Yet More Proof That Organic Is Better For You
Chive Mynde
EcoFarm 2003 January 24, 2003
Why Food Safety Will Continue Driving
Growth in Demand for Organic Food
Charles M. Benbrook
New Science Supports a Positive Food Safety Message
An Overview of Pesticide Residues in Conventional and Organic Foods
Pesticide Toxicity
Why Organic Food Sometimes Contains Residues
Two Closing Thoughts
References and Further Information
Imagine if Ford Motor Company designed an engine that could double gas
mileage with no loss in performance, or if General Electric discovered
a fully recyclable light bulb that lasts three times longer than those
on the market today. Would these companies tout these attributes in
their advertising campaigns? You bet they would.
Over the last two decades the organic community has had a love-hate
relationship with food safety issues in general, and pesticide risks
in particular. For the most part, the community has chosen to not
prominently feature food safety as a reason to "buy organic," and
instead has focused messages targeting consumers on freshness and
taste, and the environmental and soil quality benefits of organic
farming systems and technologies.
Anti-pesticide activists have not shown the restraint evident across
the organic food industry. They have embraced organic farming as the
surest way to reduce pesticide use and risks. The message is getting
through. A majority of consumers in virtually all surveys voice
significant concerns over pesticides in food.
In "The Packer's" 2003 Fresh Trends survey, 63 percent of shoppers
buying organic food stated a preference for "fewer chemicals in food"
and 51 percent said organic food is "Better for me/my family."The next
most frequently cited reason "Better for the environment" was
identified by 37 percent of those surveyed.
For reasons beyond the control of the organic community, there is now
a raging food safety, food quality debate underway around the world.
It is focusing on the impacts of different farming systems and
technologies conventional farming versus biotech versus IPM versus
organic. The Stossel 20/20 episode and recent NOP rule-related PR from
conventional ag interests shows how low those threatened by the
success of organic farming will go in trying to shake consumer
confidence in organic food. Hopefully the organic community now
realizes that the industry's critics must not be allowed to set the
tone and drive the direction of this very important debate.
Activists opposing genetic engineering (GE) around the world have been
criticized in the media as paranoid and anti-progress. Some have
stumbled when asked "…well, if GE is not the answer, how would you
solve today's food production and food security challenges?" With
increasing frequency, activists point to organic farming as the more
desirable technological path. Proponents of biotech have not been
bashful in responding.
This debate is long over due, important, and ultimately, should be
constructive. There are profound differences between the principles
driving today's GE applications in agriculture versus the principles
underlying organic farming. The sooner the public understands these
differences and decides which set of principles should shape their
food future, the sooner the country can progress toward more coherent
national food, farm, and technology policies. Today's muddling serves
no one well.
- - New Science Supports a Positive Food Safety Message - -
There is new information on both the exposure and toxicity side of the
pesticide risk assessment equation. Much new data on pesticide
residues in food has emerged as a result of the passage of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996. This historic bill directed the
U.S. EPA to conduct a reassessment of all food uses of pesticides,
taking into account the heightened susceptibility of infants and
children, the elderly, and other vulnerable population groups.
Why the focus on risks to infants and children? Because kids,
especially, infants consume more food per kilogram of bodyweight than
adults do and a much less varied diet. As a result, exposure to a
pesticide from consumption of a given food is greater per kilogram of
infant/child bodyweight compared to adults (National Research Council,
1993). Plus, exposure to some pesticides during infancy, even at very
low levels, can lead to serious life-long consequences if the
pesticides disrupt hormone-driven developmental processes.
In the early 1990s surprisingly little was known about the frequency
or levels of pesticides in food as actually eaten. Then-existing
government data on residues had been collected as part of tolerance
enforcement programs and represented residues at the farm gate, prior
to washing, shipping, storage,marketing, and preparation. Relatively
insensitive analytical methods were used.
To improve the accuracy of FQPA-driven pesticide dietary risk
assessments, Congress funded a new USDA program in 1991, the
"Pesticide Data Program" (PDP). By design, the PDP focuses on the
foods consumed most heavily by children and food is tested, to the
extent possible, "as eaten" (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2002). (A
banana or orange samples are tested without the peel; processed foods
are tested as they come out of a can, jar or freezer bag).
Ten years of PDP testing has greatly enhanced understanding of
pesticide residues in the United States food supply. About a dozen
foods are tested annually. Some 600 to 650 samples are tested of each
fresh or processed food, reflecting domestic production and imports
roughly proportional to their respective share of overall consumption.
Plus, market claims associated with a given food item, such as
"organic," "IPM-grown," "No Detectable Residues" or "pesticide free,"
are recorded roughly in proportion to their occurrence in retail
market channels (Baker et. al., 2002). As a result, PDP results make
possible comparison of the distribution and frequency of pesticide
residues in domestic versus imported foods, across food groups, as
well as comparisons by market claim (Groth, et al., 2000).
The first-ever analysis of pesticides in organic versus conventional
foods was published in the peer reviewed journal Food Additives and
Contaminants in early 2002 (Baker et al., 2002). I was among the
authors. The full team included Brian Baker, OMRI's Director of
Research, Ned Groth of Consumers Union, and Karen Lutz Benbrook. The
paper analyzed six years of PDP data, 10 years of California
Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) data, and results of
Consumers Union testing of four crops. The PDP data covered program
years 1994-1999, and the DPR data, 1989 through 1998. A set of four
tables in the appendix provides key findings from recent analysis of
PDP, DPR and Consumers Union residue data sets.
After summarizing the findings of the Food Additives and Contaminants
paper, two tables are presented with more recent data comparing
residues in organic and conventional food. One covers residues found
by DPR in 1999 and 2000 testing and a second presents the results of
testing carried out in 2001 and 2002 by the British government.
- - An Overview of Pesticide Residues in Conventional and Organic
Foods - -
Some major food groups most oils, dairy, meat, and poultry products
contain few detectable pesticides and contribute very modestly at
the national level to dietary exposure and risk. About a dozen
pesticides are present routinely in fresh produce and juices derived
from produce at levels that pose significant risks, to the extent
contemporary risk assessment science and toxicological data accurately
reflects real-world risks.
Despite much new data and more refined risk assessment methods,
several key children's foods still contain worrisome pesticide
residues six years after passage of the FQPA (Consumers Union, 2001).
The foods most likely to contain residues of high-risk pesticides are
apples, pears, peaches, grapes, green beans, tomatoes, peas,
strawberries, spinach, peppers, melons, lettuce, and various juices.
Nearly three-quarters of the fresh fruits and vegetables (F&V)
consumed most frequently by children in the U.S. contain residues and
almost half the F&V samples tested from 1994-1999 in the PDP contain
two or more
residues (Baker et al., 2002). In general, soft-skinned fruit and
vegetables tend to contain residues more frequently than foods with
thicker skins, shells, or peels.
The pattern of residues found in organic foods tested by the PDP
differs markedly from the pattern in conventional samples.
Conventional fruits are 3.6 times more likely to contain residues than
organic fruit samples and conventional vegetables are 6.8 times more
likely to have one or more detectable residue. Compared to organic
produce, conventional samples also tend to contain multiple residues
much more often. Imported foods consistently contain more residues
than domestic samples, regardless of market claim.
Averaged across the PDP and DPR data sets, just under 7 percent of
positive organic samples and 54 percent of positive conventional
samples contained multiple residues (see Appendix tables). The average
positive conventional apple sample contained 3.2 pesticides, peaches
contained 3.1 residues, and celery and cucumber contained 2.7 (Baker
et al., 2002).
Data from DPR testing in 1999 and 2000 shows that conventional food is
more than five-times more likely to contain residues than organic
samples. It is worth noting that organic farmers, processors, and
retailers are doing a better job in preventing fraud and pesticide
drift and other inadvertent residues, given the downward trend in the
frequency of residues in organic foods. In 1996-1998 testing by DPR,
just over 12
percent of organic samples tested positive on average, while 7.1
percent contained detectable residues in 1999-2000. There was little
change in the frequency of residues in conventional foods, which
averaged 38.3 percent annually from 1996-1998 and 40 percent in
1999-2000.
There is growing interest in Europe in comparing the residues in food
produced by conventional versus organic farmers. The British
government reported residue findings in organic food samples for the
first time in 2001, allowing comparisons to residue frequency in
conventional foods. The results to date are summarized in Table 2. The
analytical methods used by the British Pesticide Residue Committee are
not
as broad or sensitive as those used in the PDP, and hence the percent
of samples testing positive are lower in both conventional and organic
foods. But the differences between conventional and organic foods
remain. Over 250 samples of organic foods have been tested by the PRC
since 2001 more samples than tested by the PDP over 10 years. Just
under 27 percent of all samples tested positive, while 3.6
percent of organic samples contained a detectable pesticide residue.
Hence, based on British testing, conventional foods are 7.5 times more
likely to contain detectable residues than organic foods.
- - Pesticide Toxicity - -
Implementation of the FQPA triggered an explosion in toxicological and
risk assessment research onthe developmental effects of pesticides.
During fetal development and the first years of life, infants are much
less able to detoxify most pesticides and are uniquely vulnerable to
developmental toxins, especially neurotoxins, given that the brain and
nervous system continue developing through about age 12 (National
Research Council, 1993; Eskenazi et al., 1999).
New toxicological data have forced downward by one to two orders of
magnitude the allowable levels of exposure to various pesticides found
in food (Office of Pesticide Programs, 2002; Gray et al., 1999). The
EPA has had to phase out hundreds of food uses of relatively high-risk
pesticides (mostly organophosphate insecticide uses) in order to meet
the FQPA's new "reasonable certainty of no harm"
standard (Consumers Union, 2001).
In the last decade much new evidence has emerged on the mechanisms
through which pesticides can disrupt development as a result of even
very low exposures. Literature through early 1999 is summarized in a
special issue of the journal Toxicology and Industrial Health (Colborn
et al., 1999). Just a few
examples follow focusing on research published since the 1999 review.
A review article published in San Francisco Medicine in November 2002
targets lay audiences and provides a useful update on recently
published research findings on endocrine disruptors and human health,
including several studies on pesticides (Myers, 2002).
University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health scientists
found that exposures to pesticides during pregnancy significantly
heightened risk of children developing leukemia and that the more
frequent the exposures and the earlier in life, the greater the
increase in risk (Ma et al., 2002). A team in the Department of
Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, found that
exposure to pesticides in the home during fetal development increased
the risk of Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,
with odds ratios as high as 9.6 for Burkitt lymphoma (Buckley et al.,
2000).
A study in Ontario, Canada confirmed that exposures to pesticides
three months prior to conceptionand during pregnancy increased the
risk of spontaneous abortions (Arbuckle et al., 2001).
Research supported by the French Ministry of Environment documented
clear linkages between exposures to pesticides commonly used in grape
vineyards and long-term adverse cognitive effects (Baldi et al.,
2001). Cognitive performance was compared in a group of children
living in an upland agricultural region in Mexico where substantial
pesticide use occurred, compared to a similar cohort in a nearby
village. Children exposed to pesticides had lessened stamina and
attention spans, impaired memory and hand-eye coordination, and
greater difficulty making simple line drawings (Guillette et al.,
1998).
Just-published work on the developmental neurotoxicity of the most
widely used insecticide in theUnited States, chlorpyrifos, showed that
this organophosate (OP) targets neural cell replication and
differentiation, as well as the functioning of glial cells (Qiao et
al., 2002). The authors conclude thatexposures to this OP during the
first few years of life are likely a greater risk than during fetal
development, although prenatal exposures appear to disrupt the
architectural organization of specific regions in the brain and the
development of the fetal liver.
Antiandrogenic pesticides have been shown to cause demasculinization
in several species by blocking the receptor sites needed for male
sexual hormones to perform their normal functions during development
(Baatrup and Junge, 2001; Gray et al., 1999).
