OT: Current Count - 11/02/05 - 2031 Young Americans Dead
Tom Watson
the sobriquet of "OT".
I do not believe it to be OT. I believe that it transcends the
concept.
There are now 2031 young Americans who have died in the pursuit of
Bush's agenda in Iraq.
31 more since my last weekly report.
For those who have asked for the names - whatever were you thinking?
What is the goal?
What is it worth?
When will it end?
I remember back when, when Charlie Self and I were talking about what
this would turn into - and we agreed that it was a potential quagmire
- and I am talking about well before, "Mission Accomplished", it was
clear, the path was chosen, the results were in evidence.
You dumb bastards that voted for this piece of crap should be ashamed
- and should be tasked with apologizing to the parents of every child
that has been killed over there.
You still have time to save your soul.
Begin a movement for the impeachment of George W Bush.
Hell, you wanted to do it to Slick Willie. Let's pretend that a head
count is more important than a head count.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
BobS
| Mailing Address:
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 | |
| Phone Numbers: Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461 |
TTY/TDD Comments: 202-456-6213 Visitors Office: 202-456-2121 |
Please send your comments to comm...@whitehouse.gov. Due to the
large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every
message. For further up-to-date information on Presidential initiatives, current
events, and topics of interest to you, please continue to use the White House
website.
The White House : http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Vice
President Richard Cheney: vice_pr...@whitehouse.gov
joey
Todd Fatheree
> the sobriquet of "OT".
>
> I do not believe it to be OT. I believe that it transcends the
> concept.
Why stop with rec.woodworking? There are literally thousands of other
newsgroups that this message could transcend itself to. My apologies if
you're multiposting and I'm just not subscribed to all the other groups.
> There are now 2031 young Americans who have died in the pursuit of
> Bush's agenda in Iraq.
>
> 31 more since my last weekly report.
>
> For those who have asked for the names - whatever were you thinking?
>
> What is the goal?
>
> What is it worth?
>
> When will it end?
I'm a conservative, but I actually had reservations prior to us going into
Iraq. But we're there. What is your suggestion at this point? Just leave?
Please be specific.
todd
Tom Watson
>Tom,
>
>I initially thought this to be the rant of a troll just using your name.
Bob:
When I asked you, "And you served - when?" - I knew the answer from
previous things that had gone back and forth on the Wreck. I knew
your history.
I wasn't questioning your service - I was questioning the fact that a
man who had served as much as you - during the time that you served -
could stand to listen to this crap without comment.
Now that you have commented - let me belatedly, and not at all
reluctantly, commend you and thank you for your service.
You, more than most, know what it means.
Tom Watson
jo4hn
OK Tom. I agree whole heartedly. I live in a Republican safe area and
am surrounded by the "joeys" of this world. And a few more that can
think for themselves. Let's try to trim the Bushies of this world and
make it a better place for our having been here.
peace,
jo4hn
Todd Fatheree
Sounds good. What will the ramifications be of a total pullout? I'm sure
you have this all thought out.
todd
Tom Watson
BobS
if they've never lived thru something like that. Experiencing the news
stories and seeing it on TV while you're sitting in a comfortable chair just
doesn't have the same ball grabbing, gut twisting, attention getting
momentum as a few hot rounds do as they go bouncing off walls around you.
I'll leave out the really scary parts - after all this is a family forum.
As far as listening to the crap, "I may not agree with what you say, but
I'll defend to the death your right to say it." (Voltaire)
Twenty years of service condensed down to one sentence - and a Frenchman
said it many, many years before I was even born. The above applies to those
that dissent against your message in this particular instance. Next week or
tomorrow or even a few minutes from now, it will be applied somewhere else
that suits me to better tolerate those that haven't a clue why they're still
walking around free.
For those that simply don't understand - Tom's message is intended to
educate and to make you aware of what we hopefully and pray for every night,
that you will never have to personally experience. But if you do, we wish
you God's speed and lot's of fiddy-cal to get you through your ordeal. And
the second part is... we sure as hell hope we have the wisdom and the smarts
to elect the next president that isn't hell bent on causing the destruction
of the world.
Flame suit on....fire at will,
Bob S.
"Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
news:jj0jm1lkn8p0uov80...@4ax.com...
joey
again. You feel the need to interject your angry left wing politics weekly.
Have fun and hopefully you can say mission accompished
"joey" <j...@you.com> wrote in message
news:7YedndT8xtJ...@comcast.com...
m...@hotmail.com
wrote:
HEY DUMBASS, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENTS OR YOUR RIGHT TO
SAY THEM, JUST DON'T DO IT HERE. GO TO THE APPROPRIATE FORUM, THIS
ISN'T IT.....
David
> I have, with some reluctance, decided to post this weekly update under
> the sobriquet of "OT".
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
and I, with LESS reluctance, place you in the kook file.
Are you unable to find your way to the appropriate NG??
(No real need to respond; I'm not gonna see it)
Dave
Mike O.
>A fine finish carpenter you are. I will never be back to this newsgroup
>again. You feel the need to interject your angry left wing politics weekly.
>Have fun and hopefully you can say mission accompished
Hey Joey, If you don't want to read Tom's post just add him to your
email filter.
He's in my email filter list, just ahead of Joey.
Thanks
Mike O.
Greg G.
>A fine finish carpenter you are. I will never be back to this newsgroup
>again. You feel the need to interject your angry left wing politics weekly.
>Have fun and hopefully you can say mission accompished
Well, that's more than Bush can say... OR spell... ;-)
Greg G.
Todd Fatheree
Yeah, right. You're only about 12 years off.
todd
Luigi Zanasi
cryptically responded:
>
>09/11/89
>
The day Hungary opened its borders with Austria, cutting a major hole
in the iron curtain and allowing a flood of East Germans to leave,
leading directly within the next couple of months to the fall of the
Berlin wall and of the East European Communist governments. And the
eventual end of the cold war.
Just FYI.
Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Woodworking
Rod & Betty Jo
"BobS" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:yigaf.135132$7b6.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> For those that simply don't understand - Tom's message is intended to
> educate and to make you aware of what we hopefully and pray for every
> night, that you will never have to personally experience. But if you do,
> we wish you God's speed and lot's of fiddy-cal to get you through your
> ordeal. And the second part is... we sure as hell hope we have the wisdom
> and the smarts to elect the next president that isn't hell bent on causing
> the destruction of the world.
>
> Flame suit on....fire at will,
>
> Bob S.
Educate? Pacifism isn't exactly anything new.....it has worked very well and
many times as long as somebody that believes otherwise, eventually comes
along and cleans up the mess created by those whom choose to do nothing.
The world for the past century has made a steady march towards democracy,
sometimes by ballot and sometimes by the end of a gun.....neither has worked
in all situations but doing nothing or turning a blind eye to world
injustice has never worked. The Middle-East is the last great bastion of
despots and dictators with a bleak future for the everyday man in spite of
enormous wealth or potential. With women as second class citizens, huge
pockets of discrimination by race, ethnic or religion this land is naturally
going to produce terror. That terror by both appeasement or apathy was not
going away but rather growing in power, influence and destruction
That we now at a very heavy price in both blood and coin have planted seeds
of democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to be honored as there is no
shame in leaving the world a better place than we found it. Past generations
have found this worthwhile against previous evil and indeed paid a much
higher price than we are expected to pay today.....There is no question that
the status quo wasn't working..... the bigger question is do we have the
determination of past generations to finish this job?.......Rod
Tim Daneliuk
> "BobS" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:yigaf.135132$7b6.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>>For those that simply don't understand - Tom's message is intended to
>>educate and to make you aware of what we hopefully and pray for every
>>night, that you will never have to personally experience. But if you do,
>>we wish you God's speed and lot's of fiddy-cal to get you through your
>>ordeal. And the second part is... we sure as hell hope we have the wisdom
>>and the smarts to elect the next president that isn't hell bent on causing
>>the destruction of the world.
Bob -
Your naivete' is astonishing. Sadaam butchered his own people in large
numbers. He savagely invaded his neighbors. He overtly funded
terrorist suicide bombings. He ran an internal regime' that was
patterned after the sociopathic ideology of Stalin. Just *when*
in your tortured universe is it OK to stop someone like that?
You describe the man who stopped him as bent on "the destruction of
the world" but you are strangely silent about just what he's actually
destroying. Bush is a flawed President. But they *all* are - they're
human beings who make judgements based on the information available to
them at the time. I'm no Republican by any means, but he was left a
mess to clean up that no one else could be bothered with. What was
he supposed to do? Invade Afghanistan and call it a day? Wait for
the 10,000th witless and limp UN resolution? Have Sadaam over for
dinner?
You desparately need to go live in some other countries for a while.
(I have) You are remarkably clueless about the long and tired history
of what happens when good people do not stand up to evil in its early
stages. In the early 20th century, three evil empires (Stalinist Russia,
Japan At Nanking, and Nazi Germany) systematically exterminated
well over 100 *Million* people. In the case of Japan and Russia,
almost 30 Million (more or less) were killed before WWII even got
started with nary a whimper from the West. Britain came very close
to being a Nazi outpost because of the FDR/Joe Kennedy footdragging
on the issue. The longer you wait to respond to this kind of
moral outrage the harder the fight.
You *cannot* make peace with evil. You *cannot* ignore it and hope it
goes away. You *cannot* pretend that the problem will not become yours
if you stay out of the fight. I am a firm believer that the US should
keep its beak out of problems around the world *unless there is a
significant risk to _us_*. State incubation of terrorism, suicide
bombing, and the like is exactly such a threat. If we play it your way,
we are only delaying the inevitable, not stopping it.
