets in WWII.
> >
> > ...
> > > What is it, are you a liar or or you incompetent?
> >
> > "Ditto".
> >
> > unFAIR always has a problem with people who tell the truth. Those
> > people tend to make unFAIR look bad.
> >
> > A decade after the infamous Super Bowl wife beating hoax we're still
> > waiting for an apology from that lunatic fringe outfit.
> >
> > Stupendous Man
> > http://reagan.webteamone.com/
> > http://www.buyntrade.com/
> >
> >
>
Stupendous Man
>
> In article <3984F0...@aol.com>,
> you_wish...@aol.com wrote:
> > winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > ...
> > > And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the Gulf
> War
> > > up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> > > *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was *NOT*
> a
> > > supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf War?
> You
> > > want to argue that?
> >
> > Name the major weapon systems in Saddam's arsenal and which country
> > provided them.
> > Go ahead, we'll wait.
> >
> > Here's a hint, the countries are: the Soviet Union; France; Germany;
> > China.
>
> Easy Junior! I think you might be in over your head.
You must be very, very old.
>
> Those are not ALL the countries that provided important weapons,
Never said they were. Evasion #1 noted.
> expertise and technology. And MORE importantly many of the systems that
> Saddam Hussein ended up with, though not products of the US per se,
> were the products of deals brokered by the *US* and by US companies
> with the permission of the White House and State Dept.
Which US company brokered the sale of MiG fighters? T-72 tanks?
AK-47 rifles?
>
> Having acknowledged your flawed question and hints, I'll go for it
> anyway:
No flaws in my question, just in your attempts to avoid it!
>
> * Germany provided atomic, biological and chemical weapons parts and
> technology (AKA "ABC" technology). Germany also provided parts and
> technology to increase the range of the Soviet SCUD missiles mentioned
> below;
>
> * Soviet Union and China: mostly tanks, missiles, and amunition;
>
> * France: artillery (mostly modern 155mm Hows), armed helicopters and
> anti-aircraft systems;
>
> I've probably forgotten something here-or-there over the years. But
> you? YOU missed several entire NATIONS.
On the contrary. I gave you the top five to start your list. Your job
was
to show how the US, despite not making the top five, was Saddam's
primary arms supplier.
You failed utterly.
> Your list is incomplete.
Never said it was comprehensive. Evasion #1 repeated, and noted again.
> For
> instance where on your list are:
>
> * The United States: computer technology (which ran virtually all of
> the Iraq's anti-aircraft installations), Bell Helicopters, Hughes
> helicopters.
None of which were offensive weapons. How many CAD terminals
killed a Kuwaiti? How many Iraqi rebels were killed by US non-combat
helicopters?
None.
> In addition the US provided direct "aid" and brokered MANY
> other arms deals.
The wind whistles in the silent night of your citations.
No doubt a friend of a friend told you so.
> Oh, and on a lighter note, it was several Bush
> friends who furnished Saddam and his armies with their spiffy uniforms.
WOW!!!! I always wondered who supplied Saddam with those killer lapels!
> Bush friends including John Mitchell, Spiro Agnew and Colonel Jack
> Brennan (Nixon's chief of staff ), who was in the Bush White house
> during the Gulf War. They made tens of millions off the deal;
Agnew made tens of millions off the Gulf War?
Now THAT is truly a feat of modern marketing.
> * South Africa: advanced artillery (by way of Austria);
>
> * Brazil: armored vehicles and nuclear expertise;
>
> * Chile: cluster bombs;
>
> I could go on and on but what is the point?
Continued evasion of the fact that the US was NOT Saddam's main, or even
a major
arms supplier.
> And what is your point?
Read the above until it sinks in.
> I
> answered your questions
You evaded them, and failed to admit that the US was not a major, much
less
the main, arms supplier to Saddam. Your claim that the US armed Saddam
is
utterly laid to waste.
> and *trumped* you by showing that your question
> badly informed and incomplete.
It must be very pretty in that fantasy world you live in. Does the sun
always
shine?
> You seem to suggest here at the end that you would like to make a
> wager. I'm opened to that. Let's hear the terms.
You prove that the US was a major (top five) supplier of arms to Saddam
and you can
name your prize. You fail, and you stop lying about the Gulf War. Your
attempts
to lump Bush in with the Soviets by calling him "a" supplier is like
calling a soup
ladel "a" tool to help bail out the Titanic.
Feel free to take your time!
>
> Oh, and I reserve the right to quiz you now.
Gosh, I'm all a quiver.
> Cheers,
> Winnie Smith
Stupendous Man
>
> In article <3984F2...@aol.com>,
> you_wish...@aol.com wrote:
> > winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you mean that you are a member of the Libertarian Party,
> > > the "junior GOP"?
> >
> > The LP criticizes the GOP as much as the Trial Lawyer..I mean
> Democrat
> > Party.
> >
> > >
> > > Or do you mean small "l" libertarian?
> > >
> > > Because no real libertarian, in the actual tradition of the
> > > philosophical movement (Proudhon, etc.), would ever cheer the Gulf
> War.
> >
> > There you go again, lying. As a libertarian I fully supported the
> Gulf
> > War.
>
> I won't call you a liar. But let me submit, dear *boy*,
Why do you assume that I am a boy?
> that you do NOT
> have a clue what libertarianism is.