The most compelling new study to appear on pesticide dietary risks in
a long time was published online on October 31, 2002 in the highly
respected journal Environmental Health Perspectives. A team based at
the University of Washington's School of Public Health and Community
Medicine carried out the research. The research assesses the
difference in organophosphate (OP) residues and risk faced by two to
five year olds consuming a diet composed of mostly organic foods
versus conventional foods (Curl et al., 2002). The abstract of this
important study appears following the appendix tables. The team found
that two to five year olds consuming mostly organic foods over a three
day period had much lower mean levels of organophosphate (OP)
insecticide metabolites in their urine in fact, children consuming
conventional food had 8.5 times higher average levels than children
eating mostly an organic diet. The study was carefully
designed to avoid other potential confounding variables. The children
came from similar socio-economic backgrounds; households with recent
use of pesticides in the home were excluded from the study; and
rigorous sampling and double-blind testing protocols were used. The
research team also correlated differences in OP metabolite levels to
likely risk levels, as measured by the EPA. They concluded that: "Dose
estimates generated from pesticide metabolite data suggest that
organic diets can reduce children's
exposure levels from above to below EPA's chronic reference doses,
thereby shifting exposures from a range of uncertain risk to a range
of negligible risk. Consumption of organic produce represents a
relatively simple means for parents to reduce their children's
exposure to pesticides." (Curl et al., 2002)
The pesticide residue data reviewed earlier provides a solid basis to
predict a substantial difference in exposure among people consuming
largely conventional versus largely organic food. Moreover, it is
clear that fresh fruits and vegetables, and fruit juices, account for
the lion's share of dietary exposure. The Curl
study provides the first direct empirical confirmation of this
prediction and moreover, supports the encouraging conclusion that by
switching to predominantly organic produce and fruit juices, a child's
pesticide exposures can be reduced to negligible levels, unlikely to
pose significant risks, during this critical period of development.
Organic farmers and consumers are not the only ones that should
rejoice at these findings. Conventional farmers adopting biointensive
Integrated Pest Management systems can also markedly reduce OP
insecticide use. Extensive evidence compiled by the EPA over the
course of implementing the FQPA
suggests that by cutting out all OP sprays within 90 to 120 days of
harvest on major kids' foods, OP residues will largely, if not fully
disappear from fresh produce. This is also good news for EPA, which
can now confidently predict major progress in reducing OP risks
following a relatively small number of regulatory actions targeting
less than two-dozen foods.
- - Why Organic Food Sometimes Contains Residues - -
Many people wonder why between 10 percent and one-quarter of organic
F&V samples contain residues of synthetic pesticides. Like transgenic
DNA, pesticides are ubiquitous and mobile across agricultural
landscapes. Most positive organic samples contain low levels of
pesticides used on nearby conventional fields. They move onto organic
food via drift or through use of contaminated irrigation water.
Soil-bound residues of persistent pesticides account for a large
portion of residues in root crops and squashes. Cross-contamination
with post-harvest fungicides applied in storage facilities is a major
cause of low-level fungicide residues (Baker et al., 2002). The small
percent of samples sold as organic and found to
contain relatively high levels of residues likely arise from
inadvertent mixing of produce, laboratory error, mislabeling, or
fraud.
A few pro-pesticide activists have gone to great lengths to convince
consumers that pesticide residues in organic food are as risky as
those in onventional foods. Fortunately, these claims do not pass the
laugh test. Expanded residue testing of botanicals and biopesticides
would be needed to decisively settle the empirical issues behind such
specious claims. Settling this artificial controversy would mean we
would
need less testing to better understand significant pesticide dietary
risks, a tradeoff thus far rejected by government regulatory and
research agencies.
It is also true that organic farmers apply non-synthetic pesticides
including sulfur, oils, several botanicals, Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt), soaps, certain microbial pesticides, and pheromones. By volume,
major
pesticides used on both organic and conventional farms include sulfur,
horticultural/petroleum distillates and oils, and copper-based
fungicides. There are some formulations of these pesticides approved
for organic production and many others available to conventional
growers. These pesticides are used in similar ways for comparable
reasons on organic and conventional fruit and vegetable farms. Sulfur
is almost certainly the most common pesticide residue present on
conventional and organic F&Vs, but it
is never tested for because it is exempt from the requirement for a
tolerance and poses essentially no risk through the diet. Copper is
also not tested for because of tolerance exemptions and the fact that
copper is
an essential nutrient and harmless at the levels ingested as food
residues.
Organic farmers also rely on Bacillus thuringiensis insecticides,
pheromones, and products that coat produce with nontoxic,
biodegradable materials (e.g., soaps and clays). Residues of these
pesticides are rarely tested for because there are no tolerances to
enforce and no basis for food safety concerns, given how these
products are used in production agriculture. While there were once
several toxic botanical insecticides on the market and approved for
organic production, only one remains in relatively common use
pyrethrins.
Pesticides containing pyrethrins are indeed toxic but they degrade
rapidly after spraying and hence rarely leave detectable residues.
Plus, they are applied at very low rates, on the order of one to two
one-hundredths of a pound per acre; OP insecticides are applied at 50-
to 100-times higher rates. Other botanicals of possible concern
include rotenone and sabadilla. The most recent survey of organic
farmers carried out by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF)
found that only 9 percent of 1,045
farmers applied botanicals regularly (mostly pyrethrins and neem), and
that 52 percent never use them, 21 percent use them rarely, and 18
percent "on occasion" (Walz, 1999).
- - Two Closing Thoughts - -
To the extent consumers become aware of recently published data and
research findings on pesticides in food, new information will
reinforce already deep-set concerns. It is now clear that purchasing
organic food is a reliable way to markedly reduce exposure to
pesticides. Less exposure means greater margins of safety. While
toxicologists and risk assessment experts will argue until the cows
come home over whether 0.05 ppm of pesticide X, Y, or Z is safe or
unsafe, many consumers are now looking for practical ways to reduce
personal risk loads. Consuming organic food is clearly one way to do
just that.
Several times in recent years, the USDA has stated publicly that
organic food is no safer than any other food. Even more frequently and
assertively, the USDA has claimed that GE foods are fully tested and
pose no risks. Bush administration and USDA leaders are puzzled why so
many people around the world are not willing to accept the official
position of the U.S. government regarding the safety of GE foods. The
credibility of the U.S. government, and confidence around the world in
food exports from the U.S., rests upon whether food safety conclusions
reached by the USDA, and pushed by the government, are grounded in
sound science and consistent with the latest research findings.
Clearly, the U.S.D.A. needs to look anew at recent data on pesticide
residues in conventional and organic foods and reconsider its message,
in the interest of restoring confidence in the Department's scientific
abilities and openness to new information.
- - References and Further Information - -
Agricultural Marketing Service. 2002. Pesticide Data Program Annual
Summary Calendar Year 2000.
United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Adgate,
J.L., D.B. Barr, C.A. Clayton, L.E. Eberly, N.C.G. Freeman, P.L. Lioy,
L.L. Needham, E.D. Pellizzari, J.L. Quackenboss, A. Roy, and K.
Sexton. 2001.
Measurement ofChildren's Exposure to Pesticides: Analysis of Urinary
Metabolite Levels in a Probability-Based Sample. Environmental Health
Perspectives. Vol. 109, No. 6, pp. 583-590. Arbuckle, T.E., Z. Lin,
and L.S. Mery. 2001.
An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Pesticide Exposure on the
Risk of Spontaneous Abortion in an Ontario Farm Population.
Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 109, No. 8, pp. 851-858.
Baatrup, E., and M. Junge. 2002.
Antiandrogenic Pesticides Disrupt SexualCharacteristics in the Adult
Male Guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Environmental Health Perspectives.
Vol. 109, No. 10, pp. 1063-1070. Baker, B., C.M. Benbrook, E. Groth,
and K.L. Benbrook. 2002.
Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management
(IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets. Food
Additives and Contaminants Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 427-446.
Baldi, I., L. Filleul, B. Mohammed-Brahim, C. Fabriguole, J.F.
Dartigues, S. Schwall, J.P. Drevet, R.
Salamon, and P. Brochard. 2001.
Neurophysical Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Pesticides: Results
from the French Phytoner Study. Environmental Health Perspectives.
Vol. 109, No. 8, pp. 839-844. Benbrook, C.M., D.L. Sexson, J.A. Wyman,
W.R. Stevenson, S. Lynch, J. Wallendal, S. Diercks, R. Van Haren, and
C.A. Granadino. 2002.
Developing a Pesticide Risk Assessment Tool to Monitor Progress in
Reducing Reliance on High-Risk Pesticides. American Journal of Potato
Research. Vol. 79, pp. 183-199. Buckley, J.D., A.T. Meadows, M.E.
Kadin, M.M. Le Beau, S. Siegel, and L.L. Robinson. 2000.
Pesticide Exposures in children with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer.
Vol. 89, No. 11,
pp. 2315-2321. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001.
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Atlanta,
Georgia. Cooper, R.L., J.M. Goodman, and T.E. Stoker. 1999.
Neuroendocrine and reproductive effects of contemporary-use
pesticides. Toxicology and Industrial Health. Vol. 15, No. 1-2, pp.
26-36. Consumers Union. 2001.
A Report Card for the EPA: Successes and Failures in Implementing the
Food Quality Protection Act. Consumers Union of the United States,
Inc., Yonkers, New York. http://www.ecologic-ipm.com/
ReportCard_final.pdf Curl, C., Fenske, R., and K. Elgethun. 2002.
Organophosphorous pesticide exposure of urban and suburban pre-school
children with organic and conventional diets. Environmental Health
perspectives. Published online October 31, 2002.
Eskenazi, B., A. Bradman, and R. Castorina. 1999.
Exposures of children to organophosphate pesticides and their
potential adverse health effects. Environmental Health Perspectives
Vol. 109, Supplement 3, pp. 409-419. Gray, L.G., J. Ostby, E.
Monosson, and W.R. Kelce. 1999.
Environmental antiandrogens: low doses of the fungicide vinclozolin
alter sexual differentiation of the male rat.. Toxicology and
Industrial Health. Vol. 15, No. 1-2, pp. 48-65. Groth, E., C.M.
Benbrook, K.L. Benbrook. 2000.
Update Pesticide Residues in Children's Food. Consumers Union.
http://www.ecologic-ipm.com/
PDP/Update_Childrens_Foods.pdf Guillette, E.A., M.M. Meza, M.G.
Aquilar, A.D. Sotto, and I.E. Garcia. 1998.
An anthropological approach to the evaluation of preschool children
exposed to pesticides in Mexico.
Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 106, No. 6, pp. 347-353.
Houlihan, T. 2002.
Common'Tater Interview with Tim Huberty. The Badger Common'Tater, Vol.
54, No. 9, pp. 8-9. September 2002. Koch, D., L. Chensheng, J.
Fisker-Andersen, L. Jolley, and R.A. Fenske. 2002.
Temporal Association of Children's Pesticide Exposure and Agricultural
Spraying: Report of a
Longitudinal Biological Monitoring Study. Environmental Health
Perspectives Vol. 110, No. 8, pp. 829-833. Lu, C., D.E. Knutson, J.
Fisker-Andersen, and R.A. Fenske. 2001.
Biological monitoring survey of organophosphorous pesticide exposure
among pre-school children in the Seattle metropolitan
area.Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 299-303.
Lynch, S., D. Sexson, C. Benbrook, M. Carter, J. Wyman, P. Nowak, J.
Barzen, S. Diercks, and J. Wallendal. 2000.
Working out the Bugs. Choices. Third Quarter, 2000, pp.28-32. Ma, X.,
P.A. Buffler, R.B. Gunier, G. Dahl, M.T. Smith, K. Reinier, and P.
Reynolds. 2002.
Critical Windows of Exposure to Household Pesticides and Risk of
Childhood Leukemia. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 110, No.