>>
>>Flame suit on....fire at will,
>>
>>Bob S.
>
>
> Educate? Pacifism isn't exactly anything new.....it has worked very well and
> many times as long as somebody that believes otherwise, eventually comes
> along and cleans up the mess created by those whom choose to do nothing.
It's worse than that. Pacificim encourages despots, tin pot dictators,
and every sociopath with money and a military.
>
> The world for the past century has made a steady march towards democracy,
> sometimes by ballot and sometimes by the end of a gun.....neither has worked
> in all situations but doing nothing or turning a blind eye to world
> injustice has never worked. The Middle-East is the last great bastion of
> despots and dictators with a bleak future for the everyday man in spite of
> enormous wealth or potential. With women as second class citizens, huge
Not quite. Despots still exist in China, Korea, Cuba, and in the
intelligencia of the Western Academy.
> pockets of discrimination by race, ethnic or religion this land is naturally
> going to produce terror. That terror by both appeasement or apathy was not
> going away but rather growing in power, influence and destruction
And had been ignored in the main by most recent previous US political
leaders. Even Reagan acted only minimally in the matter, Bush 41 stopped
short, and Clinton did nothing. If the US were not to act now, who will?
When? Shall we wait for the highly vaunted UN to actually enforce its
numerous resolutions? Just how high does the price in human tragedy have
to get before it is OK to apply military force? Just how close does the
threat have to be for us to act. The poster claiming to be Watson and
his ilk would probably be still wringing their hands at the horrific
thought of military action if the Al Queda Navy were parked in the
Hudson. War is awful. But not making war can be much worse for many
more people.
>
> That we now at a very heavy price in both blood and coin have planted seeds
> of democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to be honored as there is no
> shame in leaving the world a better place than we found it. Past generations
> have found this worthwhile against previous evil and indeed paid a much
> higher price than we are expected to pay today.....There is no question that
> the status quo wasn't working..... the bigger question is do we have the
> determination of past generations to finish this job?.......Rod
>
>
Bravo. A sane post amidst the incoherent drooling...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Astriapo
Perhaps they are looking for plans on building coffins...
I know that was in bad taste, but...
Jim Weisgram
>
>Your naivete' is astonishing. Sadaam butchered his own people in large
>numbers. He savagely invaded his neighbors. He overtly funded
>terrorist suicide bombings. He ran an internal regime' that was
>patterned after the sociopathic ideology of Stalin. Just *when*
>in your tortured universe is it OK to stop someone like that?
>
Ugh; politics ... why am I doing this? To appease my own feelings, I
guess.
"I am a member of no organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -
Will Rogers (and Jim Weisgram)
Here's what is bothering me about Iraq. There's an estimate of Iraqi
dead from our conflict of over 100,000. According to this estimate,
the vast majority of those dead are a direct result of American
bombing. At the same time our president says this is the most humane
war in history, and I believe he was referring to our ability to use
precision controlled munitions.
Is the 100,000 a reliable estimate? I've heard this number bandied
about before. Last weekend I was listening to NPR (hey, I'm not only a
Democrat, but a liberal, too) and they had a description of exactly
how the estimate was done. As described, it was a painstaking process
following the best available methodology and not driven by a political
agenda (as the Right has predictably charged). It left me convinced
that 100,000 dead is, if anything, an underestimate.
It is nothing new to realize that on topics like this, *every*
American president delivers a message that is dramatically spun to
make the administration be seen in the best light. Are we really
killing 100,000 people (and counting) to save Iraq from Saddam and
bring democracy to the region?
I can accept that in part, this is what we are trying to do. But
clearly there is more to it. I can't accept that it was ever really
about WMD. It was clear at the time we started this conflict that we
really didn't have sufficient evidence to start a war. Of course we
could get away with that because Saddam had zero credibility and the
world expected there would be WMD's in Iraq. And I believe this
conflict had nothing to do directly with terrorism. Iraq was never a
terrorist hotbed until we went there and took over.
>> He overtly funded terrorist suicide bombings
I must have missed that one in the investigation on 9/11; I thought
they found just the opposite.
It seems more likely to me that this administration believes that the
entire region needed to be stablized; that this is a long term
prospect; that the US had to take a dramtically new course of action
in order to break through the logjam that was creating a wave of
radical thought in the region that would have global repercussions. I
also believe US economic interests were a major factor in this
thinking.
I also believe we chose an unfortunate course of action that was just
about doomed from the start to have the exact opposite effect of what
we are trying to achieve. And I believe that is why you see very
little support of our actions from the rest of the world.
Nate Perkins
(snip)
> I will never be back to this
> newsgroup again.
(snip)
Buh bye.
Stephen M
>
> I must have missed that one in the investigation on 9/11; I thought
> they found just the opposite.
Not the WTC, he was offering something like $20K to families of suicide
bumbers attacking Isreal.
Stephen M
>
> Bob -
>
> Your naivete' is astonishing. Sadaam butchered his own people in large
> numbers. He savagely invaded his neighbors. He overtly funded
> terrorist suicide bombings. He ran an internal regime' that was
> patterned after the sociopathic ideology of Stalin. Just *when*
> in your tortured universe is it OK to stop someone like that?
Saddam was horrible. Few is any will question that. Bob is not suggesting
that Saddam was not a problem. He is arguing that the current
administration's solution to the problem is worse than the previous policy
of containment.
Please do not change the questions from "Did we choose the best course of
action?" to "Was Saddam a bad man?"
I think the jury is still out, we may never know; it does contain a lot of
hypotheticals. I think it's a valid debate.
Steve
David
I think it's a valid debate.
>
> Steve
>
>
BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT DOESN'T BELONG ON A WOODWORKING NG.
Dave
Dave Hinz
> Buh bye.
Funny that instead of just killfiling the people or threads he doesn't
like, he writes off the whole group. Ah well, I suppose we'll just have
to live with the loss...sigh...
John Emmons
John Emmons
"David" <Da...@invalid.com> wrote in message > and I, with LESS reluctance,
Larry Blanchard
> That we now at a very heavy price in both blood and coin have planted
> seeds of democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to be honored as
> there is no shame in leaving the world a better place than we found
> it.
That's a nice sentiment. It would be even nicer if it worked. I'll bet
you those "seeds" are going to rot. Even as we converse, Iraq is
leaning more and more towards civil war and the Taliban is making a
comeback in Afghanistan - so much so that the Aghans are calling their
president "the mayor of Kabul" because that's about all he controls.
Post again in 5 or so years and tell me which of us was right :-).
And BTW, do you count the "black sites" among those seeds of democracy?
Larry Blanchard
>
> Your naivete' is astonishing. Sadaam butchered his own people in large
> numbers. He savagely invaded his neighbors. He overtly funded
> terrorist suicide bombings. He ran an internal regime' that was
> patterned after the sociopathic ideology of Stalin. Just *when*
> in your tortured universe is it OK to stop someone like that?
>
You mean some time after we stopped supporting him? While he was
butchering away?
Larry Blanchard
> Tom Watson wrote:
>
>> I have, with some reluctance, decided to post this weekly update under
>> the sobriquet of "OT".
>
> Are you unable to find your way to the appropriate NG??
> (No real need to respond; I'm not gonna see it)
>
OK, I'll respond for him. There are those of us in this group who
prefer to discuss issues with fellow woodworkers rather than with the
groups designed to do nothing else and the fanatics they attract.
Most of us have the courtesy to preface those posts with "OT".
If you are unwilling to filter those posts, or your newsreader is
incapable of filtering those posts, I have very little sympathy for you.
I find the jackasses that cross post garbage to a bunch of unrelated
newsgroups, including this one, much more annoying. But only till I can
add them to my filters.
HMFIC-1369
Middle East?
I think you just aren't aware of the difference of a good war and bad war.
"That we now at a very heavy price in both blood and coin have planted seeds
of democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to be honored as there is no
shame in leaving the world a better place than we found it." A BETTER PLACE?
Freedom & Democracy is the Right of the People and the choise of those
People. It isn't forced upon us or them by a foriegn nation. You know have
Americanized White Eruopean's dictating Middle Eatern policy and
Governments. You can say and make the same arguement for the continent of
Africa, but Bush isn't rushing in too depose those
"despots and dictators With women as second class citizens, huge pockets of
discrimination by race, ethnic or religion this land is naturally going to
produce terror. That terror by both appeasement or apathy was not going
away but rather growing in power, influence and destruction"
Africa far more screwed up then the Middle East!
Israel with all of its WMD's place in the middle of Country's that never had
nor desired weapons, We America created fuelled and supplied the regional
Arms race in the Middle East. We pumped up both Saddam and the Shah of Iran,
both who tortured people just like America does and WE TRAINED THEM TO DO
IT! History Folks Remember Iran, Remember Reagan selling Arms to Saddam and
Khomeini Try to Remember when we placed the Shah of Iran in power in the
50's to help Democracy spread threw the region and gee what happened in
79????
If we weren't there we wouldn't be making this mess. With Israel and Iran as
our Democratic stooges, no wonder you got crap and blood on your hands! You
folks still think that Israel is a great Democracy, how can you have a great
Democracy when you only allow one Religion.
To bad it wasn't you parents seed wasted planting the "seeds of Democracy"
"Rod & Betty Jo" <so...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:11mjn1j...@corp.supernews.com...
Joseph Connors
matter much to me, but it sure bothers some others like the original
poster Tom Watson (at least in the past it has!
--
Joseph Connors
The New Golden Rule:
Those with the gold, make the rules!