Your inability to deduce conclusions from a mountain of facts is
duly noted.
> You are confused by the US party
> that calls itself Libertarian (Large "L").
Proof?
> Actually they are really
> just another property party like the GOP.
Ah yes, more prejudicial judgements from winnie, all knowing, all
seeing.
> Yes, the Large Ls sometimes give a little lip service to drug laws and
> selective, but where are their words and actions on police violence,
> foreign intervention, the extension of legal standing to inanimate
> objects (corporations).
Right there on the web site: http://www.lp.org/
Comprehension is a valuable research tool. Try it some time.
> These are but a few of the issues real libertarians are concerned
> about. But not the "Libertarians". You really should do a little
> reading, you should discover the actual history and tradition of
> libertarianism. It's not a right-wing thing at all.
Your prejudices keep you from seeing the truth.
What's your score on the World's Smallest Political Quiz? I'd
bet you rate squarely in the totalitarian camp.
winni...@my-deja.com
"Hunter Putnam" <hun...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
>
> Stupendous Man <you_wish...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3984F0...@aol.com...
> > ...
> > > And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the
Gulf War
> > > up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> > > *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was
*NOT* a
> > > supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf
War? You
> > > want to argue that?
> >
> > Name the major weapon systems in Saddam's arsenal and which country
> > provided them.
> >
> > Go ahead, we'll wait.
>
Is this the same pathetic "Hunter Putnam" who makes accusations, smears
people's reputations, and then, when pressed says, I never said I had
any evidence? The same McCarthyite creep? I think so.
Run along little boy, until you learn what "reponsibility" means.
Responsibility as in, **if you're a MAN you back up what you say.**
Cheers,
Winnie Smith
> >
> > Here's a hint, the countries are: the Soviet Union; France; Germany;
> > China.
> >
> > >
> > > Bring it on, junior. I'll shut you down.
>
> Is everybody a junior to you, winnie? You 90 years old or something?
>
> >
> > Put your money where your mouth is.
>
> She can't, she's broke.
>
>
winni...@my-deja.com
you_wish...@aol.com wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the
Gulf
> > War
> > > > up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> > > > *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was
*NOT*
> > a
> > > > supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf
War?
> > You
> > > > want to argue that?
> > >
> > > Name the major weapon systems in Saddam's arsenal and which
country
> > > provided them.
> > > Go ahead, we'll wait.
> > >
Germany;
> > > China.
> >
>
> You must be very, very old.
>
> >
> > Those are not ALL the countries that provided important weapons,
>
> Never said they were. Evasion #1 noted.
No but you were willing to say FAIR were liars if they *left out* any
facts, weren't you. Can you spell DOUBLE STANDARD. How about hypocrite?
> > expertise and technology. And MORE importantly many of the systems
that
> > Saddam Hussein ended up with, though not products of the US per se,
> > were the products of deals brokered by the *US* and by US companies
> > with the permission of the White House and State Dept.
>
> Which US company brokered the sale of MiG fighters? T-72 tanks?
> AK-47 rifles?
That would probably be mostly, but not necassarily entirely, the Soviet
Union. I din't ever say that the US brokered *all* arms sales. An
attempt at dishonesty on you part?
> >
> > Having acknowledged your flawed question and hints, I'll go for it
> > anyway:
>
> No flaws in my question, just in your attempts to avoid it!
>
> >
> > * Germany provided atomic, biological and chemical weapons parts and
> > technology (AKA "ABC" technology). Germany also provided parts and
> > technology to increase the range of the Soviet SCUD missiles
mentioned
> > below;
> >
> > * Soviet Union and China: mostly tanks, missiles, and amunition;
> >
> > * France: artillery (mostly modern 155mm Hows), armed helicopters
and
> > anti-aircraft systems;
> >
> > I've probably forgotten something here-or-there over the years. But
> > you? YOU missed several entire NATIONS.
>
> On the contrary. I gave you the top five to start your list. Your
job
> was
> to show how the US, despite not making the top five, was Saddam's
> primary arms supplier.
Add "can't read or count" to the list of Stupendous Man's attributes.
You mentioned *4* countries, not the 5 you claim. It's just above and
oh-so-easy to check. There they are, you wrote "the Soviet Union;
France; Germany; China." Count 'em! Resorting to lying about what
you've written now?
> You failed utterly.
>
> > Your list is incomplete.
>
> Never said it was comprehensive. Evasion #1 repeated, and noted
again.
Again you give me the opportumity to point out your hypocrisy. Just a
few short posts ago you said FAIR would be lying if they ommitted
certain information. Now you argue that you should be taken seriously
when you don't "point out" [your words] all information. What does that
make you? Hmmm? A liar? A hypocrite?
> > For
> > instance where on your list are:
> >
> > * The United States: computer technology (which ran virtually all of
> > the Iraq's anti-aircraft installations), Bell Helicopters, Hughes
> > helicopters.
> None of which were offensive weapons. How many CAD terminals
> killed a Kuwaiti? How many Iraqi rebels were killed by US non-combat
> helicopters?
Oh, now you're changing the rules again. Anti-aircraft systems aren't
*OFFENSIVE* weapons. I see. The problem is *you * did NOT stipulate
that in your challenge. Did you? You're sleazeball trying to change the
rules as you go because you are failing.