9, pp.955-960. MacIntosh, D.L., L.L. Needham, K.A. Hammerstrom, and
P.B. Ryan. 1999.
A longitudinal investigation of selected pesticide metabolites in
urine. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology. Vol. 9, No. 5, pp 494-501. Mills, P.K.,
and S.H. Zahm. 2001.
Organophosphate pesticide residues in urine of farmworkers and their
children in Fresno County, California. American Journal of Industrial
Medicine. Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 571-577. Myers, Pete. 2002. "From Silent
Spring to Scientific Revolution." SanFrancisco Medicine, November
2002. Accessible at: http://www.sfms.org/sfm/
National Research Council. 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants
and Children. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Office of
Pesticide Programs. 2002.
Pesticide Reregistration Chemical Status.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/ status.htm. Viewed
October 10, 2002. Pang, Y., D.L. MacIntosh, D.E. Camann, and P.B.
Ryan. 2002.
Analysis of Aggregate Exposure to Chlorpyrifos in the NHEXAS-Maryland
Investigation. Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 100, No. 3, pp.
235-240. Qiao, D., F.J. Seidler, S. Padilla, and T.A. Slotkin. 2002.
Developmental Neurotoxicity of Chlorpyrifos: What is the Vulnerable
Period? Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 110, No. 11, pp.
1097-1103. Walz, E. 1999.
Final Results of the Third Biennial National Organic Farmers' Survey.
Organic Farming Research Foundation. Santa Cruz, California. Younie,
D., and A. Litterick. 2002.
Crop Protection in Organic Farming. Pesticide Outlook, Royal Society
of Chemistry, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 158-161.
Benbrook Biography:
Dr Charles Benbrook. Dr. Benbrook runs Benbrook Consultant Services, a
small consulting firm based in Sandpoint, Idaho. He worked in
Washington, D.C. on agricultural policy, science and regulatory issues
from 1979 through 1997. He served for 1.5 years as the agricultural
staff expert on the Council for Environmental Quality/The White House
at the end of the Carter Administration, during a period of intense
focus on soil conservation, farmland preservation, and pest management
Dave Chalton
> Yet More Proof That Organic Is Better For You
>
> EcoFarm 2003 January 24, 2003
>
> Why Food Safety Will Continue Driving
> Growth in Demand for Organic Food
This may well be the case, however, until organic farming is carried
out on a scale that allows reduction of product prices into the range
of standard comercial production, cost will be a major implication.
In the majority of cases, this higher cost is directly linked to the
higher production problems inherent in not being able to use
mass-produced synthetic fertilisers. Until there is a higher uptake of
these "permitted" fertilisers, and gradual emergence of
flocks/herds/land that does not carry a noticable disease/pest burden,
production will suffer due the dissallowance of preventitive-type
medications/crop treatments.
At the end of the day, in most supermarkets - which, lets face it, is
the majority market share as far as the general public is concerned -
organic produce, whilst billed as healthy, good for the environment
etc, remains substantially more expensive than mass-produced
conventional produce.
If, in the UK especially, support to farmers is extended to up to ten
years post-convertion, this may well influence more farmers to enter
organic schemes. Supply is thus more even and available, (someone
explain the advantage of 1000's of air-miles to transport organic lamb
from overseas - surely this is not environmentally friendly?), prices
should become lower, and the whole idea is more likely to gain
mass-market appeal.
That's my view anyway - I welcome any intelligent response...
Hugh Watkins
"The God of Free Pagan Usenet" <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote in message news:Vh_1a.87598$Gm2.2...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Bush: Saddam Will Use Human Shields
>
> Monday, February 10, 2003
>
>
>
> NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Saddam Hussein is putting military troops in civilian
> areas and planning to use his own people as human shields if Iraq is
> attacked by the United States and its allies, President Bush said Monday.
snip
the young liberals of Europe and Canada are volunteering as human shields
try using google to lighten your presidents ignorance
he looked tired on TV today
I am glad
Hugh W
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=human+shields&btnG=Google+Search
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=human+shields&sa=N&tab=wn
>>
Elias Amidon, a 58-year-old member of Iraq Peace Team, said their action was "to show solidarity with the Iraqi people during an
unjust time. We also want to report back to the American people and other countries about what's really going on here," Amidon, who
is from Colorado, told United Press International.
"The U.S. media and administration are making as if the Iraqi people do not exist. The focus is only on (Iraqi President) Saddam
Hussein, that he is evil and everywhere."
War, he said "will cause imaginable sufferings" to the Iraqi people who already suffer from the effects of the U.N.-imposed
sanctions. These sanctions are a weapon of mass destruction. They are another war," he said. "This is mass destruction and the
American people don't know that."
He said the Bush administration wants to attack Iraq "to make the region its gas station. They want power, control and resources.
Whatever way they can have them, they will do," Amidon said. He also denounced the U.S.-led war on terrorism because "it is not
making anyone of us safer."
Sister Virgine Lawinger, from Milwaukee, was equally unconvinced about the Bush administration's stated arguments for going to war
against Iraq.
"I have found nothing that tells me that Iraq has threatened in any way the United States," Lawinger said. "I don't know if there
are weapons or not, but I do know that not all nations that have weapons are being asked about them. And of course, the United
States has shipped weapons to so many countries."
She said the protest group wanted the "Iraqi people (to) know that the American people stand with them and care very much about what
is happening to them." <<
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030210-021645-8487r
Unknown
Sure a respectable committee was to present evidence of increased
extra-terrestrial activity taking place within photographable distance
of us. But then mysteriously we didn't hear anything about it.
And then there was the morning of February 8th. It happened but
everybody goes on like they don't remember how significant it was.
It is difficult for me to predict if they will prevent this or not.
We'll find out how it was engineered soon.
But now all of you readers should know better. Some of you claim to
have keen senses. Why is it that you can't remember the current events
of last week?
It's because you are weak. Someone please indicate to me that they
understand.
Bobkins
news:je9h4v0mnv8bt3nhj...@4ax.com...
I am always awake. I was awake before the dawn, and will still be so
well after dusk.
Ze alluring ailurophile
>From: "r...@bookofshadows.org" ren
>Date: 2/11/2003 2:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <je9h4v0mnv8bt3nhj...@4ax.com>
Well, you were pretty correct with your prediction. You said about a week
before the space shuttle incident that something would happen regarding outer
space. Could you possibly have gotten it a little mixed up? It was extremely
close to the mark, Ren.
Also, with this space shuttle thing, if there was any evidence of E.T.
activity, they would keep it top secret while investigating the accident.
What wouldst thou have with me? Good King of Cats, nothing, but one of your
nine lives. ~Shakespeare
William Penrose
> "The God of Free Pagan Usenet" <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote in message news:Vh_1a.87598$Gm2.2...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > Bush: Saddam Will Use Human Shields
>
Being against war, especially a useless war for the selfish purposes
of an elite, does not make a person a liberal.
A real conservative, if there were such a thing, would also be against
an Iraqi invasion because of the cost, the lack of clear(ly stated)
goals, the certainty of asymmetric retaliation, and the even greater
cost of putting the conquered colony back together and supporting it
in perpetuity.
A sensible conservative, if there were one, would say, pursue proven
and still-dangerous terrorists. Problem is, there's no money in it.
Bill Penrose
Unknown
>I am always awake. I was awake before the dawn, and will still be so
>well after dusk.
Well then Bobkins, what color is the Dragon in the sky?
http://members.tripod.com/AlynPtyLtd/nd/ModernWars.htm
Here I'm using Astrology to try to give an exact date and to warn you
all. The time has come to live or die.
Unknown
>Well, you were pretty correct with your prediction. You said about a week
>before the space shuttle incident that something would happen regarding outer
>space. Could you possibly have gotten it a little mixed up? It was extremely
>close to the mark, Ren.
>
>Also, with this space shuttle thing, if there was any evidence of E.T.
>activity, they would keep it top secret while investigating the accident.
And since I think that most U.F.O. stories are silly -- well then.
Unknown
>Also, with this space shuttle thing, if there was any evidence of E.T.
>activity, they would keep it top secret while investigating the accident.
No E.T. activity. But there are groups that are keeping things secret
about their total incompetence. It shall be brought to light anyway.
Lloyd Parker
>
>
>
>NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Saddam Hussein is putting military troops in civilian
>areas and planning to use his own people as human shields if Iraq is
>attacked by the United States and its allies, President Bush said Monday.
>
>expendable when their suffering serves his purposes," Bush said Monday at
>the National Religious Broadcasters' convention.
>
>Earlier in the day, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters
>aboard Air Force One that intelligence information has shown that the Iraqi
>leader is "prepositioning his military among civilians."
>
>"This is a brutal dictator with a long history of using civilians to further
>his own purposes," McClellan said.
>
>Bush said Saddam's actions are in direct violation of the Geneva Convention
>and that the Iraqi dictator plans to "shield his military and blame
>coalition forces for civilian casualties that he has caused."
>
>Stressing that "the people of Iraq are not our enemies," Bush said Saddam
>views his own people as "expendable," but the United States cares about what
>happens to the Iraqi people in a post-Saddam world.
>
>"America views the Iraqi people as human beings who have suffered long
>enough under this tyrant," Bush said.
>
>
>
>Do you Liberals know why he does this? It is because he knows YOU will
>bitch, yell, and have your little protest marches. He knows that you will
>start you screeling that Our Duly Elected President is "targeting innocent
>people" and, he hopes, you will influence our military to back down. He is
>using YOU as a weapon against your own country
>
>So when you hear about a school or a hospital or a neighborhood getting
>blown up, know that it is being done for and because of you. The blood is in
>your hands.
I suppose you lump the Pope in with all those liberals? Most American church
leaders?
DayaLi
pen...@iit.edu (William Penrose) wrote:
But, we're speaking of Talesin - "The Cheesiest Bag of Witchcraft"
--
Kol Tuv v'Tikkunim,
Rabbi Cani Havanutherwun
POEE, ELF KCHG
"Lo'Ruhamah"
"I want to be Miss America" -Dr. Phil
The God of Free Pagan UseNet
<ren> wrote in message news:je9h4v0mnv8bt3nhj...@4ax.com...
I cannot say I understand.
I can say that the world is about to change forever.
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
"The people who read Harlequin romances dream of the love they will
never have, the people who read Pratchett dream of the Witches they
will never be." - Me
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
Lestats Beyatch
"Liberals" are AGAINST the war, dimwit. We are AGAINST the shedding of
blood by our brave service men and women. We are AGAINST the loss of
innocent lives. We are AGAINST a war that is unprovoked. See, you, otoh,
are all for it. So, who is going to have blood in their hands? It will be
the people like you, who are screaming for war!
Tegan 0o/
--
MiNe'S bRokE...cAn i HavE YoUrS?
"The God of Free Pagan Usenet" <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote in message
news:Vh_1a.87598$Gm2.2...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Bush: Saddam Will Use Human Shields
>
Mike Combs
>
> I just love how you right-wing-wackos twist everything around. Us
> "Liberals" are AGAINST the war, dimwit.
The point was this: If anti-American liberals didn't shriek and scream every
time an innocent is killed in war (but only if it's by Americans), would Saddam
have a motivation to nestle his military assets among civilians? Would it be
the strategy to follow if Saddam couldn't rely on Western liberals to react as
we all expect you to?
He's counting on your voices being raised in opposition. It suits his
purposes, and furthers his aims. Does that not bother you?
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."
Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"
Lestats Beyatch
as well as all of your other lies. My father served in WWII (and was
awarded 3 purple hearts, a bronze star, and numerous other medals), and is
vehemently against this war. Is he "anti-American" too? Tell me, Mike,
when did you serve, and which branch of the military? Silence? That's just
as I thought.