HMFIC-1369
things for themselves appreciate things better when they do it themselves.
If America pulled out, violence would actually die down. We are used as the
excuse for it.They are highly civilized and educated they can work it out
all for themselves. After America pulled out of Viet Nam, Cambodia became
the killing field. Vietnam struggled but I know many Marines with Viet wives
who own homes and had vacation there even shortly after we left and know
even retired there.
"Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
news:a91jm15hhi9pd0225...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:31:28 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" <tod...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
> >news:5oqim193s9pc7tl4s...@4ax.com...
> >> I have, with some reluctance, decided to post this weekly update under
> >> the sobriquet of "OT".
> >>
> >> I do not believe it to be OT. I believe that it transcends the
> >> concept.
> >
> >Why stop with rec.woodworking? There are literally thousands of other
> >newsgroups that this message could transcend itself to. My apologies if
> >you're multiposting and I'm just not subscribed to all the other groups.
> >
> >> There are now 2031 young Americans who have died in the pursuit of
> >> Bush's agenda in Iraq.
> >>
> >> 31 more since my last weekly report.
> >>
> >> For those who have asked for the names - whatever were you thinking?
> >>
> >> What is the goal?
> >>
> >> What is it worth?
> >>
> >> When will it end?
> >
> >I'm a conservative, but I actually had reservations prior to us going
into
> >Iraq. But we're there. What is your suggestion at this point? Just
leave?
> >Please be specific.
> >
> >todd
> >
>
>
> 04/30/75.
>
>
>
Dave Hinz
> OK, I'll respond for him. There are those of us in this group who
> prefer to discuss issues with fellow woodworkers rather than with the
> groups designed to do nothing else and the fanatics they attract.
Exactly. Larry and I usually disagree about politics (I think, right?),
but I know he's not going to start cyberstalking me or something if I
say something he disagrees strongly with.
> Most of us have the courtesy to preface those posts with "OT".
OT: actually works better than OT because it's less likely to have a
false-positive.
> If you are unwilling to filter those posts, or your newsreader is
> incapable of filtering those posts, I have very little sympathy for you.
Yup.
> I find the jackasses that cross post garbage to a bunch of unrelated
> newsgroups, including this one, much more annoying. But only till I can
> add them to my filters.
You can add the regexp *,*,* to the newsgroups: header in your killfile,
and that'll block any posts crossposted to 3 or more groups. The risk
of missing something useful is low, and whazzizname's posts are nearly
always widely crossposted.
Dave Hinz
Tim Daneliuk
> [...snip...]
>
>>Your naivete' is astonishing. Sadaam butchered his own people in large
>>numbers. He savagely invaded his neighbors. He overtly funded
>>terrorist suicide bombings. He ran an internal regime' that was
>>patterned after the sociopathic ideology of Stalin. Just *when*
>>in your tortured universe is it OK to stop someone like that?
>>
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Ugh; politics ... why am I doing this? To appease my own feelings, I
> guess.
> I can accept that in part, this is what we are trying to do. But
> clearly there is more to it. I can't accept that it was ever really
> about WMD. It was clear at the time we started this conflict that we
> really didn't have sufficient evidence to start a war. Of course we
> could get away with that because Saddam had zero credibility and the
> world expected there would be WMD's in Iraq. And I believe this
> conflict had nothing to do directly with terrorism. Iraq was never a
> terrorist hotbed until we went there and took over.
Let's assume the 100,000 is accurate. You have to look at it in
context. Would you fail to stop a butcher because 1 innocent person
was killed in a war to do so? 10? 100? 1000? At some point, people
of good will and intentions have to accept that just because a plan
is not perfect does not mean it is not good. There was no way to
stop Sadaam without the loss of innocent life - *he* saw to that
be refusing to comply with multiple UN resolutions condemning his
actions and failing to respond the the 11th hour attemps by our
dipolmats to avoid war. Yes, 100,000 is a big number, but it
pales in comparison to what Sadaam would have done in his lifetime
had he been left to his own devices.
>
>
>>>He overtly funded terrorist suicide bombings
>
>
> I must have missed that one in the investigation on 9/11; I thought
> they found just the opposite.
Sadaam had nothing directly to do with 9/11 (though he was friendly
and supportive of Al Queda operations via his intelligence service).
But he is well known to have offered payments to Palestinian families
that got one of their children to suicide as an act of terror.
--
Tim Daneliuk
It may be a valid debate, but containment clearly did *not* work - it did
not stop him from oppressing and butchering his own people. It did not
stop him from siphoning large sums of money off the oil-for-food program
with his good budy Kofi, and it did not stop him from using his
intelligence services to make nice with Al Queda operatives.
--
Steve Peterson
next? Should we take out all of them, or just the ones sitting on a huge
supply of oil? Do we take them all one at a time, or all at once? Bush is
a war criminal, and if any other world leader did what he has done, how
would we react?
Steve
"Larry Blanchard" <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:436a4ffc$0$41150$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
Rod & Betty Jo
"Jim Weisgram" <jwei...@remove2reply.teleport.com> wrote in message
news:99vjm1tf03s3j6q6m...@4ax.com...
> Is the 100,000 a reliable estimate? I've heard this number bandied
> about before. Last weekend I was listening to NPR (hey, I'm not only a
> Democrat, but a liberal, too) and they had a description of exactly
> how the estimate was done. As described, it was a painstaking process
> following the best available methodology and not driven by a political
> agenda (as the Right has predictably charged). It left me convinced
> that 100,000 dead is, if anything, an underestimate.
Those numbers are bogus.....a Iraq telephone survey of fewer than 1000 homes
questioning pre war/post war mortality rates is not even remotely valid....
granted Air America did really enjoy those inflated numbers (don't know
about NPR) but respected methodology reports considerably lower
numbers(10-30%). Nonetheless pre war we have Saddam ruling with a iron but
effective deadly fist (long list of atrocities available of which none is of
particular dispute) and post war we have a group of Saddam supporters and
foreign nationals fervently attempting to block Iraq self
determination...... there is little Iraq popular support for the terrorists
thus we have a small scale war of attrition......A minority attempting to
thwart popular rule by violence.... Ultimately blaming the U.S. for the
minority whom wish to impose their will on the majority by blowing up
innocents is just a tad disconcerting
> It is nothing new to realize that on topics like this, *every*
> American president delivers a message that is dramatically spun to
> make the administration be seen in the best light. Are we really
> killing 100,000 people (and counting) to save Iraq from Saddam and
> bring democracy to the region?
>
> I can accept that in part, this is what we are trying to do. But
> clearly there is more to it. I can't accept that it was ever really
> about WMD. It was clear at the time we started this conflict that we
> really didn't have sufficient evidence to start a war. Of course we
> could get away with that because Saddam had zero credibility and the
> world expected there would be WMD's in Iraq. And I believe this
> conflict had nothing to do directly with terrorism. Iraq was never a
> terrorist hotbed until we went there and took over.
Think festering sore.......Saddams acts prior to 1991 and some following
were more than sufficient to justify his exit now or then.....the 1991 peace
accord, embargoes, no fly zones were all expected to lead to his own
internal removal.....The massive containment effort and our presence doing
so (creating more regional problems and fuel for terrorist ideologues) was
not expected to last indefinitly. In fact the corrupt U.N. oil for food
program (thanks Clinton) kept him in power...the UN inspectors whom were to
insure he didn't rearm and was fully disarmed were "kicked out" in 1998
(thanks to Clinton again).....
> I must have missed that one in the investigation on 9/11; I thought
> they found just the opposite.
9/11 and al Quida is not the only terrorist act or group world
wide.....Saddam was specifically funding suicide bombings in Israel....
others found sanctuary in his country and some groups had camps or training
operations...nonetheless Iraq was not central nor responsible for "world
wide terrorism".... Although our iraq containment efforts and Middle-Eastern
presence aided recruitment......With the current absence of U.S. homeland
attacks now, Iraq does appear to be the current battleground of choice....we
quit Iraq they win.
> It seems more likely to me that this administration believes that the
> entire region needed to be stablized; that this is a long term
> prospect; that the US had to take a dramtically new course of action
> in order to break through the logjam that was creating a wave of
> radical thought in the region that would have global repercussions. I
> also believe US economic interests were a major factor in this
> thinking.
You think correctly
> I also believe we chose an unfortunate course of action that was just
> about doomed from the start to have the exact opposite effect of what
> we are trying to achieve. And I believe that is why you see very
> little support of our actions from the rest of the world.
We spent over 10 years, billions of dollars and parked 50,000 troops in the
area containing Saddam, enforcing no fly zones, embargoes etc..... not to
mention originally removing Saddam from Kuwait.....whilst the world was
largely content to profit from his illicit oil sales, a corrupt UN
etc.....Does the world really have any moral authority on this issue? In
recent years the "world" hasn't exactly been much of a stellar example of
dealing with world atrocities, trouble spots or despots....they talk but
little else. If we had simply gone home (dropped the containment) and
Saddam did become a regional threat again who would be taking care of the
eventual problem? Rod
Tim Daneliuk
Don't top post - it's bad manners.
We should take out as many tyrannical despots as necessary so as to
materially reduce the risk to ourselves caused by Islamic (or other)
radical extremists. We need to "inflict" freedom upon the nations in
question because people busy working, shopping, loving, and goofing off
don't have the time or interest to kill other people.
--
David
I've been taken to task a number of times for OT posts, even those that
are NOT political in nature. It comes with the territory; if you want
to post OT, expect some of us to complain.
Dave
David
>> David wrote:
> I've been taken to task a number of times for OT posts, even those that
> are NOT political in nature. It comes with the territory; if you want
> to post OT, expect some of us to complain.
