John Fields wrote:

JosephKK wrote:

John, do the citizens of Puerto Rico or Guam vote in US national
elections?

---
No.
---

Are they US citizens?

---
Yes.

HYPOCRITE !

Graham

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:36:55 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The readily observable evidence is that you like to redefine the meaning of words
to suit yourself.

---
Hardly. He quite accurately pointed out that you were trying to
divert attention (instead of refuting its content) from the meaning
of my post by taking one word out of context.

You mean by using the dictionary definition of the word actually.

---
No, I meant by taking the word out of context. Can't you read?
---

If you didn't mean 'during', you shouldn't have used the word 'during' ! Just how
stupid are you ?

---
LOL, not as stupid as someone who spells 'Worcestershire' as
'Worcester' (or something like that) when the sauce comes from his
own country!


--
JF

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:38:53 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

............ the fact remains that Hitler _did_ attack you.

IMO, an unavoidable consequence of his megalomaniacal desire for
power and empire, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Are you
really naive enough to believe that even if he professed admiration
for Britain he'd leave you alone when his ultimate goal was to
conquer the world?

And it would be that much simpler for him to do so with Britain as an ally. Indeed with Britain
as an ally, it's so much more unlikely that the USA would have taken up arms against a 'Europe
Empire'.

---
Do you think he would have stopped with Europe?

Do YOU think at all ?

---
Certainly, but the reason you don't seem to think so is because
you're so unfamiliar with the process.
---

There's certainly not much evidence for it.

---
Because he lost the war, is why. Otherwise the sun wouldn't set on
the German Empire. Oh, wait... wasn't that phrase used earlier by
some other empire wanting to control the world?
---

For heaven's sake do yourself a favour and learn some
history from sources that haven't been written by delinquent Americans.

---
Like you? Don't make me laugh...


--
JF

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:41:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

the question was:

"And if he had left you alone, would you have been willing to be
pals with someone who was directly responsible for the holocaust?"

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Absolutely NOT. Whatever made you think otherwise ? If you weren't so retarded, my previous answer
would have made that obvious.

---
Well, if you weren't so devious asking the question twice wouldn't
have been necessary. OK, let's do a little exploring.

Say that Hitler had left you completely alone, had committed the
atrocities and overtaken all of Europe with the war ending without
the intervention of anyone.

What would you have done when the atrocities came to light?


--
JF

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

If you didn't mean 'during', you shouldn't have used the word 'during' ! Just how
stupid are you ?

---
LOL, not as stupid as someone who spells 'Worcestershire' as
'Worcester' (or something like that) when the sauce comes from his
own country!

Worcester is the city. Worcestershire is the county. There is no misspelling you ignorant
****.

'Worcester sauce' is what it's often called here.

" Worcestershire sauce is generically referred to as Worcester sauce (IPA: /?w?st?(?)/)
when not manufactured by Lea and Perrins ".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcestershire_sauce

MORON !

Graham

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

the question was:

"And if he had left you alone, would you have been willing to be
pals with someone who was directly responsible for the holocaust?"

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Absolutely NOT. Whatever made you think otherwise ? If you weren't so retarded, my previous answer
would have made that obvious.

---
Well, if you weren't so devious asking the question twice wouldn't
have been necessary. OK, let's do a little exploring.

Say that Hitler had left you completely alone, had committed the
atrocities and overtaken all of Europe with the war ending without
the intervention of anyone.

What would you have done when the atrocities came to light?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109779/

Explores those ideas.

Graham

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:43:42 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Your lack of education has led you to some quite bizarre conclusions. I suppose the
Battle of Britain and the Blitz were 'leaving us alone' were they ?
---
Nope, but Hitler never had it in his plans to leave you alone, no
matter what kind of "agreement" you all came to with him. He was
just waiting for the right time to strike.

********. John Jardine has just posted on this point to the exact reverse of what you
assert. Take it up with him.

---
Why? I have no quarrel with him

And that changes the facts of the matter does it ?