See, what also bothers me is how people like you can turn a blind eye to the
fact that our pResident ran away to Omaha, NB, to our S.A.C. base (the place
he would be safest in the U.S.) on 9/11, and hypocrites like you expect any
less of Hussein. Yes, Hussein's an evil dictator. But Bush Sr. helped
create him! What bothers me are people who don't think for themselves, but
suck up the spew FOX news (and their ilk) broadcasts like it's a message
from god. What bothers me is a PRE-EMPTIVE war, which is against our
constitution. What bothers me is a war for the sake of oil. Along with so
many other things, it would take quite a while to write them here. Do these
things not bother you? Hussein *hiding* amongst his civilian population is
to be expected. Bush would, and has, done no less.
Tegan 0o/
--
MiNe'S bRokE...cAn i HavE YoUrS?
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
news:3E4D3E0C...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti...
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan UseNet
Go look the term up
"Lestats Beyatch" <nunyerf*ckinbidniz...@cu.later> wrote in message
news:v4nsjdr...@corp.supernews.com...
--
Lestats Beyatch
Tegan 0o/
--
MiNe'S bRokE...cAn i HavE YoUrS?
"Cyric- The God of Free Pagan UseNet" <the_wi...@wahoo.com> wrote in
message news:9_t3a.966$ye.4...@twister.kc.rr.com...
Lloyd Parker
Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
>Lestats Beyatch wrote:
>>
>> I just love how you right-wing-wackos twist everything around. Us
>> "Liberals" are AGAINST the war, dimwit.
>
>The point was this: If anti-American liberals didn't shriek and scream every
>time an innocent is killed in war
Are you saying conservatives rejoice in this?
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
> Lestats Beyatch wrote:
>>
>> I just love how you right-wing-wackos twist everything around. Us
>> "Liberals" are AGAINST the war, dimwit.
>
> The point was this: If anti-American liberals didn't shriek and
> scream every time an innocent is killed in war (but only if it's by
> Americans), would Saddam have a motivation to nestle his military
> assets among civilians? Would it be the strategy to follow if Saddam
> couldn't rely on Western liberals to react as we all expect you to?
>
> He's counting on your voices being raised in opposition. It suits his
> purposes, and furthers his aims. Does that not bother you?
There was even a term for this develpoed by the Communists during the Cold
War. They called anti-American liberals like Tegan who served their purpose
"useful idiots"
--
Lestats Beyatch
Tegan 0o/
--
MiNe'S bRokE...cAn i HavE YoUrS?
"Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet" <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote in
message news:IXw3a.113592$Gm2.2...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Jaguar
Wow tales,
did you hear that on the Hannity show?
Or Liddy's?
Great to see you blindly swallowing the propaganda of the right wing talk
show hacks.
So tell me, do you agree with them in that we should withdraw from NATO?
& that we should hit N. Korea, Iran & Syria right after we get done with
Iraq?
Good to see you have joined up with the X-tains for thier latest crusade.
I am sure they will cut you a sweet deal on oil company stocks.
We may well have to go into Iraq & clean up Regan's & Bush's little CIA
set up pit bull (Saddam).
The problem is, it is much like flooding a house with DDT to kill a
cockroach.
The hazard here is it could very well be seen as X-tain vs Muslim by the
Muslim nations. It could trigger a war between religions & civilizations.
We NEED UN & NATO backing for this.
If we CAN NOT convince our allies why we must do this, how can we ever
hope to convice the Muslim States or the rightness of our military action?
How can we convince them that this is NOT the 1st strike in a campain to
eradicate or weaken Islam?
Going in solo runs the risk of triggering MORE conflict. More terrorisim.
Going in with UN approval lessens that risk.
& Saddam is only a two bit petty dictator, we can afford to wait untill we
get backing.
His military is weak.
We know exactly what he has because the US set him up druing the Reagan
admin. we knew he has chemical weapons back then. We did not care when he
used them against Iran, in the Iran/Iraq war.
But now, the rabid dog we set up to chew on Iran & keep it occupied has
now bitten us hard once (kuwait)
& may well be planning to do so again.
Pity Bush Sr. didn't do the job right the 1st time.
But then again, one can't expect clear judgement from somone that profited
from private company sales of chemical & biological weapons tech to a
rabid guard dog.
So now Jr. is obessed with fixing his 'daddy's' error.
Even if it means breaking alliance with old allies & withdrawing from
NATO.
Even if it means ignoring international law & the UN security council &
doing a premptive strike.
Which would set the precidence for OTHER nations to do the same.
Oh... look, already N. Korea claims the same right as the USA, the right
to premptive military strike.
The religous right (in the form of one of thier think tanks) has already
stated they want to take over Iraq, take the oil & then break ties with
Saudi Arabia. - They even gave a nice
briefing to our goverment about that, which was reported in the press &
quickly brushed under the rug.
War may well be neccessary.
But the USA should NOT turn into an imperialitic military agressive state,
break alliance & act without the support.
That WILL blow up in our face.
Going alone will cause massive economic hardship.
Worst case senario, if the Muslim state take it as an attack against
Islam, we could loose a significant amount of our oil supply. - prices
will skyrocket & drag our economy down.
Bush has YET to budget of War - either for homeland defense OR external.
More deficets - rebuilding Iraq will be very expensive.
Already the US dollar's value is DOWN.
Investors are withdrawing from the dollar & putting it all into the Euro.
The Euro is now worth more than the dollar.
Bush is throwing all caution to the winds with his rush to war & ignoring
the diplomacy he needs to do to garner support.
This is a seed for disaster.
Jaguar
Lloyd Parker
"Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet" <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote:
>Mike Combs wrote:
>> Lestats Beyatch wrote:
>>>
>>> I just love how you right-wing-wackos twist everything around. Us
>>> "Liberals" are AGAINST the war, dimwit.
>>
>> The point was this: If anti-American liberals didn't shriek and
>> scream every time an innocent is killed in war (but only if it's by
>> Americans), would Saddam have a motivation to nestle his military
>> assets among civilians? Would it be the strategy to follow if Saddam
>> couldn't rely on Western liberals to react as we all expect you to?
>>
>> He's counting on your voices being raised in opposition. It suits his
>> purposes, and furthers his aims. Does that not bother you?
>
>There was even a term for this develpoed by the Communists during the Cold
>War. They called anti-American liberals like Tegan who served their purpose
>"useful idiots"
>
>
Mike Combs
>
> What bothers me is how you right-wingers say liberals are "anti-American",
> as well as all of your other lies.
If you've invested considerably less effort in speaking out on the deaths of
innocents at the hands of our enemies, then if not anti-American, you at least
have a certain bias.
> Tell me, Mike,
> when did you serve, and which branch of the military? Silence? That's just
> as I thought.
No, I have never served in the military.
> See, what also bothers me is how people like you can turn a blind eye to the
> fact that our pResident ran away to Omaha, NB, to our S.A.C. base (the place
> he would be safest in the U.S.) on 9/11,
You would prefer a president who tries to get himself killed? To serve what
purpose? The president is surrounded by people whose sole duty is to ensure
his safety. They performed their duty. And that's how it should be.
> and hypocrites like you expect any
> less of Hussein.
You missed my point. I'm not saying Hussein should join his soldiers in
battle. I'm saying that Hussein places _military assets_ (not just himself)
directly alongside civilian populations, ensuring that any strikes against his
military assets will be accompanied by mass carnage. He does this because a
bit of propaganda is more important to him than the lives of his citizens. The
point of the previous poster is that this is a winning strategy for him because
he knows he can count on the liberal West to serve his purposes.
> Yes, Hussein's an evil dictator. But Bush Sr. helped
> create him!
If so (and it's a debatable point), then it creates an enhanced responsibility
to go in and take him out.
> What bothers me are people who don't think for themselves, but
> suck up the spew FOX news (and their ilk) broadcasts like it's a message
> from god. What bothers me is a PRE-EMPTIVE war, which is against our
> constitution. What bothers me is a war for the sake of oil.
Please know that when you say it's a war for oil, in my opinion, you are
repeating the liberal line without thinking for yourself in the same way you
feel I'm doing with the conservative viewpoint.
> Along with so
> many other things, it would take quite a while to write them here. Do these
> things not bother you? Hussein *hiding* amongst his civilian population is
> to be expected. Bush would, and has, done no less.
Again, the issue is not Saddam hiding himself among his civilian population,
it's his military assets.
Mike Combs
>
> Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
> >
> >The point was this: If anti-American liberals didn't shriek and scream every
> >time an innocent is killed in war
>
> Are you saying conservatives rejoice in this?
No. Why would you wonder if I was saying such a thing?
Mike Combs
>
> There was even a term for this develpoed by the Communists during the Cold
> War. They called anti-American liberals like Tegan who served their purpose
> "useful idiots"
Yes. The Berlin Wall fell, but some things go on and on...
Mike Combs
>
> It always amuses me to see you project your character traits on others.
I suppose you consider us "useful idiots" in that you consider our chief enemy
to be the present American administration. Please know that more-sensible
people consider our enemy to be the people who are flying planes into our
buildings, those threatening to build nuclear weapons unless we feed them, and
yes, those that want us dead and are desperate to develop/retain WMD.
Mike Combs
>
> So, you're a communist then. Thanks for confirming all our suspicions.
What is the deal with Liberals and logic? Is a Liberal by definition someone
unacquainted with the use of logic to arrive at sensible conclusions?
Wintershard
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:46:45 -0600, Mike Combs
<mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
>Lestats Beyatch wrote:
>>
>> So, you're a communist then. Thanks for confirming all our suspicions.
>
>What is the deal with Liberals and logic? Is a Liberal by definition someone
>unacquainted with the use of logic to arrive at sensible conclusions?
No, that would be George Bush confirming that Saddam was connected
to 9/11.
Bright be thy day in the sun,
Wintershard
minterra.yahoo.com
ARW website at www.shard-designs.com/arwnewsgroup
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
> Lestats Beyatch wrote:
>>
>> So, you're a communist then. Thanks for confirming all our
>> suspicions.
>
> What is the deal with Liberals and logic? Is a Liberal by definition
> someone unacquainted with the use of logic to arrive at sensible
> conclusions?
Yes. For example, an unborn baby is a "lump of tissue" but an terrorist in
Iraq is a "targeted innocent"
Noinden
> Lestats Beyatch wrote:
> >
> > It always amuses me to see you project your character traits on others.
>
> I suppose you consider us "useful idiots" in that you consider our chief enemy
> to be the present American administration. Please know that more-sensible
> people consider our enemy to be the people who are flying planes into our
> buildings, those threatening to build nuclear weapons unless we feed them, and
> yes, those that want us dead and are desperate to develop/retain WMD.
>
ONLY one nation has been stupid enough to use nuclear weapons!
Duncan Wood
Which tens of thousands of terrorists are those then?
Mike Combs
>
> As opposed to people like you who are not useful but still idiots?
Even if you were right, I'd prefer an idiot who was totally useless to one who
was useful to my enemies.
Lestats Beyatch
> Lestats Beyatch wrote:
> >
> > What bothers me is how you right-wingers say liberals are
"anti-American",
> > as well as all of your other lies.
>
> If you've invested considerably less effort in speaking out on the deaths
of
> innocents at the hands of our enemies, then if not anti-American, you at
least
> have a certain bias.
But, I haven't invested less effort, Mike. In fact, I've spent much of my
time, almost daily, speaking out on the deaths of innocents at the hands of
"our enemies". Here's just one of my posts speaking out against the
Taliban, dated 1999. That was well before the time it was even
*fashionable* to despise them:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=tegan+rawa+group:alt.religion.wicca&start=
20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=7b43qa%24fnj%241%40news-2.news
.gte.net&rnum=35&filter=0
You know...I got threatening e-mails from people trying to *persuade* me to
stop posting about RAWA (the Revolutionary Association of Women for
Afghanistan) during that time? Isn't that interesting? It didn't stop me
though. Those women were fighting to stop the murder and torture of their
people at the hands of the Taliban. So, what did YOU do to help, Mike?