>
> Dave
aargh! I didn't make my point clearly: First sentence should read, "I've
been taken to task a number of times for OT posts, ALL of which were not
political in nature".
Dave
Charlie Self
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Steve Peterson wrote:
>
> > There are numerous other tyrannical despots in the world. Which one is
> > next? Should we take out all of them, or just the ones sitting on a huge
> > supply of oil? Do we take them all one at a time, or all at once? Bush is
> > a war criminal, and if any other world leader did what he has done, how
> > would we react?
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > "Larry Blanchard" <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> > news:436a4ffc$0$41150$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> >
> >>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Your naivete' is astonishing. Sadaam butchered his own people in large
> >>>numbers. He savagely invaded his neighbors. He overtly funded
> >>>terrorist suicide bombings. He ran an internal regime' that was
> >>>patterned after the sociopathic ideology of Stalin. Just *when*
> >>>in your tortured universe is it OK to stop someone like that?
> >>>
> >>
> >>You mean some time after we stopped supporting him? While he was
> >>butchering away?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Don't top post - it's bad manners.
>
> We should take out as many tyrannical despots as necessary so as to
> materially reduce the risk to ourselves caused by Islamic (or other)
> radical extremists. We need to "inflict" freedom upon the nations in
> question because people busy working, shopping, loving, and goofing off
> don't have the time or interest to kill other people.
>
Tim Daneliuk
This lunacy is so good it bears some critical deconstruction:
<SNIP>
> "That we now at a very heavy price in both blood and coin have planted seeds
> of democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to be honored as there is no
> shame in leaving the world a better place than we found it." A BETTER PLACE?
That's right, Sparky. A *much* Better Place. Sadaam's sons are no longer
putting their enemies into industrial shredders feet-first just for fun.
There is no longer a civil service position in the Iraqi Secret Service
of "Professional Rapist". Kurds are not being gassed. Palestinian
families are not being granted cash awards for convincing their
children to become suicide terrorists. *Everyone* in Iraq has the
opportunity to vote and select a government. Sadaam and Kofi no longer
get to split the loot they stole from the people of Iraq in their
abuse of the Oil For Food debacle.
Only in a very tortuned and foul world could these not be much, much
better conditions than existed several years ago. The problem with
knuckheaded logic like yours is that you take the position that if
something is not Perfect it is No Good. Your view is dead wrong.
>
> Freedom & Democracy is the Right of the People and the choise of those
> People. It isn't forced upon us or them by a foriegn nation. You know have
> Americanized White Eruopean's dictating Middle Eatern policy and
> Governments. You can say and make the same arguement for the continent of
> Africa, but Bush isn't rushing in too depose those
>
> "despots and dictators With women as second class citizens, huge pockets of
> discrimination by race, ethnic or religion this land is naturally going to
> produce terror. That terror by both appeasement or apathy was not going
> away but rather growing in power, influence and destruction"
>
> Africa far more screwed up then the Middle East!
This is not even remotely true. Africa is nowhere near as weaponized
and militarized at the Middle East. There are no African tribal states
trying to build ABC weapons, for example. Africa is a loose federation of
tribal wars primarily bent on killing each other. There is, at the moment,
no strategic geopolitical interest there for the West.
>
> Israel with all of its WMD's place in the middle of Country's that never had
> nor desired weapons, We America created fuelled and supplied the regional
> Arms race in the Middle East. We pumped up both Saddam and the Shah of Iran,
> both who tortured people just like America does and WE TRAINED THEM TO DO
> IT! History Folks Remember Iran, Remember Reagan selling Arms to Saddam and
> Khomeini Try to Remember when we placed the Shah of Iran in power in the
> 50's to help Democracy spread threw the region and gee what happened in
> 79????
Now let's use small words and simple concepts to help you understand the
meaning of history. Geopolitics are a moving target. Conditions around
the world *change* over time and so must US policy. Simple consistency is the
crutch of a simple mind. We spent 5 years killing Germans, military and
civilian in the 1940s. Should we start bombing Dresden again just so we are more
"consistent"? Your position is idiotic.
We did what we did, when we did for what were *then* good reasons. Our
partnership with the Shah, however flawed, was a direct response to the
Soviet global threat at the time. The Soviets had expanded into South
America, Africa, and Central Asia, in many cases using Cuban proxies.
The West *had* to respond by all means necessary. One of those was
to have listening outposts in Iran to keep an eye on the Evil Empire.
That was then this is now. The circumstances, players, and topology
of geopolitics are different now and require different action on our part.
BTW, if the US is so naughty for having (gasp!) ever supported Iran
and Iraq, then why aren't you just as incensed by the French, the Germans,
and the Russians, who rendered *far* more aid in that part of the world
than we ever did. There is a reason why the most ubiquitious light
machine gun in the world is an AK-47 not an M-16 ... and we are not
that reason.
>
> If we weren't there we wouldn't be making this mess. With Israel and Iran as
> our Democratic stooges, no wonder you got crap and blood on your hands! You
> folks still think that Israel is a great Democracy, how can you have a great
> Democracy when you only allow one Religion.
I agree. We should withdraw from the region. They'll be speaking Hebrew
from Tehran to Tripoli in about 5 years. The Islamists should be careful
what they ask for. Without the US as a *moderating* presence in the
region, Israel would be forced into the fight of its life because its
back would be against the wall with no other allies.
Your understanding of the region is childish and your analysis is
puerile. The Arabs have 500 times the land Israel does and *all* the
petrochemical assets. Yet, somehow you're sure this is an "America
supports Israel" problem. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, *nothing*
would change. The Islamists of the region hate each other as much or
more than they do Israel. The Arab penninsula is characterized by
tribalism, despotism, and violence having nothing to do with the Jews.
America's only real role there has been to try and moderate the mess to
an acceptable level. We give almost as much money to the Arab states
that surround Israel as we do to Israel itself in an attempt to buy some
peace. Well, it didn't work, so now we have to do the hard work of
cleaning the rats out of the sewer. Go read a history book.
Dave Balderstone
wrote:
> A fine finish carpenter you are. I will never be back to this newsgroup
> again. You feel the need to interject your angry left wing politics weekly.
> Have fun and hopefully you can say mission accompished
Tom went off the end of the diving board a while back.
Learn to use your killfile. It's only usenet, fer cryin' out loud.
djb
--
"I don't like dealing with people. I'd rather be back working in Human
Resources."
My wife, Oct 27 2005 after having to fill in at another department.
Tim Daneliuk
Right - the rest of us who are *paying* for the war, a not insignificant
form of "support". Like those of us who provide direct aid, material and
emotional, to our troops. This would unlike the smarmy hypocrites who
say "I support the troops" and then denigrate the work they do every day.
Like those of us who bring military kids into our homes at the holidays
so they don't have to spend the day alone in some barracks. Like those
among us who were soldiers in their youth and saw the carnage of war
and now do their bit in countless other ways at VFWs, military cemetaries,
churches, and civic organizations.
BobS
ask him) and the smart-ass return remarks but nothing of substance to
contribute. So, besides your ranting here....what have you done that
counts?
Pass the ammo Slim, another troll is slinking over the back wall.....
Bob S.
Charlie Self
Yeah, but who are you writing to?
HMFIC-1369
Israel is the Regional Nuclear Threat..... You put nukes in peoples back
yards, people get concerned. Israel and America created the Arms race,
period. You simply bless the Chosen ones and condem the Arabs, it was and is
there land!
You start Defending our noble efforts in Iraq, and then piss on yourself.
Iraq... A *much* Better Place.
Torture? Israel doesn't do it either huh?and WE never did it? Get real!
then
> Now let's use small words and simple concepts to help you understand the
> meaning of history. Geopolitics are a moving target. Conditions around
> the world *change* over time and so must US policy. Simple consistency is
the
> crutch of a simple mind. We spent 5 years killing Germans, military and
> civilian in the 1940s. Should we start bombing Dresden again just so we
are more
> "consistent"? Your position is idiotic.
Your position a simple contradiction and most likely rascist!
Inconsistency causes doubt and confusion, So we shouldn't be consistent on
Terrorism because that's Bad?
So where will Iraq be in 5 years?
But "You" know it'll be a better place. It stands just as much chance in
turning into the most vendictive Muslim state beating Iran out!
despots and dictators With women as second class citizens, huge pockets of
> > discrimination by race, ethnic or religion this land is naturally going
to
> > produce terror. That terror by both appeasement or apathy was not going
> > away but rather growing in power, influence and destruction"
> >
> > Africa far more screwed up then the Middle East
>
>
How deep is this shit? We are talking despots and dictators not weapons try
not to get too confused?
This is not even remotely true. Africa is nowhere near as weaponized
and militarized at the Middle East. There are no African tribal states
trying to build ABC weapons, for example. Africa is a loose federation of
tribal wars primarily bent on killing each other. There is, at the moment,
no strategic geopolitical interest there for the West.
They'll be speaking Hebrew from Tehran to Tripoli in about 5 years.
FIGURES!!!!
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:t9hq33-...@eskimo.tundraware.com...
loutent
> A fine finish carpenter you are. I will never be back to this newsgroup
> again.
Hi Joey,
Come on back. Just filter the OT crap and/or
authors (I did!)
Personally, I come here to read about tools
and techniques. If I wanted a lot of OT political
crap, I know where to find it.
'Course there are a lot of folks that feel that
if we don't agree with them that we are too
stupid or something...which is in itself pretty
absurd if you think about it.
Lou
BobS
Sorry for the confusion Charlie.