> None.
>
> > In addition the US provided direct "aid" and brokered MANY
> > other arms deals.
>
> The wind whistles in the silent night of your citations.
>
> No doubt a friend of a friend told you so.
>
> > Oh, and on a lighter note, it was several Bush
> > friends who furnished Saddam and his armies with their spiffy
uniforms.
>
> WOW!!!! I always wondered who supplied Saddam with those killer
lapels!
>
> > Bush friends including John Mitchell, Spiro Agnew and Colonel Jack
> > Brennan (Nixon's chief of staff ), who was in the Bush White house
> > during the Gulf War. They made tens of millions off the deal;
>
> Agnew made tens of millions off the Gulf War?
I didn't say Agnew alone. The group that brokered the uniforms, which
included Agnew (you do know how to read, no?), were paid $28 million on
the deal.
> Now THAT is truly a feat of modern marketing.
>
> > * South Africa: advanced artillery (by way of Austria);
> >
> > * Brazil: armored vehicles and nuclear expertise;
> >
> > * Chile: cluster bombs;
> >
> > I could go on and on but what is the point?
>
> Continued evasion of the fact that the US was NOT Saddam's main, or
even
> a major
> arms supplier.
You're in sleazeball mode again. Attempting to change the rules. The
word *main* never appeared in your original challenge as you suggest
here. And the word "major" which was in your challenge modified
_weapons systems_, not countries or suppliers. You are attempting to
dishonestly (or perhaps it's incompetency?) change the wording of your
challenge. You're getting shellacked, so you are trying to shift the
field of debate.
> > And what is your point?
>
> Read the above until it sinks in.
>
> > I
> > answered your questions
>
> You evaded them, and failed to admit that the US was not a major, much
> less
> the main, arms supplier to Saddam. Your claim that the US armed
Saddam
> is
> utterly laid to waste.
The US was a major *armer* -- not "arms supplier" -- to Iraq. Again you
are attmpting to change the original terms.
You're really just too dishonest for words. You fall behind, just lie,
that's your credo.
-WS
> > and *trumped* you by showing that your question
> > badly informed and incomplete.
>
> It must be very pretty in that fantasy world you live in. Does the
sun
> always
> shine?
>
> > You seem to suggest here at the end that you would like to make a
> > wager. I'm opened to that. Let's hear the terms.
>
> You prove that the US was a major (top five) supplier of arms to
Saddam
> and you can
> name your prize.
>You fail, and you stop lying about the Gulf War. Your
> attempts
> to lump Bush in with the Soviets by calling him "a" supplier is like
> calling a soup
> ladel "a" tool to help bail out the Titanic.
> Feel free to take your time!
>
> >
> > Oh, and I reserve the right to quiz you now.
>
> Gosh, I'm all a quiver.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Winnie Smith
>
> Stupendous Man
> http://reagan.webteamone.com/
> http://www.buyntrade.com/
>
winni...@my-deja.com
about who armed and outfitted Iraq for the Gulf War. It says the US
ranked fourth in sensitive technology tranfers. But that's really
beside the point, my claim is, and wasl, that George Bush kissed up to
Saddam, gave him aid, helped him obtain other arms.
(By the way, those "non-military" helicopters were used for rapid
deployment of Iraqi troops, and the US well knew they could be used for
that. That's just *one* of the ways the Bush administration got around
the US's own ban on military sales to Iraq.)
WHEN HISTORY IS WRITTEN AND THE QUESTION IS ASKED: DID THE US, UNDER
GEORGE BUSH, HELP ARM IRAQ? THE ANSWER WILL BE: YES. And it doesn't
really matter what Stupendous Boy is telling his children in home
schooling.
-WS
The Toronto Star
February 3, 1991, Sunday, SUNDAY EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A1/ FRONT
LENGTH: 1528 words
HEADLINE: West helped build Iraqi war machine
BYLINE: By Kelly Toughill Toronto Star
BODY:
Most of the weapons and equipment Saddam Hussein will use to try to
kill
Canadians, Americans and other coalition soldiers were sold to him with
the
quiet blessing or outright help of legitimate governments around the
world.
From Moscow to Paris, Washington to Brasilia, politicians around the
globe
are scrambling to distance themselves from billions of dollars in arms
sales to Even Ottawa played a small part in making Iraq the best-
supplied military
force in the developing world.
Non-Communist countries provided Iraq with a third of its firepower
over the
last decade. In addition to guns, planes, missiles and tanks, Western
governments also approved the sale of sophisticated technology,
equipment and
raw materials that Iraq used to develop chemical weapons.
In fact, several countries in the coalition fighting Iraq have sold
Saddam
more aircraft and weapons than they are sending into battle against him.
"These were not clandestine deals," says one military affairs
specialist.
"These are deals that were signed in government offices and announced
proudly to
the military press."
For more than a decade, the West and the East vied for Saddam's
strategic
favor, heaping weapons and trade favors on Iraq and backing him in his
eight-year war against his next-door neighbor, Iran, which ended in
1989.
The governments who helped arm Saddam knew at the time he was a
ruthless
dictator who tortured his enemies, killed thousands of his own people
with
poison gas and was trying to build his own nuclear bombs. But the trade
wasstrategically important, and very profitable.
Today those governments are deeply embarrassed, struggling to
explain why
they gave tools of war to a man they call insane.