Where was your voice?
The possibility of threats doesn't stop me today from speaking out against
torture, deaths, etal, where ever these injustices may occur. How about
you, Mike? Do you do these things you preach at me to do? Yeah, I didn't
think so. So, by your own standards, YOU are anti-American?
> > Tell me, Mike,
> > when did you serve, and which branch of the military? Silence? That's
just
> > as I thought.
>
> No, I have never served in the military.
I already knew that.
> > See, what also bothers me is how people like you can turn a blind eye to
the
> > fact that our pResident ran away to Omaha, NB, to our S.A.C. base (the
place
> > he would be safest in the U.S.) on 9/11,
>
> You would prefer a president who tries to get himself killed? To serve
what
> purpose? The president is surrounded by people whose sole duty is to
ensure
> his safety. They performed their duty. And that's how it should be.
This was my point. If there was an invading country who came here looking
for our President, he would be the LAST one they would find. It is the
exact same in ANY country for ANY leader. For us to think Hussein is going
to be any different is absolute idiocy.
> > and hypocrites like you expect any
> > less of Hussein.
>
> You missed my point. I'm not saying Hussein should join his soldiers in
> battle. I'm saying that Hussein places _military assets_ (not just
himself)
> directly alongside civilian populations, ensuring that any strikes against
his
> military assets will be accompanied by mass carnage. He does this because
a
> bit of propaganda is more important to him than the lives of his citizens.
The
> point of the previous poster is that this is a winning strategy for him
because
> he knows he can count on the liberal West to serve his purposes.
Sheesh! You don't know there are nuclear missiles in Washington DC??? You
gotta be kidding me? That's been common knowledge since the Kennedy era.
If that's not placing military assets alongside civilian populations, I
don't know what is. The "previous poster" doesn't have a point, other than
the one atop his head. Don't believe me, do a Google search on him. Here
on ARW, we've
been subjected to his b.s. for 5+ years. :O
> > Yes, Hussein's an evil dictator. But Bush Sr. helped
> > create him!
>
> If so (and it's a debatable point), then it creates an enhanced
responsibility
> to go in and take him out.
>
> > What bothers me are people who don't think for themselves, but
> > suck up the spew FOX news (and their ilk) broadcasts like it's a message
> > from god. What bothers me is a PRE-EMPTIVE war, which is against our
> > constitution. What bothers me is a war for the sake of oil.
>
> Please know that when you say it's a war for oil, in my opinion, you are
> repeating the liberal line without thinking for yourself in the same way
you
> feel I'm doing with the conservative viewpoint.
That is *one* of my assertations, yes. Here is why;
http://www.peace-action.org/home/oil.html
There are too many *coincidences* regarding Bush's campaign donars, the
amount of oil available in Iraq (the 2nd largest reserve in the World), and
the meetings with Iraq's National Congress (who've made promises to the Bush
regime regarding oil sharing with the U.S.), for me to believe otherwise.
At the VERY, VERY least, it garners deep suspicions as to the true reasons
for a war. Besides the FACT, that Bush has yet to provide solid proof of
the necessity of a war with Iraq to us, the United States citizens, or to
the leaders of other countries. France, Germany, etal, are NOT convinced
(and this is based on the evidence Bush has shared with them!) that a war is
warranted. At the VERY least, that's something to think about, enit?
> > Along with so
> > many other things, it would take quite a while to write them here. Do
these
> > things not bother you? Hussein *hiding* amongst his civilian population
is
> > to be expected. Bush would, and has, done no less.
>
> Again, the issue is not Saddam hiding himself among his civilian
population,
> it's his military assets.
What, exactly, are Saddam's "military assets"? He has no launching
capabilities beyond 90 miles (we've effectively knocked those out already),
he has no Navy (never has), his military's a joke (years of fighting against
Iran, and then the U.S., have left them rag-tag, at best), and he has no
nukes. So, he's left with what? What ARE his military assets? Anthrax?
VX? Smallpox? As for smallpox, seeing as how the U.S. and Russia are the
only ones with the virus, it would HAVE to be one of us...dunno, you tell
me, Mike? What have they got for "military assets"? 'Cause I'm truly open
for debate here, and would like to be enlightened.
Blessings,
Tegan 0o/
--
MiNe'S bRokE...cAn i HavE YoUrS?
>
Lestats Beyatch
all lack a sense of humor?
Blessings,
Tegan 0o/
--
MiNe'S bRokE...cAn i HavE YoUrS?
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
news:3E512E15...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti...
Lestats Beyatch
Many Blessings,
Tegan 0o/
--
MiNe'S bRokE...cAn i HavE YoUrS?
"Noinden" <sla...@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
news:b5b2d54.03021...@posting.google.com...
Lloyd Parker
Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> As opposed to people like you who are not useful but still idiots?
>
>Even if you were right, I'd prefer an idiot who was totally useless to one
who
>was useful to my enemies.
OK, who are your enemies? Who gets to decide this? The hijackers were mostly
Saudis, so it would be logical to conclude Saudi Arabia is our enemy. Bush
and Cheney are very useful to them...
>
Robert McClelland
Lloyd Parker <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:b2uce7$s8f$9...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
His enemies are whoever Bush tells him are his enemies.
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
"Jaguar" <jag...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.43.03021...@saltmine.radix.net...
>
> Wow tales,
> did you hear that on the Hannity show?
> Or Liddy's?
>
Who?
> Great to see you blindly swallowing the propaganda of the right wing talk
> show hacks.
Oh, okay. Whatever you say. I suppose you will be listening to all 14 hours
a day of KLIB or whatever they call it
>
> So tell me, do you agree with them in that we should withdraw from NATO?
I don't know what their stance is but if our allies refuse to support us,
then fuck them
> & that we should hit N. Korea, Iran & Syria right after we get done with
> Iraq?
No, I don't agree with that. We should hit N Korea and the incinerate the
motherfucking French
>
> Good to see you have joined up with the X-tains for thier latest crusade.
> I am sure they will cut you a sweet deal on oil company stocks.
This is so fucking lame. Guess what. Not everyone who is is smart enough not
to mindlessly swallow the anti-Amercian Socialist rhetoric behind the "peace
movement" is affliated with a religion. You are just another Liberal parrot
echoing what your masters have told you to say
> We NEED UN & NATO backing for this.\
No we don't . We don't need NATO anymore and the UN has been a joke for
decades. Fuck 'em both. They are well past their usefulness and need to be
dissolved.
>
> If we CAN NOT convince our allies why we must do this, how can we ever
> hope to convice the Muslim States or the rightness of our military action?
> How can we convince them that this is NOT the 1st strike in a campain to
> eradicate or weaken Islam?
>
By definition, our allies don't need convincing. And don't believe that crap
the Liberal media touts about all of these "nations" being against us. Only
.0417% of the world is againt the war judging by the marches this weekend
> Going in solo runs the risk of triggering MORE conflict. More terrorisim.
>
> Going in with UN approval lessens that risk.
We are a sovereign nation and we have the right to protect ourselves and our
allies. It would be great to have backing from the world but we certainly
don't need it in order to do what must be done
None of the rest of this is supported by facts so there is really no arguing
with it
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
And save millions of lives by doing so
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
> > >
> > >The point was this: If anti-American liberals didn't shriek and scream
every
> > >time an innocent is killed in war
> >
> > Are you saying conservatives rejoice in this?
>
> No. Why would you wonder if I was saying such a thing?
Welcome to the black and white world of the Liberal. Think like us or you
are a warmongering xian who wants to kill innocent people and eat babies
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
Why does everything always go back to the Clintons?
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
"Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b2t6bs$m4h$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet" <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote in
> message news:VCg4a.5582$ye.2...@twister.kc.rr.com...
> > Mike Combs wrote:
> > > Lestats Beyatch wrote:
> > >>
> > >> So, you're a communist then. Thanks for confirming all our
> > >> suspicions.
> > >
> > > What is the deal with Liberals and logic? Is a Liberal by definition
> > > someone unacquainted with the use of logic to arrive at sensible
> > > conclusions?
> >
> > Yes. For example, an unborn baby is a "lump of tissue" but an terrorist
in
> > Iraq is a "targeted innocent"
>
"Duncan Wood" sounds like a euphamism for sex
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
> Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet wrote:
> >
> > There was even a term for this develpoed by the Communists during the
Cold
> > War. They called anti-American liberals like Tegan who served their
purpose
> > "useful idiots"
>
> Yes. The Berlin Wall fell, but some things go on and on...
The names change, the agenda stays the same
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
> Lestats Beyatch wrote:
> >
> > It always amuses me to see you project your character traits on others.
>
> I suppose you consider us "useful idiots" in that you consider our chief
enemy
> to be the present American administration. Please know that more-sensible
> people consider our enemy to be the people who are flying planes into our
> buildings, those threatening to build nuclear weapons unless we feed them,
and
> yes, those that want us dead and are desperate to develop/retain WMD.
<sarcasm> Why Mike, we all KNOW that 09/11 was a plot perpetrated by
President Bush to increase oil revenues! </sarcasm>
David Ball
Usenet" <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
>news:3E512F7C...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti...
>> Lestats Beyatch wrote:
>> >
>> > It always amuses me to see you project your character traits on others.
>>
>> I suppose you consider us "useful idiots" in that you consider our chief
>enemy
>> to be the present American administration. Please know that more-sensible
>> people consider our enemy to be the people who are flying planes into our
>> buildings, those threatening to build nuclear weapons unless we feed them,
>and
>> yes, those that want us dead and are desperate to develop/retain WMD.
>
><sarcasm> Why Mike, we all KNOW that 09/11 was a plot perpetrated by
>President Bush to increase oil revenues! </sarcasm>
You're giving Shrub way too much credit for brains. He isn't
smart enough.
Duncan Wood
You obviously live in a very surreal world
Gargoyle
sing to me at night. hehehe
Gargoyle - >;)_~~~~~
I'm single... I'm divorced from reality.
Sitting in front of computer wearing nothing...
but a black leather jacket and sunglasses.
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
>
> You obviously live in a very surreal world
"I grabbed my woman, took her to bed, and we started Duncan Wood! Yeeee ha!"
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
"Lestats Beyatch" <nunyerf*ckinbidniz...@cu.later> wrote in message
news:v551jv8...@corp.supernews.com...
> You know...I got threatening e-mails from people trying to *persuade* me
to
> stop posting about RAWA (the Revolutionary Association of Women for
> Afghanistan) during that time? Isn't that interesting? It didn't stop me
> though. Those women were fighting to stop the murder and torture of their
> people at the hands of the Taliban. So, what did YOU do to help, Mike?
> Where was your voice?
So what you are saying is that, because war no longer serves your Marxist
gender feminist agenda, you are suddenly all about peace
How transparent you Liberals are.
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > As opposed to people like you who are not useful but still idiots?
>
> Even if you were right, I'd prefer an idiot who was totally useless to one
who
> was useful to my enemies.
No shit
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
"Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Q4z4a.3559$mZ2.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Gee, that's the way it works in countries with Duly Elected Leaders.
Who do YOU think should make the decision? Sean Penn?
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet
"Lestats Beyatch" <nunyerf*ckinbidniz...@cu.later> wrote in message
> Yes, we're all utter morons. So, tell me...Do conservatives, by
definition,
> all lack a sense of humor?
Liberals often make this mistake due to their lack of a brain
Lloyd Parker
"Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet" <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:Q4z4a.3559$mZ2.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
>> Lloyd Parker <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> news:b2uce7$s8f$9...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> > In article <3E528280...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti>,
>> > Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
>> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> As opposed to people like you who are not useful but still idiots?
>> > >
>> > >Even if you were right, I'd prefer an idiot who was totally useless to
>> one
>> > who
>> > >was useful to my enemies.