---
LOL, whether I had a quarrel with him or not, the _facts_ of the
matter wouldn't change one iota.
---

The fact is that he's right.

---
Now you're just trying to stir up **** in order to try to take the
heat off of yourself. Just more diversion, as flipper so accurately
pointed out, you miserable piece of ****.

You REALLY do need to get an education about history that's based on facts, not opinion.

---
That's just another one of your half-baked opinions.


--
JF

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:53:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

JosephKK wrote:

John, do the citizens of Puerto Rico or Guam vote in US national
elections?

---
No.
---

Are they US citizens?

---
Yes.

HYPOCRITE !

---
US citizens who were/are born on either Puerto Rico or Guam and
haven't established residence in the US,(the contiguous 48 states,
Alaska, or Hawaii) can't vote in US national or congressional
elections because one of the requirements for suffrage is either
being born in the US or establishing residence, as a citizen, in one
of the 50 states.

However, since Puerto Ricoan and Guamanian nationals are
full-fledged American citizens, are afforded unimpeded travel to and
from the US by virtue of their citizenship, and can establish
residence at _their_ discretion, assuming the responsibility for
casting their vote involves moving to the US and, more than likely,
being caught up in our milieu.

For further edification, take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage

--
JF

Eeyore posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:



JosephKK wrote:

Eeyore posted to
sci.electronics.design:
John Fields wrote:

---
Well, let's see. The war was in 1982 and they've only been
allowed
full British citizenship since 1983. Prior to that they were
second-class Brits, so I guess the tyranny ended in 1983, huh?

Show me a passport that says 'second class British citizen' will
you ?

The House of Lords would not allow anything so crass. There are
ordinary passports and there are rather different ones for the
titled nobility.

What different passports are these ?


You do realize that the UK is pretty much the last
monarchy on the planet don't you?

Simply not so. There are a number of constitutional monarchies in
Europe. In every case I can think of, the monarch is really quite
popular.

Belgium, Denmark, Holland/Netherlands, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Monaco, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK

Wikipedia lists 45 monarchies worlwide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch...s_of_the_world

Graham

Interesting. A good third of them are somehow related to the UK.
Most of the rest are mid-eastern or African.

flipper posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:04:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition) care
about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as, friend.
The government of Turkey, by officially denying it's citizens free
speech, shows a serious lack of character, dangerously similar to
other government leaders that the US and other governments have
castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

Including Saddam when it suited the USA.

False


You need to learn your history better, not only was Saddam one of our
previous clients so was Osama bin Laden.

Don Bowey posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On 10/20/07 7:06 AM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

On 10/18/07 10:10 AM, in article
, "Jim Thompson"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:42:34 -0700, Don Bowey


SNIP



You initiated this thread with a blurting of your personal
opinion (as you
often do). Why don't you expect better of yourself?

Typical leftist weenie SUBTERFUGE as a response.

Your paranoia is crashing though. Quit being a chicken ****;
what is my ulterior motive?

My response may be an indication that at least one person on the
board finds your elitist and personal use of the boards, a waste
of space.


Board? Board? Like an 1970's or 1980' BBS? Is that what you
think
USENET is? Or is it just sloppy language use that you won't bother
to clean up? BTW sloppy language use typically corresponds well
with sloppy thinking (r 0.9).




I believe what I posted was clear to most. No matter the means, SED
is a newsboard.

You're welcome to your opinion, as am I, and mine is you are
behaving as an ass, making a mountain where there isn't even a
molehill.

Find a better issue, and then try again, troll.

Sloppy word choice reflects sloppy thought. It was very specific
guidance offered that you may use to produce more credible posts.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:08:31 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

If you didn't mean 'during', you shouldn't have used the word 'during' ! Just how
stupid are you ?

---
LOL, not as stupid as someone who spells 'Worcestershire' as
'Worcester' (or something like that) when the sauce comes from his
own country!