"If there is one priority - one lesson - which the world must learn
from this
war, it is that an unrestricted arms trade in this region is no longer
acceptable and constitutes a threat to the security of all members of
the United
Nations," External Affairs Minister Joe Clark said recently.
It is difficult to pin down exactly what Saddam bought from whom
over the
years, but according to British, American and Swedish studies, he was
sold
conventional weapons worth up to $ 80 billion in the 1980s, not
including the
millions of dollars in equipment and supplies he imported to produce
his own
weapons systems.
Roughly two-thirds of the military equipment and munitions in Iraq
came from
the Soviet Union, China and Eastern European nations. But the rest,
including
some of Saddam's most sophisticated killing power, was sent him by the
countries
with which he is now at war: * France is Iraq's second-largest arms
supplier, after the Soviet Union,
selling Saddam almost $ 5 billion in planes, missiles and other tools
of war
between 1983 and 1987. In fact, the war started with more French
fighter jets on
the Iraqi side than on the side of the United Nations, according to one
Swedish
study. That report shows that Iraq bought 143 Mirage F-1C French
fighters since
1985. Only about 40 French fighters have been sent to help the
coalition now
battling Saddam.
* Egypt, which has 20,000 troops fighting in the coalition, sold
more than
100 airplanes and dozens of missile systems to Iraq between 1983 and
1989,
according to the Stockholm study.
* Italy sold planes, helicopters and missile systems worth $ 370
million to
Iraq between 1984 and 1988, making it another country that has sold
Saddam more
combat aircraft than it has sent into battle against him.
* Brazil sold Iraq armored troop carriers, missile systems and
airplanes
worth between $ 1 billion and $ 3 billion over the last decade, most
from
government-controlled companies. There is also strong evidence that the
Brazilian government sold Iraq a lot of enriched uranium, which can be
used to
make nuclear bombs. * Belgium, which has sent planes and ships to fight
Iraq, is headquarters to
a vast corporate network that provided Saddam with expertise and
manufacturing
equipment used to build bomb shelters and to manufacture missiles,
artillery
guns and perhaps chemical weapons.
* Czechoslovakia, which has 200 soldiers fighting with the United
Nations
coalition, sold Iraq 1,700 army vehicles.
* South Africa, Spain, Jordan and even Kuwait have also sold arms to
Saddam
in recent years. Even countries that banned outright weapon sales to
Iraq often
sold Saddam other military equipment, such as trucks, helicopters and
airplanes.
* West Germany banned weapon sales to Iraq from 1980 to 1989, but
U.S.
figures show that country still sold $ 675 million in strategic
equipment to
Saddam between 1984 and 1988.
* Great Britain has a similar law, banning the sale of "lethal
military
equipment" to countries at war. But according to U.S. figures, the
United
Kingdom provided $ 30 million in military equipment to Saddam between
1984 and
1988. * Canada also banned the sale of strategic items to Iraq during
its war with
Iran, but did nothing to control the flow of Canadian parts into
European-built
weapons systems bound for Iraq.
Engines built in Montreal power more than 100 planes in the Iraqi
air force,
including the Swiss planes that were alleged to have been used in a
chemical
attack against thousands of Kurdish villagers. In addition, artillery
shells
destined for Iraq were tested at Department of National Defence testing
sites
across Canada.
* The United States had one of the strictest policies in the world
about
doing business with Iraq. But despite an outright ban on military sales
to the
desert nation, America was one of Iraq's best suppliers of sophisticated
technology and equipment that many believe Saddam used in modifying the
Soviet-designed Scud missiles now exploding over Israel and Saudi
Arabia.
According to one government report, the United States is the world's
fourth-largest exporter of sensitive technology to Iraq, with $ 750
million in
sales since 1985.
Even more embarrassing than the sale of guns and mortars is
governments'
roles in helping Saddam build his own cannons, missiles and chemical
weapons. More than 200 companies from 21 Western nations have helped
Saddam build
chemical weapons, according to a study by the Simon Weisenthal Centre.
The main
contributors to his clandestine weapons projects were based in Austria,
Germany,
Switzerland, France, Italy, Great Britain and the United States, the
study says.
Most of that trade was not only legal, but reviewed, approved and
sometimes
even encouraged by governments around the world.
Michael Bull is a Montreal-based executive of a European firm that
shipped
computers to Iraq from the United States, all of it, he says, with the
proper
export permits.
"Today you have a bunch of purists who come in and say they don't
want
anything to do with Iraq. But that's not the message we got before," he
says.
"They are a bunch of hypocrites."
Bull's father, the late Gerald Bull, who was murdered by a person or
persons
unknown, was at the centre of an international web of private deals of
sophisticated weaponry to Iraq.
"Now everyone says that everything shipped to Iraq had to be a
weapon, but
that's not necessarily true," Bull says. "Even a hammer can be a weapon
if youuse it right."
That's just what many of the governments now say as well - that they
were
duped into approving the export of sensitive material because they
believed it
was destined for civilian use.
For instance, German firms provided Saddam with much of the raw
chemicals he
used to build the chemical weapons he has threatened to use against
Israel.
German authorities have launched almost 100 criminal investigations
into the
matter, but expect few convictions because, simply put, the law
probably wasn't
broken.