>> >
>> > OK, who are your enemies? Who gets to decide this? The hijackers were
>> mostly
>> > Saudis, so it would be logical to conclude Saudi Arabia is our enemy.
>> Bush
>> > and Cheney are very useful to them...
>>
>> His enemies are whoever Bush tells him are his enemies.
>>
>
>Gee, that's the way it works in countries with Duly Elected Leaders.
No, that's the way it works in countries with monarchies.
>Who do YOU think should make the decision? Sean Penn?
US Congress, by its constitutional power to declare war.
>
>
Robert McClelland
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote in
message news:RUL4a.975$Ge....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:Q4z4a.3559$mZ2.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > Lloyd Parker <lpa...@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:b2uce7$s8f$9...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > > In article <3E528280...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti>,
> > > Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
> > > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> As opposed to people like you who are not useful but still idiots?
> > > >
> > > >Even if you were right, I'd prefer an idiot who was totally useless
to
> > one
> > > who
> > > >was useful to my enemies.
> > >
> > > OK, who are your enemies? Who gets to decide this? The hijackers
were
> > mostly
> > > Saudis, so it would be logical to conclude Saudi Arabia is our enemy.
> > Bush
> > > and Cheney are very useful to them...
> >
> > His enemies are whoever Bush tells him are his enemies.
> >
>
> Gee, that's the way it works in countries with Duly Elected Leaders.
> Who do YOU think should make the decision? Sean Penn?
I decide who my friends and enemies are. Why do you need a DULY ELECTED
LEADER to decide that for you?
Mike Combs
>
> No, that would be George Bush confirming that Saddam was connected
> to 9/11.
That notion is not being pushed by the Bush administration. If this
administration had no qualms about lying and manufacturing evidence, as is
often said by the anti-war crowd, then they would simply do so as this would be
the most straightforward path to their goal.
In truth, there's only one connection: Prior to 9-11, the idea of Hussein
handing a terrorist group a chemical, biological, or radiological weapon which
they then manage to get into the US and set off in a major population center
killing thousands of citizens in a single stroke was a fairly abstract
concept. Post 9-11, the abstract concept seems much more concrete, and there's
an added sense of urgency about a preexisting situation.
Mike Combs
>
> This was my point. If there was an invading country who came here looking
> for our President, he would be the LAST one they would find. It is the
> exact same in ANY country for ANY leader. For us to think Hussein is going
> to be any different is absolute idiocy.
You're flailing away against a point that nobody ever made.
> Sheesh! You don't know there are nuclear missiles in Washington DC??? You
> gotta be kidding me? That's been common knowledge since the Kennedy era.
> If that's not placing military assets alongside civilian populations, I
> don't know what is.
Have you ever heard of the saying "'Close' only counts in horseshoes and
nuclear warfare"? Obviously "close" has a vastly different meaning between
nuclear detonations and the kinds of attacks we're talking about here. We're
not talking about silos within 50 miles of cities, we're talking about
anti-aircraft guns within 50 meters of mosques, schools, and hospitals. Sadaam
knows that even our modern "smart" weapons can't have that kind of surgical
precision. Don't try to pretend it's the same thing.
> France, Germany, etal, are NOT convinced
> (and this is based on the evidence Bush has shared with them!) that a war is
> warranted.
France and Germany are against the war for crass commercial reasons, the very
accusation you lay on the US.
> What have they got for "military assets"? 'Cause I'm truly open
> for debate here, and would like to be enlightened.
Anti-aircraft guns qualify. I never said "military assets that can strike far
outside his borders". It remains to be seen if he still has any of those, and
it's always possible he no longer does.
Mike Combs
>
> OK, who are your enemies? Who gets to decide this? The hijackers were mostly
> Saudis, so it would be logical to conclude Saudi Arabia is our enemy. Bush
> and Cheney are very useful to them...
Here's an area where we share common ground. I don't think we should be
buddying up to the Saudis. In particular, support of the royal family may be a
mistake we will come to regret.
Mike Combs
>
> Yes, we're all utter morons. So, tell me...Do conservatives, by definition,
> all lack a sense of humor?
My experience has been that liberal commentators rail on and on with the utmost
seriousness about the vast evils conservatives visit on us. Conservative
commentators tend to crack jokes and laugh at what the liberals are doing.
Mike Combs
>
> His enemies are whoever Bush tells him are his enemies.
I can think for myself thank you, and am capable of disagreeing with Bush, as I
hope my other reply indicates.
It's a mistake to think that conservatism means blind obedience to authorities.
Wintershard
therein unless asked.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:58:50 -0600, David Ball
<wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> You're giving Shrub way too much credit for brains. He isn't
>smart enough.
On the contrary. It takes a true genius to hide their intelligence
in a shroud of idiocy that few can see through.
"The Bush Dyslexicon" is a good explanation of this.
Bright be thy day in the sun,
Wintershard
minterra.yahoo.com
ARW website at www.shard-designs.com/arwnewsgroup
Lawson English
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > OK, who are your enemies? Who gets to decide this? The hijackers were
mostly
> > Saudis, so it would be logical to conclude Saudi Arabia is our enemy.
Bush
> > and Cheney are very useful to them...
>
> Here's an area where we share common ground. I don't think we should be
> buddying up to the Saudis. In particular, support of the royal family may
be a
> mistake we will come to regret.
>
Given that ben Ladin is an anti-Royal-Family terrorist, and that his primary
state reason for attacking the US and its interests has been its support for
the Saudi Royal Family, I wonder at your use of a future tense here...
Lawson English
news:a0s75vc4t2ac7ojau...@4ax.com...
> Posted from alt.religion.wicca , all other follow-ups contained
> therein unless asked.
>
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:58:50 -0600, David Ball
> <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > You're giving Shrub way too much credit for brains. He isn't
> >smart enough.
>
> On the contrary. It takes a true genius to hide their intelligence
> in a shroud of idiocy that few can see through.
>
> "The Bush Dyslexicon" is a good explanation of this.
>
>
There was a video distributed on the internet by one of the paranoid
web-journalists purporting to show Bush drinking alcohol after he said he
went on the wagon. I don't believe it did. What it DID show was Bush
standing in the middle of a group of American financial elites at a wedding
and roasting the happy couple by cutting them down by complaining about
their engaging in weird activities like being teetotalers (whats up with
that?), jogging (whoever heard of such nonsense?), etc.
The joke being, of course, that they were behaving just like he was and he
was attacking them for not fitting in.
Anytime anyone suggests that Bush isn't intelligent, just recall that
wedding video. He may have large gaps in his education concerning
non-American culture and history, but he is in NO WAY an idiot.
This isn't meant to be comforting, BTW.
Noinden
> "Noinden" <sla...@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
> > ONLY one nation has been stupid enough to use nuclear weapons!
>
> And save millions of lives by doing so
Balls! It killed many innocents and started the road to polluting the
earth to death!
Then again a smegger like you thinks having a Mustang and a 0.50 cal
hand gun makes you a "big man" as opposed to a hick with poor taste in
cars and a insecurity in other areas.
Bobkins
The Earth can't be polluted 'to death'. That can only happen to humans, and
other living things.
Noinden Tain
"Bobkins" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
never read about the Gia theory did you
PeteM
<mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> writes
>
>Have you ever heard of the saying "'Close' only counts in horseshoes and
>nuclear warfare"? Obviously "close" has a vastly different meaning between
>nuclear detonations and the kinds of attacks we're talking about here. We're
>not talking about silos within 50 miles of cities, we're talking about
>anti-aircraft guns within 50 meters of mosques, schools, and hospitals. Sadaam
>knows that even our modern "smart" weapons can't have that kind of surgical
>precision. Don't try to pretend it's the same thing.
The same argument, presumably, applies to WW2?
In the Blitz, London was full of AA batteries, as was every major target
city in England. My mother-in-law, who served on one of these batteries,
always thought this was because she was meant to try to shoot down the
German aircraft that were attacking these cities. How foolish of her.
She will be fascinated when I tell her that she was really there as part
of a "human shield" policy:
"Really, dear? Who told you that?"
"George Bush said it. And a bloke called Mike on the Internet."
"Ah, I see. George Bush. Well, well. Another cup of tea, dear?"
--
PeteM
Joshua P. Hill
>In article <3E53CD5D...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti>, Mike Combs
><mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> writes
>>
>>Have you ever heard of the saying "'Close' only counts in horseshoes and
>>nuclear warfare"? Obviously "close" has a vastly different meaning between
>>nuclear detonations and the kinds of attacks we're talking about here. We're
>>not talking about silos within 50 miles of cities, we're talking about
>>anti-aircraft guns within 50 meters of mosques, schools, and hospitals. Sadaam
>>knows that even our modern "smart" weapons can't have that kind of surgical
>>precision. Don't try to pretend it's the same thing.
>
>The same argument, presumably, applies to WW2?
>
>In the Blitz, London was full of AA batteries, as was every major target
>city in England. My mother-in-law, who served on one of these batteries,
>always thought this was because she was meant to try to shoot down the
>German aircraft that were attacking these cities. How foolish of her.
>She will be fascinated when I tell her that she was really there as part
>of a "human shield" policy:
Yeah, except that I have some very vivid memories of Saddam visiting
the foreign hostages he had imprisoned in a factory before the Gulf
War. He eventually released them; nevertheless, this fellow's behavior
doesn't exactly strike me as comparable to Sir Winston's!
Josh
THE Cast Iron Bitch
own a gun with the background checks performed in the US. OK, that just
means he can't *legally* buy a gun. But I doubt he'd be able to handle a
.50, much less afford it.
"Noinden" <sla...@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
news:b5b2d54.03021...@posting.google.com...
THE Cast Iron Bitch
daddy's hand picked puppet masters. "Uh - I.... er, umerah, duh, bla bla bla
lie lie lie... I uh er uh....." If he isn't reading what he's been handed
to read, he sounds as bad as a boxer after losing a fight....
"Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b312pb$dj5$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
[ DocJeff ]
You don't consider the Earth to be a living entity? Why is this?
--
{{{{ Huggs }}}}
Doc "Aphrodite's Evostick" Jeff [Recommended Highly: http://www.cotse.net]
Proud supporter of Insomniac, Nitallica, LOINS, MEOW, NHOFB, PLOW, SWWOP,
PeacefulHaven.net, COTSE.net, the United States of America, any sentient
being who can hug and/or be hugged, and, of course, Leesa. :)
Lloyd Parker
Cuba, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, South Vietnam, South
Africa...
Lloyd Parker
How about all the other nations against it? The US isn't introducing a
resolution in the Security Council not because it may be vetoed, but because
it can't get a majority to vote for it.
Lloyd Parker
Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
>Wintershard wrote:
>>
>> No, that would be George Bush confirming that Saddam was connected
>> to 9/11.
>
>That notion is not being pushed by the Bush administration.
Yes it is.
> If this
>administration had no qualms about lying and manufacturing evidence, as is
>often said by the anti-war crowd, then they would simply do so as this would
be
>the most straightforward path to their goal.
>
>In truth, there's only one connection: Prior to 9-11, the idea of Hussein
>handing a terrorist group a chemical, biological, or radiological weapon
which
>they then manage to get into the US and set off in a major population center
>killing thousands of citizens in a single stroke was a fairly abstract
>concept. Post 9-11, the abstract concept seems much more concrete, and
there's
>an added sense of urgency about a preexisting situation.
Except that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, and in fact, bin laden hates
him.
>
Lawson English
"THE Cast Iron Bitch" <pis...@ecpi.com> wrote in message
news:v59prek...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hell, just watch the man try to make a statement that wasn't prepared by
his
> daddy's hand picked puppet masters. "Uh - I.... er, umerah, duh, bla bla
bla
> lie lie lie... I uh er uh....." If he isn't reading what he's been handed
> to read, he sounds as bad as a boxer after losing a fight....
>
"That woman who said I have dyslexia? I never interviewed her." -G.W. Bush
Don't confuse being a poor public speaker with being stupid.