Bob S.
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1131065801.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ama...@no.com
>
>Come on back. Just filter the OT crap and/or
>authors (I did!)
>
>Personally, I come here to read about tools
>and techniques. If I wanted a lot of OT political
>crap, I know where to find it.
>
>'Course there are a lot of folks that feel that
>if we don't agree with them that we are too
>stupid or something...which is in itself pretty
>absurd if you think about it.
>
>Lou
looks like woodworking group again. Over 125 posts in 3 days.
Ed
Tim Daneliuk
> It was meant for Tim Daneliuk response.
And what a brilliant reponse it was. You didn't address
a single idea in my reply to your earlier scribblings.
Very lawyerly of you - when the facts don't support your
position, undermine the credibility of the witness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
199.45.49.11
always been lonely at the top!
So Charlie can ya hear me down there?
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1131065801.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
Tim Daneliuk
> I have, with some reluctance, decided to post this weekly update under
> the sobriquet of "OT".
>
> I do not believe it to be OT. I believe that it transcends the
> concept.
>
> There are now 2031 young Americans who have died in the pursuit of
> Bush's agenda in Iraq.
>
> 31 more since my last weekly report.
>
> For those who have asked for the names - whatever were you thinking?
>
> What is the goal?
Repelling invaders before they get too close. Thwarting evil
people, their ideas, and their supporters. Making the cost
of fouling US sovereignty and threatening her citizens so
visibly high that people will think twice in the future about
whether it's worth doing. Keeping the Middle East stable long
enough until we can get a serious alternative energy program
in place (and then they can all go drink their oil). Annoying
the French and Germans that helped make this problem worse
than it needed to be. Continuing to demonstrate the ineptitude,
incompetence, and corruption of the UN. There are just *tons*
of reasons to do this and keep doing it.
>
> What is it worth?
The ongoing liberty and security of Western Democracies.
>
>
> When will it end?
Decades from now.
First, we have to go back to the appeasement/do nothing policies
exemplified by Joe Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. This most
likely will involve the election to President of one of the more
senior Boneheads like Hillary Clinton or any of her ilk. Then, we
have to get attacked repeatedly on our soil until one of two things
happen: 1) Enough Boneheads get killed in these attacks that
what remains in the population is a more sane sense of how to thwart
threat. OR 2) Even the Boneheads finally grasp the idea that you pursue
and kill your violent enemies relentlessly without quarter and without
end until they no longer exist as a threat. Then, after naming some
significant public edifice in the name of George W. Bush who had the
right vision on this particular matter in the first place, we'll need to
reelect someone with the guts, personal conviction, and steely eyes it
takes to implement the aforementioned policy of relentless pursuit. Of
course, having allowed the Boneheads to hijack the process, we'll have
ten times the work to do and far more American (and other) military
people will die needlessly.
(BTW, I am not a W apologist on most other matters. This is the one
thing he has done exactly right - perhaps not perfectly executed - but
it is exactly the right policy for our time.)
>
>
> I remember back when, when Charlie Self and I were talking about what
> this would turn into - and we agreed that it was a potential quagmire
> - and I am talking about well before, "Mission Accomplished", it was
> clear, the path was chosen, the results were in evidence.
Yes they were. Sadaam was out of power. Hurrah!
>
>
> You dumb bastards that voted for this piece of crap should be ashamed
> - and should be tasked with apologizing to the parents of every child
> that has been killed over there.
I didn't vote for him the first time. I did the second exactly
because he had the Iraq war and surrounding policy on terrorism
exactly right. I'd do it again in a minute even though I disagree
with him on just about every other policy matter. BTW, he's
the first Republican I've voted for in decades. The Boneheads
on the Left made me do it. I couldn't stand the thought of
Kerry or for that matter, pretty much anyone on the Left ever
again occupying that office. One of the many reasons I hate
the Left is that their bad ideas, bad behavior, and bad
policies force me to vote for a rightwinger. It's appalling.
I feel no need to apologize to the families of dead soldiers.
But I do thank them. I also actively support the military as
I am financially able. Their kids come to my house at Christmas.
They get packages of stuff from home when I can afford to do it.
Besides using the death of these honorable soldiers as your
personal hobby horse, have you actually done *anything* to help
out a military family or someone serving? I seriously doubt it.
Oh, and I am neither dumb nor a bastard.
>
>
> You still have time to save your soul.
My soul is not lost.
>
> Begin a movement for the impeachment of George W Bush.
No, let's begin a movement to help you understand elementary logic
and mathematics:
1) Bush - that horrible man - said from the beginning that he
intended to go after *all* sources of terror and their
support networks, not just the Taliban or Afghanistan.
He said so from the day he made his speech to Congress
right after the 9/11 attacks and is thus acting consistently
with his stated position.
2) 2031 dead soldiers is a sad tragedy. But so is well over
3000 dead *civilians* who never signed up for combat and the
risk it entails. Those civilians died in something less than
12 hours. The 2031 dead soldiers died over 4 *years*. You
foam and drool about a military death toll averaging
500 persons/year (an unprecedented low rate of mortality for
a full scale military engagement). But that's not your
real agenda. You couldn't care less about the dead military
folks. They're just a pet cause for you to hijack as
you fulminate about a President you don't like or understand.
I sincerely wish that you get what you want only so long as you
(and all the other Boneheads) are forced to live with the consequences
of your desires. Unfortunately, your moral weakness, narcissim,
naivete', and general lack of principled thought translate into
a threat to the rest of us who remain rational ...
--
HMFIC-1369
Everything is bogus but what "you" claim. When were you last in Iraq or even
Afghanistan?
Israel?.... Saddam problem but NOOOO not Israel. Stealing land then bringing
in the Nukes?
Yeah that's the two best ways to become a regional sweetheart, I can think
of. It wasn't a problem when them Chosen people were using IED's and
carbombs against the British and killing poor civilians huh?
The ONLY people who feel we have to be there, is Israel. Saddam wasn't a
threat to the US. Even Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who are completely behind
9/11 go unscathed.
Yeah ONLY Saddam is evil enough to commit atrocities and torture.. Gee not
the Goood Ol USA huh?
Saddams was creating atrocities and torture with Americas assistance and
guidance even the Mustard Gas was US! Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand over
arms, over covert CIA in the torture of civilians. You call for Saddams
head, but not the Americans that assisted his every atrocity.....We're
dirtier then Saddam is because we aren't even honest about it!.
You skip over the fact that not only was the Reagan Administration selling
arms to Iraq, but to our own foe Iran. Then everyday the Sat's clicked off
pictures of Saddam fortifying Iraq's Border with Kuwait for months watching
Saddam build trenches, setting up AA sites brining in Tanks and Divisions of
Soldiers. Did Bush Sr. try to stop Saddam? Hell no! He couldn't because he
was making money. Kuwait had 34 Billion dollars owed to Saddam from shared
oil fields that was now sitting in US Banks and probably still is. Minus
what we looted!
Israel has threatened every nation in that region. It has more WMD's then
the whole region combined You make it like they are sweet harmless playful
kittens that would be beaten by Mr. Evildoer Saddam
Like you really care so much for the poor Iraqi people, but you certainly
aren't over there helping them now are you. You wouldn't shed a drop of
blood much less a tear You just yak yak yak and talk shit!
You couldn't even find 1000 homes in Iraq where the phones work!
Osama? Who?
"Rod & Betty Jo" <so...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:11mkups...@corp.supernews.com...
199.45.49.11
thinks? Is this now God's work? I would be sure as Santa Claus that you know
someone who has a dictionary, give'em a call. You might learn something!
"Rod & Betty Jo" <so...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:11mkups...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
Tim Daneliuk
> Very Interesting!..... War isn't an atrocity? Is this the way middle America
No, not inherently so. War that diminishes evil is morally just. In
fact, it's morally mandated. Oh, there I go again using words like
"evil", "moral", and "just" that have no meaning to people like you.
> thinks? Is this now God's work? I would be sure as Santa Claus that you know
> someone who has a dictionary, give'em a call. You might learn something!
Go turn up your Enya CD, light a joint, and get in touch with your Inner Imbecile.
BobS
to be addressed.
Bob S.
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:patq33-...@eskimo.tundraware.com...
ddakadmc
them to appropriate forums/channels...I am a "newbie" woodworker and
come here for info on woodworking, NOT politics...
Tim Daneliuk
> Your bullshit is getting pretty deep - that's about the only fact that needs
> to be addressed.
>
> Bob S.
I was thinking more that the big words were confusing you.
--
Charlie Self
Suggestion: do NOT read the threads that are either marked OT or
obviously are off topic. Or kill filter those threads or the people
participating.
I don't tell visitors to my shop that subjects are limited only to
woodworking. In at least one sense, this place is much like an
extension of my shop. I don't tell others what to talk about, whether I
agree or disagree. If they irk me enough, I quit reading their posts.
Charlie Self
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> BobS wrote:
>
> > Your bullshit is getting pretty deep - that's about the only fact that needs
> > to be addressed.
> >
> > Bob S.
>
> I was thinking more that the big words were confusing you.
>
Ah. I thought so. You strongly believe you are the only person on the
wreck who owns a dictionary.
Larry Blanchard
>
> No, not inherently so. War that diminishes evil is morally just. In
> fact, it's morally mandated.
Mandated? I think you've gone off the deep end there, Tim.
And who defines evil? Our politicians? Those paragons of virtue? C'mon!
And how much does a just war have to diminish virtue? 99%? 50%? 2%?
Philosophers have debated for centuries just what makes a just war. The
only common ground they seem to have all reached is that it is always
moral to defend yourself against attack. Preemptive action to prevent
an attack are much more controversial.