Governments now claim
that they were duped
"It is much easier to look back and see what you should have done,
than to
look forward at the time," says Walter Stechel, economic counsellor for
the
German embassy in Ottawa. Prosecutors must prove that company
executives knew the common chemicals
would be used to make weapons in order to get convictions.
External affairs has refused to reveal what strategic items, such as
chemicals and machinery, it has approved for export to Iraq since the
export ban
was lifted in 1989.
Instead, federal officials offer a blanket assurance that all such
sales were
scrutinized by authorities to ensure the products wouldn't be used for
military
ends.
Black-market arms deals with Iraq that defied the United Nations
embargo
imposed in August have received a lot of attention lately as
governments try to
lay the blame for arming Saddam at the feet of independent operators.
But experts in military affairs say the role of black-market
operators in
supplying weapons to Iraq is negligible.
"Ninety-five per cent of what Saddam has, he got through legitimate
channels," says Michael O'Brien, editor of The Wednesday Report, a
weekly
newsletter for the Canadian defence industry. O'Brien points out that
many of the officials who today are wringing their
hands over past deals with Iraq are still forging similar deals with
other
Middle Eastern dictators.
GRAPHIC: Star chart: list of countries who have armed Iraq
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
> > expertise and technology. And MORE importantly many of the systems
that
> > Saddam Hussein ended up with, though not products of the US per se,
> > were the products of deals brokered by the *US* and by US companies
> > with the permission of the White House and State Dept.
>
> Which US company brokered the sale of MiG fighters? T-72 tanks?
> AK-47 rifles?
>
> >
> > Having acknowledged your flawed question and hints, I'll go for it
> > anyway:
>
> No flaws in my question, just in your attempts to avoid it!
>
> >
> > * Germany provided atomic, biological and chemical weapons parts and
> > technology (AKA "ABC" technology). Germany also provided parts and
> > technology to increase the range of the Soviet SCUD missiles
mentioned
> > below;
> >
> > * Soviet Union and China: mostly tanks, missiles, and amunition;
> >
> > * France: artillery (mostly modern 155mm Hows), armed helicopters
and
> > anti-aircraft systems;
> >
> > I've probably forgotten something here-or-there over the years. But
> > you? YOU missed several entire NATIONS.
>
> On the contrary. I gave you the top five to start your list. Your
job
> was
> to show how the US, despite not making the top five, was Saddam's
> primary arms supplier.
>
> You failed utterly.
>
> > Your list is incomplete.
>
> Never said it was comprehensive. Evasion #1 repeated, and noted
again.
>
> > For
> > instance where on your list are:
> >
> > * The United States: computer technology (which ran virtually all of
> > the Iraq's anti-aircraft installations), Bell Helicopters, Hughes
> > helicopters.
>
> None of which were offensive weapons. How many CAD terminals
> killed a Kuwaiti? How many Iraqi rebels were killed by US non-combat
> helicopters?
>
> None.
>
> > In addition the US provided direct "aid" and brokered MANY
> > other arms deals.
>
> The wind whistles in the silent night of your citations.
>
> No doubt a friend of a friend told you so.
>
> > Oh, and on a lighter note, it was several Bush
> > friends who furnished Saddam and his armies with their spiffy
uniforms.
>
> WOW!!!! I always wondered who supplied Saddam with those killer
lapels!
>
> > Bush friends including John Mitchell, Spiro Agnew and Colonel Jack
> > Brennan (Nixon's chief of staff ), who was in the Bush White house
> > during the Gulf War. They made tens of millions off the deal;
>
> Agnew made tens of millions off the Gulf War?
>
> Now THAT is truly a feat of modern marketing.
>
> > * South Africa: advanced artillery (by way of Austria);
> >
> > * Brazil: armored vehicles and nuclear expertise;
> >
> > * Chile: cluster bombs;
> >
> > I could go on and on but what is the point?
>
> Continued evasion of the fact that the US was NOT Saddam's main, or
even
> a major
> arms supplier.
>
> > And what is your point?
>
> Read the above until it sinks in.
>
> > I
> > answered your questions
>
> You evaded them, and failed to admit that the US was not a major, much
> less
> the main, arms supplier to Saddam. Your claim that the US armed
Saddam
> is
> utterly laid to waste.
>
Hunter Putnam
<winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8m54ej$oo4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <akhh5.9905$mv.3...@news-east.usenetserver.com>,
> "Hunter Putnam" <hun...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
> >
> > Stupendous Man <you_wish...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:3984F0...@aol.com...
> > > ...
> > > > And I'd put my knowledge of the political underpinnings of the
> Gulf War
> > > > up against yours as well. Just let me know what I wrote that you
> > > > *disagree* with. Are you trying to argue that George Bush was
> *NOT* a
> > > > supporter and armer of Saddam and Iraq up just before the Gulf
> War? You
> > > > want to argue that?
> > >
> > > Name the major weapon systems in Saddam's arsenal and which country
> > > provided them.
> > >
> > > Go ahead, we'll wait.
> >
>
> Is this the same pathetic "Hunter Putnam" who makes accusations, smears
> people's reputations, and then, when pressed says, I never said I had
> any evidence? The same McCarthyite creep? I think so.
Ad hominem attacks, winnie, they're really ugly--but I guess that's what you
have to rely on when you're intellectually backrupt...