THE Cast Iron Bitch
"Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b33lpl$64v$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
theoneflasehaddock
Now if only he'd put some of that effort into running the country...
--
theoneflasehaddock
Offender of the Faith.
A reel Troll.
Merry Plonk.
Don't like my postings? post and whine about it.
EYE PLAY WIF PHISHEZZ LYKE SACQUE J00STEAU!
Erik Naggum
| Don't confuse being a poor public speaker with being stupid.
Confuse? If you are poor public speaker, it certainly /is/ stupid
to speak in public in a way that fails to hide it.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
theoneflasehaddock
Erik Naggum wrote:
> * Lawson English
> | Don't confuse being a poor public speaker with being stupid.
>
> Confuse? If you are poor public speaker, it certainly /is/ stupid
> to speak in public in a way that fails to hide it.
>
Nope. It's calculated (obviously not by him, he's too stupid, but by his
speechwriters) and is intentional. makes him sound more "down to earth"
and like "an average person". The theory is, people will identify better
with him, and think he's just like them, if he makes occasional
mistakes. Unfortunately, it seems to work.
Allegra
us feel better?lol Ahhh, I don't understand politics one bit. I personally
would rather he be a MENSA candidate that no one could understand. I don't
want my next door neighbor running the country, my next door neighbor has
trouble running his lawn mower.
"theoneflasehaddock" <the1las...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:3E56601E...@netscape.com...
Libertarian Joe
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
authorities.
Spoken like a true Christian Patriot.
Keep the faith baby.
---
If Saddam were following the Bush doctrine, he would murder as many
ameriacns as possible in a preemptive attack.
Libertarian Joe
"Lestats Beyatch" <nunyerf*ckinbidniz...@cu.later> wrote in message
news:v4nsjdr...@corp.supernews.com...
> I just love how you right-wing-wackos twist everything around. Us
> "Liberals" are AGAINST the war, dimwit. We are AGAINST the shedding of
> blood by our brave service men and women. We are AGAINST the loss of
> innocent lives. We are AGAINST a war that is unprovoked. See, you, otoh,
> are all for it. So, who is going to have blood in their hands? It will
be
> the people like you, who are screaming for war!
There has never been a republican alive who was not a perpetual liar.
---
America will never be free until the evil american state has been
bankrupted. We Libertarians thank George Bush for accelerating the process.
Cardinal Fang
>There was a video distributed on the internet by one of the paranoid
>web-journalists purporting to show Bush drinking alcohol after he said he
>went on the wagon. I don't believe it did. What it DID show was Bush
>standing in the middle of a group of American financial elites at a wedding
>and roasting the happy couple by cutting them down by complaining about
>their engaging in weird activities like being teetotalers (whats up with
>that?), jogging (whoever heard of such nonsense?), etc.
>
>The joke being, of course, that they were behaving just like he was and he
>was attacking them for not fitting in.
>
>
>Anytime anyone suggests that Bush isn't intelligent, just recall that
>wedding video. He may have large gaps in his education concerning
>non-American culture and history, but he is in NO WAY an idiot.
>
>This isn't meant to be comforting, BTW.
There are different kinds of idiots. At times, socially inept, tactless, foolish, and obstinate are better describers of
Bush's particular conditioning.
"Lacking many of the qualities that makes one fit to be president" is another descriptive bit of phrasing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parse Tree: "Your group? It's RBB's group, less you forget."
Talesin: "RBB created it but *I* am God here"
Cardinal Fang: "As self-appointed Emperor of ARW, I pulled a
Constantine and had your religion outlawed years ago. A relatively
easy police action, given you had no temples in your name to pull
down, and no followers to round up and crucify."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan UseNet
> "Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet" <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote in
message news:<SXD4a.121326$Gm2.3...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > "Noinden" <sla...@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
>
> > > ONLY one nation has been stupid enough to use nuclear weapons!
> >
> > And save millions of lives by doing so
>
> Balls! It killed many innocents and started the road to polluting the
> earth to death!
>
I suppose it is no surprise that a "PhD candidate" from a backwater, third
world, do-nothing wasteland like NZ would be ignorant of history. Had it not
been for the bombs, the war would have drug on for years and millions would
have died. The Japanese were using suicide attacks, you blithering moron
> Then again a smegger like you thinks having a Mustang and a 0.50 cal
> hand gun makes you a "big man" as opposed to a hick with poor taste in
> cars and a insecurity in other areas.
What about the unsolicited porno you sent to women on this group, Gareth?
When are you going to answer me?
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
"The people who read Harlequin romances dream of the love they will
never have, the people who read Pratchett dream of the Witches they
will never be." - Me
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan UseNet
"[ DocJeff ]" <an...@spamming.org> wrote in message
news:b33bg2$hkf$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:54:59 -0500, Bobkins wrote:
>
> > "Noinden" <sla...@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:b5b2d54.03021...@posting.google.com...
> >> "Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet" <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote in
> > message news:<SXD4a.121326$Gm2.3...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> >> > "Noinden" <sla...@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > > ONLY one nation has been stupid enough to use nuclear weapons!
> >> >
> >> > And save millions of lives by doing so
> >>
> >> Balls! It killed many innocents and started the road to polluting the
> >> earth to death!
> >>
> >> Then again a smegger like you thinks having a Mustang and a 0.50 cal
> >> hand gun makes you a "big man" as opposed to a hick with poor taste in
> >> cars and a insecurity in other areas.
> >
> > The Earth can't be polluted 'to death'. That can only happen to
> > humans, and other living things.
>
> You don't consider the Earth to be a living entity? Why is this?
Duh, it's made of rock
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan UseNet
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > OK, who are your enemies? Who gets to decide this? The hijackers were
mostly
> > Saudis, so it would be logical to conclude Saudi Arabia is our enemy.
Bush
> > and Cheney are very useful to them...
>
> Here's an area where we share common ground. I don't think we should be
> buddying up to the Saudis. In particular, support of the royal family may
be a
> mistake we will come to regret.
Oh yeah. Did you see their "kind offer" to run Iraq for us once we win the
war?
How nice of them, huh?
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan UseNet
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
> Robert McClelland wrote:
> >
> > His enemies are whoever Bush tells him are his enemies.
>
> I can think for myself thank you, and am capable of disagreeing with Bush,
as I
> hope my other reply indicates.
>
> It's a mistake to think that conservatism means blind obedience to
authorities.
You need to update your Liberal Lexicon. "Liberals" are now "centrists" and
"conservatives" are now "right wing xian fundamentalist Nazi fascist woman
hating baby eaters"
Cyric- The God of Free Pagan UseNet
"Libertarian Joe" <LJ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcy5a.17978$q26.3...@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
> > It's a mistake to think that conservatism means blind obedience to
> authorities.
>
> Spoken like a true Christian Patriot.
Spoken like a true "I don't have any facts so I will use a nasty label"
Liberal
Brad Filippone
: Our president acting like he's only passed 8th grade is supposed to make
: us feel better?lol Ahhh, I don't understand politics one bit. I personally
: would rather he be a MENSA candidate that no one could understand. I don't
: want my next door neighbor running the country, my next door neighbor has
: trouble running his lawn mower.
Then would you trust your next door neighbor mowing the White House lawn?
Brad
William Barwell
> Lestats Beyatch wrote:
>>
>> I just love how you right-wing-wackos twist everything around. Us
>> "Liberals" are AGAINST the war, dimwit.
>
> The point was this: If anti-American liberals didn't shriek and scream
> every time an innocent is killed in war (but only if it's by Americans),
> would Saddam
> have a motivation to nestle his military assets among civilians? Would it
> be the strategy to follow if Saddam couldn't rely on Western liberals to
> react as we all expect you to?
If you far right assholes hadn't of stood around with
your fingers jammed up your snouts as Reagan and Bush
arnmed him and aided and abetted him, we wouldn'yt be faced
with a far right yahoo ex-drunk president using Saddam's supposed
weapons as an excuse to start a war that will probably, as usual,
cause thousands of innocent deaths.
Absolutely NO ethics or morals on the right whatsoever.
We have the CIA pubically denying Bush's claim Saddam supports terorists.
And we had Bush daddy signing presdientioal, findings Iraq did not support
terrorists so he could allow them to import anthrax spores, get loans, and
import dual use materials.
Not a single far right shithead had anything to say about it, but NOW, teh
far right distortion machine starts up,
whining and yeklping because sane people do not want Bush to start a war
based on lies and false claims.
We hasd somebody, may Bin Laden, maybe not, float a tape to al Jezeerah
\and Bush and Powell lie that some clown mouthing off on the tape
proves Iraq suppports Bin Laden. Utter insanity, and yet,
teh far right dullards chant, war now! War now!" based
on such an embarreessingly false premise. No brains at all on teh right.
We had Bush and crew lying that Saddam has vast biochem wepons
stashed somewhere. Scott Ritter, on NPR radio, debunked that.
Iraq had created wet form biochem weapons, where the anthrax spores and
anthrax bacteria die after three years, and that was long, long ago,
Saddam has no large biochem weapons program or weapons, when he had
plenty of money, time and facilities, they couldn't build effective weapons.
The right, too stupid to listen to the truth, to stupid to not fall for
Bush's discredited claims.
Bush has been mewling Saddam tortures people! Gasp! Wheeeeze!
Yes, he does, and yet, Bush and Reagan supported him as he did exactly that.
And not one far right fart-brain of teh type yelping
and puling about "liberals" cared enough THAN to mewl and whine how their
oh so precious far right extremist idols, Reagan abnd Bush, ignored torture
as tehy supported Saddam and Rios Montt of Guatamala and D'Aubisson of El
Salvador and other notorious tortuerers. Not a peep out of the
slimy-brained far right when their idols supporter torturerers and
genocidal regimes who destroyed freedom in the states where they ran wild.
I note that wekks befor Bush started shitting on about Saddam's torture,
three ex-El Salvadoran military officiers were found guilty in Florida
of torturie in a civil suit brought about by some of their victims.
And not one far right shithead has shown any concern that torturers
from such states are in this nation now and neither the INS, the Justice
Department, Bush, the White House, or the GOP Senate and House members
who are so outraged that Saddam tortures his citizens, kills them, and
denies them freedom cares a bit that tortureres are in this country.
The right has no credibility with those of us who know the facts, their
false 'outrage' that the "liberals" are not for immediate war is an act
only, they don't actually care about freedom, torture, political murder or
dictatorship, never did, never will.
Recently Bush has ranted and raved about Saddam's supposedly
edict proclaiming death to any Iraqi sceintists that cooperates with
the UN inspectors. But, an Iraqi scientists that defected some years ago
has revealed that Bush is lying, Saddam announced teh death penalty for
those who DID NOT cooperate!
Bush lied about that.
Saddam almost suredly meant that edict for world public consumption
only, but Bush also meant his distorted lie for public consumption also.
Bush lied about aluminum tubes meant for legal an allowed 81 millimeter
rockets Iraq has long used. He claimed theyr were meant for nuclear
weapons programs.
He lies about anything and everything and far right mmron people
are soon chanting "War! War! War right NOW!" based
on distortions, bullshit, stupidity and outright lies.
Not an honest, intelligent or competent right winger can be found.
The bigger the lie, the more they love the liar that birthed it.
So many people to be so utterly contempous of.
So many fools.
So many liars and lovers of llies.
Cheerful Charlie
>
> He's counting on your voices being raised in opposition. It suits his
> purposes, and furthers his aims. Does that not bother you?
>
--
Bush is an idiot. But you knew that.
Cheerful Charlie
Ben Wah
Wow, what world do you liove in?
"Noinden" <sla...@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
news:b5b2d54.03021...@posting.google.com...
> "Cyric- The God of Free Pagan Usenet" <the_wi...@achoo.com> wrote in
message news:<SXD4a.121326$Gm2.3...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > "Noinden" <sla...@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
>
> > > ONLY one nation has been stupid enough to use nuclear weapons!