Worcester is the city. Worcestershire is the county. There is no misspelling you ignorant
****.

'Worcester sauce' is what it's often called here.

" Worcestershire sauce is generically referred to as Worcester sauce (IPA: /?w?st?(?)/)
when not manufactured by Lea and Perrins ".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcestershire_sauce

MORON !

---
Well, in the context of your post which, as I recall, described
mixing a small amount of "Worcester" sauce into tomato juice or
something like that, the proper spelling would have been
"Worcestershire" unless you had some non - Lea and Perrins branded
sauce in mind. That is, you would have named the specific brand of
sauce you had in mind, of course, since we all know how diligently
you strive for accuracy and lack of ambiguity in your posts.

So, since there are, apparently, quite a few "Worcester" sauces,
which one did you have in mind?


--
JF

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition) care about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as, friend. The
government of Turkey, by officially denying it's citizens free speech, shows
a serious lack of character, dangerously similar to other government leaders
that the US and other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

Including Saddam when it suited the USA.

False

So the widely available pic of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand is a forgery ?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Even better, it's on video !
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8

AND the USA let him have chemical weapons material too.

JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU ?

The USA backed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war as a way of 'getting back at' Iran.

If you can't see that, there's simply no point in bothering to respond to your
insanity.

Graham

JosephKK wrote:

Eeyore posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:
JosephKK wrote:

You do realize that the UK is pretty much the last
monarchy on the planet don't you?

Wikipedia lists 45 monarchies worlwide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch...s_of_the_world


Interesting. A good third of them are somehow related to the UK.

Commonwealth members.


Most of the rest are mid-eastern or African.

So ? And how about the 9 other European ones ?

Thankfully a constitutional monarchy avoids the possibility of the likes of the
Bush dynasty.

Graham

JosephKK wrote:

flipper posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:
Eeyore wrote:

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

Including Saddam when it suited the USA.

False

You need to learn your history better, not only was Saddam one of our
previous clients so was Osama bin Laden.

I'm having to conclude that 'flipper' (sadly along with a significant number of
Americans) lives in some fictional world where reality is negotiable according
to the degree of current political manipulation.

Graham

On 10/21/07 1:43 AM, in article ,
"JosephKK" wrote:

Don Bowey posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On 10/20/07 7:06 AM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

On 10/18/07 10:10 AM, in article
, "Jim Thompson"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:42:34 -0700, Don Bowey


SNIP



You initiated this thread with a blurting of your personal
opinion (as you
often do). Why don't you expect better of yourself?

Typical leftist weenie SUBTERFUGE as a response.

Your paranoia is crashing though. Quit being a chicken ****;
what is my ulterior motive?

My response may be an indication that at least one person on the
board finds your elitist and personal use of the boards, a waste
of space.


Board? Board? Like an 1970's or 1980' BBS? Is that what you
think
USENET is? Or is it just sloppy language use that you won't bother
to clean up? BTW sloppy language use typically corresponds well
with sloppy thinking (r 0.9).




I believe what I posted was clear to most. No matter the means, SED
is a newsboard.

You're welcome to your opinion, as am I, and mine is you are
behaving as an ass, making a mountain where there isn't even a
molehill.

Find a better issue, and then try again, troll.

Sloppy word choice reflects sloppy thought. It was very specific
guidance offered that you may use to produce more credible posts.


Specific guidance? You give yourself too much credit.

In any case, I believe what I posted was clear enough for anyone who wasn't
trolling the newsboard looking for something to get picky about.

On 10/21/07 4:27 PM, in article ,
"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 10:51:46 -0700, Don Bowey wrote:

On 10/21/07 1:43 AM, in article ,
"JosephKK" wrote:

Don Bowey posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On 10/20/07 7:06 AM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

On 10/18/07 10:10 AM, in article
, "Jim Thompson"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:42:34 -0700, Don Bowey


SNIP



You initiated this thread with a blurting of your personal
opinion (as you
often do). Why don't you expect better of yourself?