>
> Run along little boy, until you learn what "reponsibility" means.
> Responsibility as in, **if you're a MAN you back up what you say.**
Since you purport to back up what you say, Winnie, are you admitting that
you're a MAN? When did you have the operation?
>
> Cheers,
> Winnie Smith
The same Winnie Smith who said Hillary's health care plan in which
government controlled all of the pricing was a capitalist plan? Or Winnie
Smith the world famous journalist/political writer? Will the real Winnie
Smith please stand up...
steve
On 29-Jul-2000, Hercu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Name one major television network that allows the fiscally liberal side of
> the story to be heard. Name one opposite but equally ubiquitous
> counterpart
> to Rush Limbaugh. You see, the effect is the same.
Name one? I could name one hundred. Watched any major network news
programs in the last 40 years? Ever heard of NPR? Geraldo? Sam and
Cokie? Dan Rather?
Spend a little time on earth.
If you like "the fiscally liberal side" you should be very happy. What is
you political philosophy, anyway?
> If "Ice-t" started to preach the benefits if fiscally liberal policies,
> chances are, you would never even know who he was.
Yea, that's much more controversial than killing cops.
> > > Speak for yourself. When the only institution that is elected
> > > democratically
> > > by the common person (ie the government) asserts it's authority or
> > > censors
> > > information, this is magically "bad".
> >
> > Not "magically", coercively.
> >
> The name is different, but the double standard is the same.
That is your failure to understand liberty. Coercion and free action are as
different as night and day. You object to a particular exercise of freedom,
not a supression of freedom. Very different.
> > You mean when free people choose not to fund speech with which they
> > disagree? Sounds like freedom to me.
> >
>
> When you use the words "free people", who are you referring to? Certainly
> not
> the common person who has no alternative but to listen to the relentless
> one-sided propaganda from america's corporate controlled mass media. How
> are
> these "free people" any different from the people who controlled the
> communist propaganda machine (aside from the fact that one is controlled
> by
> government and the other is controlled by the corporate establishment)?
This NG is one example. Drudge report, Reason Magazine, Laissez Faire
Books, etc. are others. Even though our freedoms have been greatly eroded,
at least they don't shoot us for complaining (yet).
The fact that people content themselves with statist, government loving news
programs disturbs me too. I say, get the government out of regulating
airwaves, newspaper ownership, and everything else while we're on the
subject. Then we will have real freedom.
> > Not with rational definitions of "freedom" and "oppression".
> >
> By "rational" I suppose you mean narrow-minded?
No, I mean one based upon self ownership and those things that logically
derive.
steve
--
"It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
Hunter Putnam
> winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3984F2...@aol.com>,
> > you_wish...@aol.com wrote:
> > > winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean that you are a member of the Libertarian Party,
> > > > the "junior GOP"?
> > >
> > > The LP criticizes the GOP as much as the Trial Lawyer..I mean
> > Democrat
> > > Party.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Or do you mean small "l" libertarian?
> > > >
> > > > Because no real libertarian, in the actual tradition of the
> > > > philosophical movement (Proudhon, etc.), would ever cheer the Gulf
> > War.
> > >
> > > There you go again, lying. As a libertarian I fully supported the
> > Gulf
> > > War.
> >
> > I won't call you a liar. But let me submit, dear *boy*,
>
> Why do you assume that I am a boy?
Her false assumptions are apparently her only way of feeling "superior"--she
has to keep up the ad hominem attacks to boost her low self-esteem. I guess
when her breasts start sagging she'll change her tune about attacking
youth--wait a minute--she had her breasts removed during the sex change
operation--sorry, I forgot about that...
>
> > that you do NOT
> > have a clue what libertarianism is.
>
> Your inability to deduce conclusions from a mountain of facts is
> duly noted.
That's her pattern, all right. It's hard to have a sustentative debate with
winnie because she already knows everything. Hell, if the world governments
would just shut up and listen to winnie we could have Utopia in one day.
> > You are confused by the US party
> > that calls itself Libertarian (Large "L").
>
> Proof?
>
> > Actually they are really
> > just another property party like the GOP.
>
> Ah yes, more prejudicial judgements from winnie, all knowing, all
> seeing.
I think she uses one of those magic eight balls...
>
> > Yes, the Large Ls sometimes give a little lip service to drug laws and
> > selective, but where are their words and actions on police violence,
> > foreign intervention, the extension of legal standing to inanimate
> > objects (corporations).
>
> Right there on the web site: http://www.lp.org/
>
> Comprehension is a valuable research tool. Try it some time.
>
> > These are but a few of the issues real libertarians are concerned
> > about. But not the "Libertarians". You really should do a little
> > reading, you should discover the actual history and tradition of
> > libertarianism. It's not a right-wing thing at all.
>
> Your prejudices keep you from seeing the truth.
>
> What's your score on the World's Smallest Political Quiz?
Winnie was actually the only person to flunk the quiz...
I'd
> bet you rate squarely in the totalitarian camp.
>
she's to the left of Stalin...
winni...@my-deja.com
just as Winston Churchill's nickname was Winnie.
I have never represented myself as anything other than a guy, though
sometimes, when confronting racists, I sign my name:
"Winnie Smith, white guy & race traitor"
Hunter Putnam's judgement and wild-ass assumptions fail him again!