And starting a war to "diminish evil" seems to be approved mostly by
those who have a religious ideal to defend. Like the Crusaders, or the
Iquisition, or the Islamic fundamentalists.
Larry Blanchard
>
> 1) Bush - that horrible man - said from the beginning that he
> intended to go after *all* sources of terror and their
> support networks, not just the Taliban or Afghanistan.
> He said so from the day he made his speech to Congress
> right after the 9/11 attacks and is thus acting consistently
> with his stated position.
>
If he were acting consistently, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia.
> 2) 2031 dead soldiers is a sad tragedy. But so is well over
> 3000 dead *civilians* who never signed up for combat and the
> risk it entails.
Anh how many Iraqis who "never signed up for combat" have we killed?
Especially since their country had nothing to do with our 3000 dead
civilians.
Tim Daneliuk
Not at all. You never have problem with big words. But Bob seems
incapable of responding except in an ad hominem way.
Tim Daneliuk
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>
>> 1) Bush - that horrible man - said from the beginning that he
>> intended to go after *all* sources of terror and their
>> support networks, not just the Taliban or Afghanistan.
>> He said so from the day he made his speech to Congress
>> right after the 9/11 attacks and is thus acting consistently
>> with his stated position.
>>
>
> If he were acting consistently, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia.
You right, we should, and perhaps that time is coming along with
Syria and Iran. Sigh, so many despots, so little time...
>
>
>> 2) 2031 dead soldiers is a sad tragedy. But so is well over
>> 3000 dead *civilians* who never signed up for combat and the
>> risk it entails.
>
>
> Anh how many Iraqis who "never signed up for combat" have we killed?
> Especially since their country had nothing to do with our 3000 dead
> civilians.
So, you position is basically this:
It is not OK for the US to invade because innocent civilians will die,
*even though* the regime currently in power is actively raping, murdering,
torturing, and gassing that same community of innocent civilians. I
don't recall you jumping onto the Wreck, say, 5 years ago and denouncing
Sadaam for his brutatlities toward his own people. Oh, I forgot, your
a Leftie - the only sins you are capable of noticing are those of the
free Democratic West. Despots, tin pot dictators, murderes, and torturers
get a pass. They get extra credit if they espouse any form of Socialism...
Tim Daneliuk
The problem with this discussion is at the philosophical level.
As an (apparent) Leftist, your philosophy makes words
like "right", "wrong", and "moral" null. If you don't believe
in evil, then you can't believe in diminishing it. You'll not going
understand what I wrote in this regard until you drain the polluted
swamp of your basic ideology. For the record, the Right's swamp is
also very polluted by other bad ideas, but at least the acknowledge
that it is possible to seek "goodness" in principle...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
The problem with this discussion is at the philosophical level.
As an (apparent) Leftist, your philosophy makes words
like "right", "wrong", and "moral" null. If you don't believe
in evil, then you can't believe in diminishing it. You'll not going
understand what I wrote in this regard until you drain the polluted
swamp of your basic ideology. For the record, the Right's swamp is
also very polluted by other bad ideas, but at least the acknowledge
that it is possible to seek "goodness" in principle...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
The problem with this discussion is at the philosophical level.
As an (apparent) Leftist, your philosophy makes words
like "right", "wrong", and "moral" null. If you don't believe
in evil, then you can't believe in diminishing it. You'll not going
understand what I wrote in this regard until you drain the polluted
swamp of your basic ideology. For the record, the Right's swamp is
also very polluted by other bad ideas, but at least the acknowledge
that it is possible to seek "goodness" in principle...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Hinz
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> 2) 2031 dead soldiers is a sad tragedy. But so is well over
>> 3000 dead *civilians* who never signed up for combat and the
>> risk it entails.
> Anh how many Iraqis who "never signed up for combat" have we killed?
> Especially since their country had nothing to do with our 3000 dead
> civilians.
And how many of those deaths, Larry, are because the Iraqi military
decided to hide in residential areas, schools, and so on?
what...@wammy.net
wrote:
Nothing new here,Charlie. Started seeing this argument soon after AOL
started providing access to USENET. Seasoned computer user tried to
explain USENET ETIQUETTE. But it was like trying to explain manners
to a spoiled kid, you get nowhere. Soon the killfilter was invented
and bandwidth increased and people came to accept the OT post as part
of USENET.
But the TRUTH is this" there are two types of OT posters, those who
are ignorant of USENET ETIQUETTE and those too self absorbed to be
bothered or concerned with USENET ETIQUETTE". Whoops I forgot one,
there is the intellectual superior who has a million reasons why they
don't have to conform to any type of civil behavior.
I suspect they are the type of person who farts at the dinner table,
spits on the sidewalk, doesn't wash their hands after going to the
bathroom, interrupts during conversations, has to remember to say
thank you, feels manners are overrated, uses inappropriate language in
a public forum.
Suggested Reading
Heres a link for folks who think that respecting etiquette is part of
being civil and is more then helpful when it comes to sharing ideas
among peoples of different cultures.
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Usenet/Etiquette/
I had a friend who opened his own restaurant. He was a great chef,
but he had a peculiar way of looking at things. He believed that since
he owned the place he could run it anyway he seen fit. If someone
asked for something that wasn't on the menu he became very agitated
and let people know it. He ran his restaurant at he seen fit giving no
real thought to what people thought. Business was good, but not great
and when we hit the 80's recession it folded.
He could never get beyond " if they don't like the way I do business
then they can go someplace else". To this day he has no idea that
sometimes "if you don't like it go away" is not appropriate behavior.
BTW he is great guy, nicest guy you will ever meet, give you the shirt
off his back and never ask for anything in return and makes the
neatest furniture out of scrap wood.
But one thing I agree on just use the FILTER just like manners and
etiquette it is very helpful in keeping things civil.
Peace,Charlie
Scott Lurndal
And what about the 30000 that will die from influenza in the US this
year, or how about the 40000 that will die on the highway, or the
100000 that will have heart attacks. Let's get a sense of proportion
here - sure 9/11 was a shocking act, but it should never have been
more than a case for law enforcement - not war.
Scott Lurndal
Oh that's a fine strawman. Opposition to the war in Iraq does
not in any way shape or form imply endorsement of Saddam or
any other despotic regime.
So Tim, why _hasn't_ the US invaded Cuba yet? Or Venezuela?
Or Saudi Arabia? Or any one of the other 55 repressive regimes
in the world whose leaders you don't like?
John Girouard
> started providing access to USENET.
There's even a name for that fateful time:
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/September-that-never-ended.html
-John in NH
Steve Peterson
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:k7rs33-...@eskimo.tundraware.com...
Bruce Barnett
> Nothing new here,Charlie. Started seeing this argument soon after AOL
> started providing access to USENET. Seasoned computer user tried to
> explain USENET ETIQUETTE. But it was like trying to explain manners
> to a spoiled kid, you get nowhere. Soon the killfilter was invented
> and bandwidth increased and people came to accept the OT post as part
> of USENET.
A small correction. Killfiles existed before AOL. I was using them in
1984 to 1988, with Larry Wall's "rn" program.
It used to be that USENET was quite peaceful, but every years around
September we would see A-holes. This was caused by the yearly exposure
of college freshmen to the Internet. Then the browser was created, and
ISP's started popping up all over the place, and all hell broke loose,
i.e. Freshmen all year round..... :-)
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Larry Blanchard
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> >
> > And how much does a just war have to diminish virtue? 99%? 50%? 2%?
> >
Obviously, that should have been "evil", not "virtue", although a lot of wars
do diminish virtue :-).
> > Philosophers have debated for centuries just what makes a just war. The
> > only common ground they seem to have all reached is that it is always
> > moral to defend yourself against attack. Preemptive action to prevent
> > an attack are much more controversial.
> >
>
>
> The problem with this discussion is at the philosophical level.
> As an (apparent) Leftist, your philosophy makes words
> like "right", "wrong", and "moral" null.
I'm glad you've managed to fit me into a category, Tim, I've never
managed that myself :-).
> You'll not going
> understand what I wrote in this regard until you drain the polluted
> swamp of your basic ideology.
Nice imagery. Someone who disagrees with you has a polluted swamp of
an ideology? Makes me categorize you as an ideologue :-).
And you didn't answer my questions. How about just one:
How much does a war have to diminish evil to be justified? 99%? 50%? 2%?
--
It's turtles, all the way down.
Larry Blanchard
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > Anh how many Iraqis who "never signed up for combat" have we killed?
> > Especially since their country had nothing to do with our 3000 dead
> > civilians.
>
> So, you position is basically this:
>
> It is not OK for the US to invade because innocent civilians will die,
> *even though* the regime currently in power is actively raping, murdering,
> torturing, and gassing that same community of innocent civilians.
Aside from the fact that Saddam's actions towards his own people had very
little, if anything, to do with the decision to invade, I don't recall
saying anything like your interpretation.
> I
> don't recall you jumping onto the Wreck, say, 5 years ago and denouncing
> Sadaam for his brutatlities toward his own people. Oh, I forgot, your
> a Leftie - the only sins you are capable of noticing are those of the
> free Democratic West.
If you can't argue with what a man says, pretend he said something else, eh Tim?
I'm not responsible for Saddam - I am responsible for what my own government does.
Despots, tin pot dictators, murderes, and torturers
> get a pass. They get extra credit if they espouse any form of Socialism...
>
I'm sorry you feel that way. Oh, you meant me? Inventing words for me again.
Larry Blanchard
>
> > Anh how many Iraqis who "never signed up for combat" have we killed?