Typical leftist weenie SUBTERFUGE as a response.

Your paranoia is crashing though. Quit being a chicken ****;
what is my ulterior motive?

My response may be an indication that at least one person on the
board finds your elitist and personal use of the boards, a waste
of space.


Board? Board? Like an 1970's or 1980' BBS? Is that what you
think
USENET is? Or is it just sloppy language use that you won't bother
to clean up? BTW sloppy language use typically corresponds well
with sloppy thinking (r 0.9).




I believe what I posted was clear to most. No matter the means, SED
is a newsboard.

You're welcome to your opinion, as am I, and mine is you are
behaving as an ass, making a mountain where there isn't even a
molehill.

Find a better issue, and then try again, troll.

Sloppy word choice reflects sloppy thought. It was very specific
guidance offered that you may use to produce more credible posts.


Specific guidance? You give yourself too much credit.

In any case, I believe what I posted was clear enough for anyone who wasn't
trolling the newsboard looking for something to get picky about.

Funny, I see what you do as exactly that.

Ok, give me a laugh too by showing me a couple.

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

On 10/21/07 1:43 AM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On 10/20/07 7:06 AM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

On 10/18/07 10:10 AM, in article
, "Jim Thompson"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:42:34 -0700, Don Bowey


SNIP



You initiated this thread with a blurting of your personal
opinion (as you
often do). Why don't you expect better of yourself?

Typical leftist weenie SUBTERFUGE as a response.

Your paranoia is crashing though. Quit being a chicken ****;
what is my ulterior motive?

My response may be an indication that at least one person on the
board finds your elitist and personal use of the boards, a waste
of space.


Board? Board? Like an 1970's or 1980' BBS? Is that what you
think
USENET is? Or is it just sloppy language use that you won't
bother
to clean up? BTW sloppy language use typically corresponds well
with sloppy thinking (r 0.9).




I believe what I posted was clear to most. No matter the means,
SED is a newsboard.

You're welcome to your opinion, as am I, and mine is you are
behaving as an ass, making a mountain where there isn't even a
molehill.

Find a better issue, and then try again, troll.

Sloppy word choice reflects sloppy thought. It was very specific
guidance offered that you may use to produce more credible posts.


Specific guidance? You give yourself too much credit.

In any case, I believe what I posted was clear enough for anyone who
wasn't trolling the newsboard looking for something to get picky
about.

I suppose that you never have been burned by a BBS pretending that it
was an Internet connection. Even though it was long ago, it taught
me the difference painfully. Even as a child i was taught to use
language carefully and as correctly as i can. I consistently find it
rewarding to forward the value of using language as accurately as
possible. Your experience does not seem to be similar to mine.

On 10/21/07 5:08 PM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

On 10/21/07 1:43 AM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On 10/20/07 7:06 AM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

On 10/18/07 10:10 AM, in article
, "Jim Thompson"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:42:34 -0700, Don Bowey


SNIP



You initiated this thread with a blurting of your personal
opinion (as you
often do). Why don't you expect better of yourself?

Typical leftist weenie SUBTERFUGE as a response.

Your paranoia is crashing though. Quit being a chicken ****;
what is my ulterior motive?

My response may be an indication that at least one person on the
board finds your elitist and personal use of the boards, a waste
of space.


Board? Board? Like an 1970's or 1980' BBS? Is that what you
think
USENET is? Or is it just sloppy language use that you won't
bother
to clean up? BTW sloppy language use typically corresponds well
with sloppy thinking (r 0.9).




I believe what I posted was clear to most. No matter the means,
SED is a newsboard.

You're welcome to your opinion, as am I, and mine is you are
behaving as an ass, making a mountain where there isn't even a
molehill.

Find a better issue, and then try again, troll.

Sloppy word choice reflects sloppy thought. It was very specific
guidance offered that you may use to produce more credible posts.