Big fucking surprise!
-Winnie Smith
In article <bYAh5.5318$a61.3...@news-east.usenetserver.com>,
"Hunter Putnam" <hun...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
>
> <winni...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8m54ej$oo4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <akhh5.9905$mv.3...@news-east.usenetserver.com>,
> > "Hunter Putnam" <hun...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Stupendous Man <you_wish...@aol.com> wrote in message
winni...@my-deja.com
> > winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3984F2...@aol.com>,
> > > you_wish...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > winni...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mean that you are a member of the Libertarian Party,
> > > > > the "junior GOP"?
> > > >
> > > > The LP criticizes the GOP as much as the Trial Lawyer..I mean
> > > Democrat
> > > > Party.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Or do you mean small "l" libertarian?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because no real libertarian, in the actual tradition of the
> > > > > philosophical movement (Proudhon, etc.), would ever cheer the
Gulf
> > > War.
> > > >
> > > > There you go again, lying. As a libertarian I fully supported
the
> > > Gulf
> > > > War.
> > >
> > > I won't call you a liar. But let me submit, dear *boy*,
> >
> > Why do you assume that I am a boy?
>
> Her false assumptions
Now let's stop right there. This is too rich. *Whose* "false
assumptions". Who is this "her" you are referring to? My name is
Winston. My nickname is Winnie, just as Winston Churchill's nickname
was Winnie. I have never represented myself as a woman.
Now, your just about the funniest damn fuck-up I've ever seen. Can you
write a sentence without shooting yourself in the foot? You are
attacking me over alleged "false assumptions" and you falsely assume
that I am female. As my gradfather would say, "You could fuck-up a
junkyard!"
>are apparently her only way of feeling "superior"--she
> has to keep up the ad hominem attacks to boost her low self-esteem.
I guess
> when her breasts start sagging she'll change her tune about attacking
> youth--wait a minute--she had her breasts removed during the sex
change
> operation--sorry, I forgot about that...
Well it's nice to to see you put your woman-hating right out where
everyone can see it.
-WS
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> In article <qgOg5.7104$_G.20...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
> > > >
> > > > : > Did you serve in the Gulf War??
> > > > :
> > > > : Uhhh...no I didn't serve in the Gulf War. Is there a point to your
> > *off-
> > > > : point* question? (Neither did John Stossel or 270 million other
> > > > : Americans, just BTW.)
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > > Well, I was in Saudi for a year. We handled that war in the best
> > > > way possible. We removed Iraq from Kawait while not making
> > > > the Gulf region a new "Germany".
> > >
> > > onto Baghdad.
> >
> > How many dead Americans would there be? One is too many, 164 is WAY too
> > many... How many casualties in house to house fighting in Baghdad?
>
As most of the Iraqi army was surrendering (fully EXPECTING that the
capital was going to be invaded), it doesn't matter if the coalition
had held together any longer or not.
The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi army, including the Republican guards
was in a "surrender to anybody" sort of mood....in fact, to many in
Iraq, they view any outside army not so much as invaders as possible
liberators from the Ba'ath party.
We should have taken advantage of that.
>
> > > It would not have been necessary to kill him, nor even
> > > to find him. Just occupying the capital would have shown him to be
> > > impotent in the face of our army. Yes, there would have been the
> > > expense of funding an army of occupation, while getting the government
> > > restructured (like we did in Germany and Japan).
> > >
> >
> > Like we occupied Beirut? No thank you.
>
> We'd be there to this day.
How long did it take to get Germany turned around? We only ran a
provisional government for a couple of years. Same thing for Japan.
We would have exited Germany in 5 years if it weren't for the Warsaw
Pact threat.
> > > > For that the average Arab was
> > > > immensely grateful.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What we have in you is an arm chair politician who has never
> > > > done anything. You are a good reason why we need to return
> > > > to the draft.
> > >
> > >
Hercu...@webtv.net
st...@steve.com wrote:
>
>
> On 29-Jul-2000, Hercu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > Name one major television network that allows the fiscally liberal side of
> > the story to be heard. Name one opposite but equally ubiquitous
> > counterpart
> > to Rush Limbaugh. You see, the effect is the same.
>
> Name one? I could name one hundred. Watched any major network news
> programs in the last 40 years? Ever heard of NPR?
NPR used to be fiscally liberal 5 or so years ago. But the Republican
congress took care of that.
> Geraldo? Sam and
> Cokie? Dan Rather?
> Spend a little time on earth.
>
None of these people are even close to the way NPR used to be. Simply saying
"those poor homeless people" is not quite the same as setting the record
straight.
> If you like "the fiscally liberal side" you should be very happy. What is
> you political philosophy, anyway?
>
> > If "Ice-t" started to preach the benefits if fiscally liberal policies,
> > chances are, you would never even know who he was.
>
> Yea, that's much more controversial than killing cops.
>
Few wealthy people are cops.
> > > > Speak for yourself. When the only institution that is elected
> > > > democratically
> > > > by the common person (ie the government) asserts it's authority or
> > > > censors
> > > > information, this is magically "bad".
> > >
> > > Not "magically", coercively.
> > >
> > The name is different, but the double standard is the same.
>
> That is your failure to understand liberty. Coercion and free action are as
> different as night and day. You object to a particular exercise of freedom,
> not a supression of freedom. Very different.