> >
> > And save millions of lives by doing so
>
> Balls! It killed many innocents and started the road to polluting the
> earth to death!
>
> Then again a smegger like you thinks having a Mustang and a 0.50 cal
> hand gun makes you a "big man" as opposed to a hick with poor taste in
> cars and a insecurity in other areas.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 2/18/2003
Mike Combs
>
> "Mike Combs" wrote
> > It's a mistake to think that conservatism means blind obedience to
> authorities.
>
> Spoken like a true Christian Patriot.
>
> Keep the faith baby.
Just goes to show that you're responding more to a staw-man opponent in your
own imagination than to real people. As it happens, you're addressing an
atheist.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."
Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"
Mike Combs
>
> Given that ben Ladin is an anti-Royal-Family terrorist, and that his primary
> state reason for attacking the US and its interests has been its support for
> the Saudi Royal Family, I wonder at your use of a future tense here...
That's a point.
Mike Combs
>
> The same argument, presumably, applies to WW2?
>
> In the Blitz, London was full of AA batteries, as was every major target
> city in England.
I'll admit that had me stumped for a while. But there is a significant
difference between the two situations: the level of technology available.
During the German blitz there was no thought whatsoever of dropping a bomb on
this 20 foot square plot vs that one because that level of precision was simply
not possible. Even if the Germans had been so motivated, there was no thought
of taking out military assets while sparing civilians because it simply wasn't
an option offered by the technology of the day. But with today's smart
weapons, it is possible to take out military assets while leaving surrounding
civilian facilities relatively unharmed. Saddam knows this, and deliberately
subverts our ability to do this, because he considers the human lives lost a
small price to pay in exchange for a bit of propaganda.
So yes, it's correct to say that putting an anti-aircraft gun within 20 feet of
a house is immoral in a way that it wasn't back in the 1940's.
Bill Oliver
Mike Combs <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
>
>During the German blitz there was no thought whatsoever of dropping a bomb on
>this 20 foot square plot vs that one because that level of precision was simply
>not possible. Even if the Germans had been so motivated, there was no thought
>of taking out military assets while sparing civilians because it simply wasn't
>an option offered by the technology of the day.
As an aside, this is one of the things that got me interested in
statistics. When I was a grad student many years ago, my lecturer was
a visiting professor from the UK. He had been a mathematician in
London during the Blitz and had been assigned the task of a statistical
analysis of the bombing and missile strikes. There had been a series
of particularly devastating hits in a row, and the brass was wondering
if the Germans had developed some better targeting technologies. So,
they plotted all known hits since the beginning of the Blitz -- and
found that it was a standard Poisson distribution centered on the middle
of London.
billo
PeteM
>PeteM wrote:
>>
>> The same argument, presumably, applies to WW2?
>>
>> In the Blitz, London was full of AA batteries, as was every major target
>> city in England.
>
>I'll admit that had me stumped for a while. But there is a significant
>difference between the two situations: the level of technology available.
>
>During the German blitz there was no thought whatsoever of dropping a bomb
>on
>this 20 foot square plot vs that one because that level of precision was simply
>not possible. Even if the Germans had been so motivated, there was no thought
>of taking out military assets while sparing civilians because it simply wasn't
>an option offered by the technology of the day. But with today's smart
>weapons, it is possible to take out military assets while leaving surrounding
>civilian facilities relatively unharmed. Saddam knows this, and deliberately
>subverts our ability to do this, because he considers the human lives lost a
>small price to pay in exchange for a bit of propaganda.
>
>So yes, it's correct to say that putting an anti-aircraft gun within 20 feet of
>a house is immoral in a way that it wasn't back in the 1940's.
Your reply misses my point, which was to disprove the OP's claim that
Saddam was deliberately operating a human shield policy.
The only evidence offered by the OP for this claim was that Saddam was
placing AAA in cities. The OP must therefore have been assuming that the
only reason for placing AA guns in cities is to operate a human shield
policy, because without this assumption his argument fails.
My post showed that there *is* a different reason to site AAA in a city:
namely, to defend the city against aerial bombing. Furthermore, this
reason is on the face of it much *more* likely than a human shield
policy, since it has obvious military benefits, whereas the benefits of
a human shield policy are highly dubious.
Moreover, to back up my point, I cited the Blitz as one example where
AAA had been sited in cities for exactly this reason.
The OP's argument thus collapses, unless he or you can show that the
reason I propose is not the correct one for Saddam's action.
Now to an interesting footnote. Your point about the higher precision of
today's weapons actually works against *your* argument, and *in favour*
of mine. High precision bombing would actually make a human shield
policy *less* effective, because it would more likely to be able to
destroy AAA batteries while avoiding civilian targets (assuming that
that is what the bombers are trying to do, which I doubt). So if the
precision of US bombing is very high, as you claim, then it is
proportionally less likely that Saddam is operating a human shield
policy.
--
PeteM
Mike Combs
>
> Your reply misses my point, which was to disprove the OP's claim that
> Saddam was deliberately operating a human shield policy.
Yes. It had never occurred to me that anybody was skeptical of the majority
opinion that Saddam routinely uses a human shield policy.
I only know this. In the Gulf War is was impossible for the Allies to take out
any military targets without also taking out a hospital or a mosque or a
school. If you choose to be more skeptical that Saddam uses human shields but
less skeptical that Western pilots get off on bombing hospitals or mosques,
then I don't know what I could say to convince you.
> whereas the benefits of
> a human shield policy are highly dubious.
The benefits of firing on Israel when Israel was not among the attackers were
highly dubious too, but evidently Hussein thought that was worth a shot.
> Now to an interesting footnote. Your point about the higher precision of
> today's weapons actually works against *your* argument, and *in favour*
> of mine.
I don't think so. When you're bombing in an era where you can't really govern
the bomb going into this 100 foot plot versus that one, there's no thought
whatsoever given to discriminating between civilian targets and military ones,
even if that is one of your moral values. You bomb everything and to hell with
it. But when you do have smart weapons technology available, and when you have
the moral values, you _do_ begin to discriminate. Saddam knows this, and
frustrates this attempt to discriminate with his weapon placements. Smart
weapons are pretty slick, but no, they can't take out an AA gun and leave a
hospital 20 or 40 feet away unscathed. I don't think anything short of a beam
weapon could do that.
> destroy AAA batteries while avoiding civilian targets (assuming that
> that is what the bombers are trying to do, which I doubt).
Again, if it's the proposition that American and British pilots don't
particularly get off on killing innocents that you chose to reserve all your
skepticism for, then there's not much point in further debate.
PeteM
<mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> gans
>PeteM wrote:
>>
>> Your reply misses my point, which was to disprove the OP's claim that
>> Saddam was deliberately operating a human shield policy.
>
>Yes. It had never occurred to me that anybody was skeptical of the majority
>opinion that Saddam routinely uses a human shield policy.
Then you need to get to Europe a bit more. Different populations are
subjected to different propaganda exposure. Luckily in UK we haven't had
to suffer too much of the babies-in-incubators stuff yet, doubtless
because of enormous public opposition to the war-mongering this time
around.
>
>I only know this. In the Gulf War is was impossible for the Allies to take out
>any military targets without also taking out a hospital or a mosque or a
>school. If you choose to be more skeptical that Saddam uses human shields
>but
>less skeptical that Western pilots get off on bombing hospitals or mosques,
>then I don't know what I could say to convince you.
Certainly I have no special inclination to believe that their guys are
all Evil Cowardly Murdering Swine and your guys are all Heroic
Protectors of Peace and Liberators of the Oppressed.
After all, we know that the US military bombs civilian targets. We all
remember cheering on the Cruise missiles in their life-saving Baghdad
mission of 1991. You remember the one that went down the air
conditioning shaft? Terrific shot. And the night-watchman frying inside?
He had it coming. God knows where the other 9,999 missiles went. Then in
Serbia 1999 they bombed a civilian TV station, and incinerated a bunch
of make-up ladies.
>
>> whereas the benefits of
>> a human shield policy are highly dubious.
>
>The benefits of firing on Israel when Israel was not among the attackers were
>highly dubious too, but evidently Hussein thought that was worth a shot.
Sure. No-one can tell what might work and what doesn't. I simply
challenge the human shield explanation offered for siting AAAs in
cities. Why would these things be put in cities anyway if not to defend
them from air attack?
>
>> Now to an interesting footnote. Your point about the higher precision of
>> today's weapons actually works against *your* argument, and *in favour*
>> of mine.
>
>I don't think so. When you're bombing in an era where you can't really govern
>the bomb going into this 100 foot plot versus that one, there's no thought
>whatsoever given to discriminating between civilian targets and military ones,
>even if that is one of your moral values. You bomb everything and to hell with
>it. But when you do have smart weapons technology available, and when you
>have
>the moral values, you _do_ begin to discriminate. Saddam knows this, and
>frustrates this attempt to discriminate with his weapon placements.
>Smart
>weapons are pretty slick, but no, they can't take out an AA gun and leave a
>hospital 20 or 40 feet away unscathed. I don't think anything short of a beam
>weapon could do that.
You think US aircraft deliberately fly over cities to take out the AAAs
stationed there?
>
>> destroy AAA batteries while avoiding civilian targets (assuming that
>> that is what the bombers are trying to do, which I doubt).
>
>Again, if it's the proposition that American and British pilots don't
>particularly get off on killing innocents that you chose to reserve all your
>skepticism for, then there's not much point in further debate.
Pilots do what they are told. What US politicians get off on, I can't
say, but their record isn't good.
--
PeteM
Lestats Beyatch
Check this out:
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd02242003.html
Kinda makes your "human shield" point moot, enit.
Blessings,
Tegan 0o/
--
BOYCOTT LUCKY MOJO!!!! Click Here To Get Your Free "Boycott Lucky Mojo"
Banner ~
http://fun_freebies.tripod.com/luckymojobanner.gif
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote in message
news:3E639C4B...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti...
Mike Combs
>
> Luckily in UK we haven't had
> to suffer too much of the babies-in-incubators stuff yet, doubtless
> because of enormous public opposition to the war-mongering this time
> around.
That the babies-in-incubators reports were essentially fiction is widely known
in the US.
> Certainly I have no special inclination to believe that their guys are
> all Evil Cowardly Murdering Swine and your guys are all Heroic
> Protectors of Peace and Liberators of the Oppressed.
Then it's too bad you don't let people's actions and historical events
influence your inclinations. The situation is certainly not as black-and-white
as the above, but it undeniably leans much more strongly in that direction than
in the opposite.
> You remember the one that went down the air
> conditioning shaft? Terrific shot. And the night-watchman frying inside?
> He had it coming. God knows where the other 9,999 missiles went. Then in
> Serbia 1999 they bombed a civilian TV station, and incinerated a bunch
> of make-up ladies.
Where did you get the idea that it was possible to wage a war without killing
non-combatants? It can't be done. Technology has made possible vast
improvements in the situation since WWII, say. But there will never be a war
without dead non-combatants.
> Sure. No-one can tell what might work and what doesn't. I simply
> challenge the human shield explanation offered for siting AAAs in
> cities. Why would these things be put in cities anyway if not to defend
> them from air attack?
I don't think the accusation is that Saddaam places them inside of cities. As
you correctly point out, everybody does that. I believe it's that he places
them within 20-40 feet of hospitals, mosques, and schools.
> You think US aircraft deliberately fly over cities to take out the AAAs
> stationed there?
Certainly. In addition to power plants, water treatment plants, etc. Those
are all legitimate targets since depriving the enemy of these things can bring
about a speedy end to the conflict. Does it result in human suffering? Hell
yes. War is hell and who thought otherwise? Do American politicians instruct
our pilots to deliberately kill as many civilians as possible? You may choose
to believe this, but I don't see any good evidence for it.