Specific guidance? You give yourself too much credit.

In any case, I believe what I posted was clear enough for anyone who
wasn't trolling the newsboard looking for something to get picky
about.

I suppose that you never have been burned by a BBS pretending that it
was an Internet connection.

I don't even understand the meaning of what you just said. Why would one
pretend a BBS is an internet connection.


Even though it was long ago, it taught
me the difference painfully. Even as a child i was taught to use
language carefully and as correctly as i can. I consistently find it
rewarding to forward the value of using language as accurately as
possible. Your experience does not seem to be similar to mine.


Language is vital. A good part of my career required high language skills,
which I obtained while in college, during which I never got less than a 4.0
along with other pleasant recognitions for my writing.

But I generally I don't believe in using a dozen words when a few will do,
as long as a usable communication will take place (unless I'm just horsing
around).

flipper posted to sci.electronics.design:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:27:21 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition)
care about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as,
friend. The government of Turkey, by officially denying it's
citizens free speech, shows a serious lack of character,
dangerously similar to other government leaders that the US and
other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

Including Saddam when it suited the USA.

False

So the widely available pic of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand is a
forgery ? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Even better, it's on video !
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8

Well, good golly Miss Molly, imagine that, a diplomat shaking hands.
surprise shock lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Whuda thunk
it?

Certainly not the loony tunes left with their fuzzy wuzzy "we'll
talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime" for ever and ever till our death
you do depart and standard 'diplomatic' greeting of a swift kick in
the balls. No handshakes from them, no sir'ee.

Madeline Albright showed how it's done to avoid 'appearances'. You
present a Michael Jordan autographed basketball to Kim Jong-il over
raised glasses in ear to ear grinning toast to each other.

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/8314

So there ya have it folks, by the left's own criteria the Clinton
Administration 'supported' the tyrant Kim Jong-il.

And for another shocker, that anti-communist firebrand Vice
President
Nixon shook Khrushchev's hand. And you thought there had been a
Cold War, did ya? Not so, according to the loony left, the U.S.
obviously. 'supported' Khrushchev. There's even a 'video' of it,
woo-hoo.

AND the USA let him have chemical weapons material too.

The U.S. did not "let him have chemical weapons," he made the stuff
on his own except for the turnkey poison gas plants the Germans and
French built for him. Those two, alone, accounted for about 74% of
all Saddam's chemical products, plants, and facilities.

In a rather rare and stunning act of restraint, when Saddam
approached the Soviet Union for a nuclear power plant they required
it be regulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Saddam
declined and the French gladly built it for him, no conditions, no
monitoring and no pesky regulation by the International Atomic
Energy Agency. Hey, a 3 billion sale is a 3 billion sale, what
France worry just because the Soviets do?

The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to
be used for manufacturing mustard gas. An Austrian company provided
Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. Austria also provided heat
exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical
weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales (that brings
the European provided chemical portion to around 90%). Singapore
provided 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard
gasses. The Dutch provided 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin,
tabun, mustard, and tear gasses. Egypt provided 2,400 tons of tabun
and sarin precursors and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for
carrying chemical munitions. India provided 2,343 tons of precursors
to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxembourg provided Iraq
650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain provided 57,500 munitions
designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided
reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq's chemical warfare
program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000
munitions designed for chemical warfare. Portugal provided
yellowcake between 1980 and 1982. Niger provided yellowcake in 1981.

And then there's Russian MIGs, tanks, attack helicopters, Chinese/N.
Korean SCUDs, French Mirage Jets, England, Spain, Holland and
Switzerland providing parts for his Project Babylon 'super gun'
(intended to blind satellites [yes, in space] and lob
chemical/nuclear warheads), and a host of other material.

The idiotic fairy tail that 'the U.S. armed Saddam' is patently
false by *any* measure and that makes the left either terminally
ignorant, brain dead, or world class liars; and my bet is all 3.

JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU ?