> > Especially since their country had nothing to do with our 3000 dead
> > civilians.
>
> And how many of those deaths, Larry, are because the Iraqi military
> decided to hide in residential areas, schools, and so on?
>
I was just pointing out that all the civilian deaths weren't on one side.
And yes, some of them were because we screwed up - there's always
"collateral damage" in war.
Astriapo
> what...@wammy.net writes:
>
>
>>Nothing new here,Charlie. Started seeing this argument soon after AOL
>>started providing access to USENET. Seasoned computer user tried to
>>explain USENET ETIQUETTE. But it was like trying to explain manners
>>to a spoiled kid, you get nowhere. Soon the killfilter was invented
>>and bandwidth increased and people came to accept the OT post as part
>>of USENET.
>
>
> A small correction. Killfiles existed before AOL. I was using them in
> 1984 to 1988, with Larry Wall's "rn" program.
>
> It used to be that USENET was quite peaceful, but every years around
> September we would see A-holes. This was caused by the yearly exposure
> of college freshmen to the Internet. Then the browser was created, and
> ISP's started popping up all over the place, and all hell broke loose,
> i.e. Freshmen all year round..... :-)
>
Ahh yes, when there was no world web, just news groups and people used
to call local BBS's to chat, have get togethers and down right party.
Met my wife at one of these gatherings and she's been suffering since.
I used to run one of those things... (BBS's), but wait before that there
was the Commodore... (Still have a 128 in the basement...)
-Astria
loutent
> agree or disagree. If they irk me enough, I quit reading their posts.
>
It's sort of like having a neighborhood bbq or
something. Each time the same guy shows up and gets in
your face about how "this" or "that" (war, taxes etc)
is so wrong and how only he (being an intellectual, has
statistics, served, is older/younger or whatever...)
knows the REAL story. You know what I mean. He's
a great guy. You REALLY want to be friendly, but time
after time he insists that (in effect) you are too stupid to
REALLY understand whats happening "out there".
I think it is somewhat humorous that people who
are accomplished in a specific field (e.g. cutting a
miter, setting a nail, acting out lines that were
written for them, singing...) think that are expertise is
other areas outside their domain.
After thinking about it, I suppose that the only
wretched ones would be those who were
'converted/influenced' by such trivial banter.
Just like real politics.
Of course, here I am being a critic, but
there it is...
Just a hobbyist, retired woodworker outside
his domain of expertise...but at least I say it.
Summary: you cannot influence anyone in
a bar/ bbq/ usenet. After awhile you're
just a PITA to the woodworkers - and most
others.
Lou
Tom Watson
wrote:
>So Tim, why _hasn't_ the US invaded Cuba yet?
?
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Tim Daneliuk
No, it doesn't. But constantly keening about our supposed
sins while entirely ignoring a known despot speaks volumes
about your *motives*...
>
> So Tim, why _hasn't_ the US invaded Cuba yet? Or Venezuela?
> Or Saudi Arabia? Or any one of the other 55 repressive regimes
> in the world whose leaders you don't like?
>
Some of the countries may ultimately require physical violence to
get properly adjusted. The hope is that Iraq can be a cautionary
tale and that the other global sleazebags will learn from it and
clean up their own acts. We'll see.
Tim Daneliuk
It has to diminish evil sufficiently. "Sufficiently" is a judgement call
made at the time by the people involved. There isn't a simple minded
formula. It thus does not appear as a DNC political plank...
Tim Daneliuk
No one disputes this. The issue is whether such "collateral damage"
constitutes a sufficient moral justification to avoid war, this one
or any other.
Tim Daneliuk
> In article <dnqs33-...@eskimo.tundraware.com>, tun...@tundraware.com says...
>
>>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>>Anh how many Iraqis who "never signed up for combat" have we killed?
>>>Especially since their country had nothing to do with our 3000 dead
>>>civilians.
>>
>>So, you position is basically this:
>>
>>It is not OK for the US to invade because innocent civilians will die,
>>*even though* the regime currently in power is actively raping, murdering,
>>torturing, and gassing that same community of innocent civilians.
>
>
> Aside from the fact that Saddam's actions towards his own people had very
> little, if anything, to do with the decision to invade, I don't recall
> saying anything like your interpretation.
>
>
>> I
>>don't recall you jumping onto the Wreck, say, 5 years ago and denouncing
>>Sadaam for his brutatlities toward his own people. Oh, I forgot, your
>>a Leftie - the only sins you are capable of noticing are those of the
>>free Democratic West.
>
>
> If you can't argue with what a man says, pretend he said something else, eh Tim?
What part of the paragraph about is incorrect?
>
> I'm not responsible for Saddam - I am responsible for what my own government does.
That's fair enough. But you seem to equate our actions with which you disagree -
well "Watson" does and you seem to agree - with those of a savage dictator.
This is moral equivocation of the worst kind. Perhaps this might help:
http://www.thompsonatlarge.com/work11.htm
>
> Despots, tin pot dictators, murderes, and torturers
>
>>get a pass. They get extra credit if they espouse any form of Socialism...
>>
>
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way. Oh, you meant me? Inventing words for me again.
Your ideas reflect your beliefs. One can reasonably come to the conclusion
of the sentence above based on the ideas you hold and defend. Yes, my
words are sarcastic and hyperbolic, but the contain (sadly) an essential truth
about people who see the world the way you do and the ideas that animate them.
Tim Daneliuk
Bill Clinton treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue thereby making
a bad problem worse and giving the enemy combatants the de facto safe
harbor they needed to finish planning 9/11. These people are *foreign invaders*
not street thugs and need to be dispatched accordingly.
Henry St.Pierre
news:5oqim193s9pc7tl4s...@4ax.com:
> I have, with some reluctance, decided to post this weekly update under
> the sobriquet of "OT".
>
> I do not believe it to be OT. I believe that it transcends the
> concept.
>
> There are now 2031 young Americans who have died in the pursuit of
> Bush's agenda in Iraq.
>
> 31 more since my last weekly report.
>
> For those who have asked for the names - whatever were you thinking?
>
> What is the goal?
>
> What is it worth?
>
>
> When will it end?
>
>
> I remember back when, when Charlie Self and I were talking about what
> this would turn into - and we agreed that it was a potential quagmire
> - and I am talking about well before, "Mission Accomplished", it was
> clear, the path was chosen, the results were in evidence.
>
>
> You dumb bastards that voted for this piece of crap should be ashamed
> - and should be tasked with apologizing to the parents of every child
> that has been killed over there.
Mr. Watson,
I truly share your concern for the lives of our young men. Like Mr.
Self, I'm an old mud marine that left a bit of blood and part of my soul
here and there. I remember the names and faces of the people I lost and
always will. The way you asked Bob S. if he served, I guess you've left a
bit of blood and/or a bit of soul yourself.
I take exception at your arrogance. You appear to think that readers of
this forum or newsgroup or whatever you choose to call it; don't read
newspapers, don't watch CNN, FOX, BBC, CBC or listen to Radio Moscow,
Radio Vatican or any other news organ. Thank you for supplying us (the
great unwashed, the unknowing, the ignorant and other fools amongst us
with your body count. You seem to take great pride in the fact that you
were right and it comes across as a gloat. I would like to believe you
are not gloating, but your "dumb bastards", "piece of crap" comments
suggest to me that you are. Smug comes to mind.
Bob S. suggested other avenues to voice your concern for the lives of
our young men that might be more appropriate or be more effective. This
is a very small forum that can't even agree on polyurethane.
This isn't meant as an attack on you or your beliefs, but on the way you
talk down to me and others that don't or can't share your insight.
Hank - Dumb Bastard (unwashed, ignorant, fool etc.)
(I did it again. I promised myself I wouldn't and I'm a shitty woodworker
too.)
>
> You still have time to save your soul.
Why? Lost it a long time ago.
> Begin a movement for the impeachment of George W Bush.
>
I'll be doing a movement in a few minutes.
>
> Hell, you wanted to do it to Slick Willie. Let's pretend that a head
> count is more important than a head count.
Maybe you wanted to do it to Slick Willie, but I didn't. Hillary maybe;
if I had a few or more. Never held getting a blow job against a man. Got
a few myself and managed not to let their husbands, fathers, brothers,
boyfriends, my friends (except in TJ), family or the press know.
President Kennedy will be remembered for MM and having the balls to stand
up for his country. President Clinton (alas, and I mean it) will be
remembered for ML (even I did better). A very brilliant man that could
have and should have been a great leader.
Mark & Juanita
>On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:04:19 -0500, Tom Watson <no...@erehwon.com>
>cryptically responded:
>>
>>09/11/89
>>
>The day Hungary opened its borders with Austria, cutting a major hole
>in the iron curtain and allowing a flood of East Germans to leave,
>leading directly within the next couple of months to the fall of the
>Berlin wall and of the East European Communist governments. And the
>eventual end of the cold war.
>
>Just FYI.
>
... and of course Reagan and a strong defense policy, standing up to
bullies rather than trying to appease them had absolutely nothing to do
with that event nor the fall of the Berlin wall.
Just need to make that clear lest some people think that somehow the
policy of appeasement and bending over with lots of vaseline don't ever
work.
[... for the sarcasm impaired -- yes that was sarcasm]
>Luigi
>Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
>www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
>www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Woodworking
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark & Juanita
>On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:00:24 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" <tod...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
>>news:a91jm15hhi9pd0225...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:31:28 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" <tod...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:5oqim193s9pc7tl4s...@4ax.com...
>>> >> I have, with some reluctance, decided to post this weekly update under
>>> >> the sobriquet of "OT".