>
So I take it that aaaallllllllllllllll coercion flows from government?
> > > You mean when free people choose not to fund speech with which they
> > > disagree? Sounds like freedom to me.
> > >
> >
> > When you use the words "free people", who are you referring to? Certainly
> > not
> > the common person who has no alternative but to listen to the relentless
> > one-sided propaganda from america's corporate controlled mass media. How
> > are
> > these "free people" any different from the people who controlled the
> > communist propaganda machine (aside from the fact that one is controlled
> > by
> > government and the other is controlled by the corporate establishment)?
>
> This NG is one example.
This much is certainly true. But how many people even know what a news group
is? You might recall that Clinton and Gore wanted to make the internet more
ubiquitous than it is. Unfortunately, the Republicans (fearing that too much
information might flow too easily) crushed that idea just like they crushed
America's only people's radio network and turned it over to the wealthy.
> Drudge report, Reason Magazine, Laissez Faire
> Books, etc. are others.
How many people have heard of these?
> Even though our freedoms have been greatly eroded,
> at least they don't shoot us for complaining (yet).
>
> The fact that people content themselves with statist, government loving news
> programs disturbs me too.
Which ones?
> I say, get the government out of regulating
> airwaves, newspaper ownership, and everything else while we're on the
> subject. Then we will have real freedom.
>
Why? So the corporate establishment can take over and control the media?
Doesn't sound like freedom to me.
> > > Not with rational definitions of "freedom" and "oppression".
> > >
> > By "rational" I suppose you mean narrow-minded?
>
> No, I mean one based upon self ownership and those things that logically
> derive.
>
More like corporate ownership of everybody else.
Robert
> steve
> --
> "It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
>
steve
On 1-Aug-2000, Hercu...@webtv.net wrote:
> > Name one? I could name one hundred. Watched any major network news
> > programs in the last 40 years? Ever heard of NPR?
>
> NPR used to be fiscally liberal 5 or so years ago. But the Republican
> congress took care of that.
Perhaps you need to define "fiscally liberal" as you see it. As I see it,
advocating higher taxes and more government is just that. That is what I
hear from NPR daily.
> > Geraldo? Sam and
> > Cokie? Dan Rather?
> > Spend a little time on earth.
> >
>
> None of these people are even close to the way NPR used to be.
Yet they are statist and liberal, just not AS statist and liberal.
>Simply saying
> "those poor homeless people" is not quite the same as setting the record
> straight.
What do you mean by "setting the record straight"?
> > Yea, that's much more controversial than killing cops.
> >
> Few wealthy people are cops.
Meaning what?
> So I take it that aaaallllllllllllllll coercion flows from government?
Certainly not, but virtually all coercion WITH IMPUNITY flows from
government, and that includes situations where private individuals and
companies enlist the power of the state for their own enrichment. Anyone
with a gun can coerce, only the government and those sanctioned by the
government can do it without fear of retribution. That is the important
distinction.
> This much is certainly true. But how many people even know what a news
> group
> is? You might recall that Clinton and Gore wanted to make the internet
> more
> ubiquitous than it is. Unfortunately, the Republicans (fearing that too
> much
> information might flow too easily) crushed that idea just like they
> crushed
> America's only people's radio network and turned it over to the wealthy.
Don't think I am a fan of republicans, but note that Clinton is no champion
of free speech. After backing much "hate speech" legilation I once heard
him argue that anti-government speech should fit that definition and hence
become illegal. He also opposes private encription without a government
key, etc. etc. The good old days when the Republicans opposed radical
speech and pornography and the Dems defended same are gone. Now only we
libertarians defend free speech.
> > Drudge report, Reason Magazine, Laissez Faire
> > Books, etc. are others.
>
> How many people have heard of these?
I fail to see your point. Speech does not have to be popular to be free.
Besides, the Drudge report IS hugely popular.
> > The fact that people content themselves with statist, government loving
> > news
> > programs disturbs me too.
>
> Which ones?
Man, what channels are you watching? Virtually every day I hear a phrase
like "it's hard to believe that in these modern times the government doesn't
regulate [insert free activity here]". When they report on pending
legislation, they couch it in terms of the ostensibly "intended"
consequence, such as "congress is considering a bill that would make it
easier to get perscription drugs". Tell me what the law says, not what
someone claims to wish it will accomplish (and it won't). I hear almost
nothing but statism on any local or major network news program. The local
news in my area sounds like an arm of the government.
> > I say, get the government out of regulating
> > airwaves, newspaper ownership, and everything else while we're on the
> > subject. Then we will have real freedom.
> >
>
> Why? So the corporate establishment can take over and control the media?
> Doesn't sound like freedom to me.
With the proliferation of all media these days, your objection is less
relevant by the day. I think in 10-15 years everyone will have hundereds or
thousands of TV or internet "channels" and other readily available news and
entertainment sources to choose from. This will do much for liberty IF we
keep the government out of it. Corporations want our money, not our lives,
and they must compete in a market. I fear no corporation that doesn't have
a senator in it's pocket.
> > No, I mean one based upon self ownership and those things that logically
> > derive.
> >
> More like corporate ownership of everybody else.
Any time a corporation has forced me to do anything it is through and with
the government. The government is the gun in their hands. Lets take that
gun from them, and leave guns in the hands of free people.