>>> >>
>>> >> I do not believe it to be OT. I believe that it transcends the
>>> >> concept.
>>> >
>>> >Why stop with rec.woodworking? There are literally thousands of other
>>> >newsgroups that this message could transcend itself to. My apologies if
>>> >you're multiposting and I'm just not subscribed to all the other groups.
>>> >
>>> >> There are now 2031 young Americans who have died in the pursuit of
>>> >> Bush's agenda in Iraq.
>>> >>
>>> >> 31 more since my last weekly report.
>>> >>
>>> >> For those who have asked for the names - whatever were you thinking?
>>> >>
>>> >> What is the goal?
>>> >>
>>> >> What is it worth?
>>> >>
>>> >> When will it end?
>>> >
>>> >I'm a conservative, but I actually had reservations prior to us going
>>into
>>> >Iraq. But we're there. What is your suggestion at this point? Just
>>leave?
>>> >Please be specific.
>>> >
>>> >todd
>>>
>>> 04/30/75.
>>
>>Sounds good. What will the ramifications be of a total pullout? I'm sure
>>you have this all thought out.
>>
>>todd
>
>
>09/11/89
>
Great Tom. Two widely separate events, one of which was a cause the
second an effect.
Your 4/30/75 date led to the destruction of 6 million southeast Asian
lives and pretty much assured that the loss of the American lives over
there was completely pointless and wasted.
Your 9/11/89 date was the result of the US for once having stood up to
the bullying of the Soviet Union and the result of maintaining a strong
defensive posture rather than taking the snivelling attitude that, "maybe
if we show them that we are unarmed and no threat, they'll just go away and
leave us alone."
You know, I used to enjoy reading your postings, you have some real
talent both as as woodworker and a writer. But your current postings are
about as enlightening and useful as the latest hate-Bush release from
moveon.org. Are things going perfectly in Iraq? No, but by providing aid
and comfort to the enemy in the form of internal sedition and propaganda
such as the major news media is doing, it doesn't help the cause nor does
it lead to a solution; it's only going to lead to more lives being lost
because the insurgents realize that with the help of their allies in the
US, they just have to keep killing more people and then the coalition will
leave because of pressure at home and then the insurgents can return Iraq
to a happy little despotic tyranny once again. Thank God that you and your
ilk weren't sanctioned during WWII. We'd all be lamp shades or speaking
German or Japanese right now.
I've pretty much kept my peace from most of the political postings here
lately, but this attack on the mission of our troops is useful to neither
our troops nor to the people they are trying to help. The political
debate has taken place, the vote was taken, the action was initiated. From
day minus one, the criticism has never stopped -- how helpful do you think
that has been?
>
>
>Tom Watson - WoodDorker
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Schuster
"Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
news:5oqim193s9pc7tl4s...@4ax.com...
>I have, with some reluctance, decided to post this weekly update under
> the sobriquet of "OT".
>
> I do not believe it to be OT. I believe that it transcends the
> concept.
Only because:
1: You like folks reacting to your posts, as you have no reverence to the
2031 you speak of.
"There are now 2031 young Americans who have died in the pursuit of
Bush's agenda in Iraq."
You claim it as one man's agenda. I think the majority that understand world
politics disagree. They understand the stakes in the world. You, little
Tommy, want the world to be ok again. Please, let me ride my little
pony.....
IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against
and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of
nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national
security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council
resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered
into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and
develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological
weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development
program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the
cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to
identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of
inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress
concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs
threatened vital United States interests and international peace and
security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate
action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United
States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national
security of the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and
develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively
seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United
Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in
the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi
citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and
by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability
and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and
its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by
firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed
Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing
responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and
interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other
international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten
the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of
mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will
either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who
would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the
United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify
action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990)
authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to
compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace
and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and
refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its
civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations
operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
`to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security
Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security
Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and
677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
`supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the
Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law
102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United
Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat
to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that
Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the
United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our
common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,'
while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be
enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action
will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute
the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in
direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other
United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the
national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the
war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the
President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons
who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to
take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to
take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United
States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf
region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use
of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The
Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council
all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him
in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to
ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance
and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate
in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise
of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall,
prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no
later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the
Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other
peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national
security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or
(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with
the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary
actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations,
including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section
8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this
section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within
the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint
resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall,
at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters
relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for
efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed,
including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of
1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the
submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the
submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by
this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of
section 3 of such resolution.
Tom Watson "31 more since my last weekly report. "
Would you like the numbers of those that voted for that resolution???
If you are upset, call the politicians that voted on the resolution!!!!
Again a weekly report of yours that denigrates the work of those soldiers
alive and deceased.
>
> For those who have asked for the names - whatever were you thinking?
I was thinking of Clip, Frag, Jackson, Peanut, Snipe, and Bunyan
>
> What is the goal?
The immediate goal is for you fakes to quit acting like you haven't had some
stake in this process. You all agreed to take care of the threat. Do we need
to post voting records?
>
> What is it worth?
If you need to ask the question, you actually sicken me. Does ideologs and
zealots vs the free world ring any bells and whistles ??
>
>
> When will it end?
It isn't going to be anytine soon. The proliferation of technology allows
any idiot press time as long as they can be "interesting".
>
>
> I remember back when, when Charlie Self and I were talking about what
> this would turn into - and we agreed that it was a potential quagmire
> - and I am talking about well before, "Mission Accomplished", it was
> clear, the path was chosen, the results were in evidence.
The "quagmire" is in your mind because you want it to be there. Go look at
the facts instead of what is factuallly happening.
>
>
> You dumb bastards that voted for this piece of crap should be ashamed
> - and should be tasked with apologizing to the parents of every child
> that has been killed over there.
Why would anyone have to apologize to a soldier's family because he/she was
killed in action? We all salute his/her service to the country and mourn the
fact that the soldier gave the ultimate sacrafice for a great and noble
cause.
>
> That's what her father just relayed to me.
> You still have time to save your soul.
>
> Begin a movement for the impeachment of George W Bush.
>
>
> Hell, you wanted to do it to Slick Willie. Let's pretend that a head
> count is more important than a head count.
>
>
CW
your people and runs off. You can't catch them so you grab someone mean
looking that no one likes and you kick the shit out of him and then yell,
See, this what I'd do to you if I could catch you.
"Larry Blanchard" <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:436ba02b$0$41140$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
fredf...@spamcop.net
Tom Watson wrote:
> I have, with some reluctance, decided to post this weekly update under
> the sobriquet of "OT".
>
> I do not believe it to be OT. I believe that it transcends the
> concept.
>
Perhaps next week you will consider posting this where it is on-topic.
Then you can include a short sentence and a link at the bottom of
everyt woodworking article you post here,
--
FF
Mark & Juanita
wrote:
>ABSOLUTE RUBBISH Every word every concept every thought!
>
>Everything is bogus but what "you" claim. When were you last in Iraq or even
>Afghanistan?
>Israel?.... Saddam problem but NOOOO not Israel. Stealing land then bringing
>in the Nukes?
>
... snip
You wouldn't happen to be a member of a Palestenian organization of any
sort, would you?
Let's see, how many of its neighboring countries has Israel pledged to
destroy? Anyone? Yes, you in back. That's right, none.
Now, how many neighboring countries have pledged to destroy Israel? The
implications are left to the reader.
Larry Blanchard
>
> Maybe you wanted to do it to Slick Willie, but I didn't. Hillary
> maybe; if I had a few or more. Never held getting a blow job against
> a man. Got a few myself and managed not to let their husbands,
> fathers, brothers, boyfriends, my friends (except in TJ), family or
> the press know.
Clinton's problem was breaking the old rule "Don't get your meat where
you get your bread".
And not having the balls to tell the press that his sex life was none of
their <insert obscenity here> business.
Larry Blanchard
> You know how it works. Streetfight tactics. An enemy gang does
> something to your people and runs off. You can't catch them so you
> grab someone mean looking that no one likes and you kick the shit out
> of him and then yell, See, this what I'd do to you if I could catch
> you.
>
Since I'm an old man with asthma and a bad heart, you probably could.
So could a junkyard dog. But wait, I'm being redundant.
OTOH, my trigger finger still works.
Larry Blanchard
> Are things going perfectly in Iraq? No, but by providing aid and
> comfort to the enemy in the form of internal sedition and propaganda
> such as the major news media is doing, it doesn't help the cause nor
> does it lead to a solution; it's only going to lead to more lives
> being lost because the insurgents realize that with the help of their
> allies in the US, they just have to keep killing more people and then
> the coalition will leave because of pressure at home and then the
> insurgents can return Iraq to a happy little despotic tyranny once
> again.
>
That second sentence is a loooong one :-).
But your argument, while valid to a point, has to be balanced against
restricting free speech. The first time we did that was the Alien and
Sedition Acts of JOhn Adams and newpaper publishers were thrown in
prison. I can't remember all the times since, but Sen. McCarthy comes
to mind as does some of the actions during the Civil War.
And while our free speech may comfort some of our enemies, it also
comforts some of our friends who are glad to see we're not all following
blindly behind Bush et al.
So it's not an easy choice.
CW
Bush is taking in his "war on terror". Since he has no chance of tracking
down and destroying the root cause of the problem, and even if he did, it
would not be spectacular enough, he goes after a convenient bad guy. Makes
for a good show. Yes, I voted for the guy. Given the choice, there really
was no choice. He has proven to be a serious disapointment in many ways.
"Larry Blanchard" <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:436ce859$0$41146$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...