About average compared to an upper 10'th percentile I.Q. and you
look to be about average for brain dead.

The USA backed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war as a way of 'getting
back at' Iran.

If the U.S. had "backed Saddam" the borders wouldn't have ended up
the same as when it started.

If you can't see that, there's simply no point in bothering to
respond to your insanity.

You're a clueless fool.

Graham


I don't suppose that you can provide any support for all these claims?
Some decent backup might change my viewpoint.

Eeyore posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:



JosephKK wrote:

Eeyore posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:
JosephKK wrote:

You do realize that the UK is pretty much the last
monarchy on the planet don't you?

Wikipedia lists 45 monarchies worlwide.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch...s_of_the_world


Interesting. A good third of them are somehow related to the UK.

Commonwealth members.


Most of the rest are mid-eastern or African.

So ? And how about the 9 other European ones ?

They are probably all closely related, over a millenium of limited
choice in spouses.


Thankfully a constitutional monarchy avoids the possibility of the
likes of the Bush dynasty.

Not in the least, you might study some of the mid-eastern and African
monarchies some more. Some of them are quite ugly.



Graham

flipper posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:37:01 -0700, JosephKK
wrote:

flipper posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:04:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition)
care about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as, friend.
The government of Turkey, by officially denying it's citizens
free speech, shows a serious lack of character, dangerously
similar to other government leaders that the US and other
governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

Including Saddam when it suited the USA.

False


You need to learn your history better, not only was Saddam one of
our previous clients so was Osama bin Laden.


Having done some form of 'business' does not make one a 'supporter'
and you should do some historical learning yourself.

Saddam was the Soviet Union's 'boy' in the Middle East (take a
gander at his weapons stock some time) and U.S involvement consisted
of two basic approaches. One was an attempt to wean him away from
the Soviet sphere of influence (primarily with farm subsidies) and
the other was the policy of status quo during the Iran-Iraq War.

Henry Kissinger probably summed the U.S. opinion of the Iran-Iraq
War best when he said "it's a shame they can't both lose."
(although, one could argue that's exactly what happened in the end)

As for Bin Laden, your claim of being a 'client' is a nice joke on
circumstances. The U.S. had no one idea who the heck 'Bin Laden' was
(Al Qaeda didn't exist) nor did they 'chose' him for anything. It
just turned out he participated in the Afghan resistance during the
Soviet occupation

Go back a some more years to when we brought Osama here to give him a
fine US engineering education. It is all there in the records.

JosephKK wrote:
flipper posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

As for Bin Laden, your claim of being a 'client' is a nice joke on
circumstances. The U.S. had no one idea who the heck 'Bin Laden' was
(Al Qaeda didn't exist) nor did they 'chose' him for anything. It
just turned out he participated in the Afghan resistance during the
Soviet occupation

Go back a some more years to when we brought Osama here to give him a
fine US engineering education. It is all there in the records.

Hardly a US political decision. We have allowed hundreds of thousands
of students from foreign countries to come to the US and get a college
education. You make it sound like some administration or another looked
through the rogues gallery, and said, "Here's a real rotter, lets educate
him so he can become a worthy adversary!"

flipper posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:25:25 -0700, JosephKK
wrote:

flipper posted to sci.electronics.design:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:27:21 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition)
care about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as,
friend. The government of Turkey, by officially denying it's
citizens free speech, shows a serious lack of character,
dangerously similar to other government leaders that the US
and other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

Including Saddam when it suited the USA.

False

So the widely available pic of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand is a
forgery ? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Even better, it's on video !
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8

Well, good golly Miss Molly, imagine that, a diplomat shaking
hands. surprise shock lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Whuda
thunk it?

Certainly not the loony tunes left with their fuzzy wuzzy "we'll
talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime" for ever and ever till our
death you do depart and standard 'diplomatic' greeting of a swift
kick in the balls. No handshakes from them, no sir'ee.

Madeline Albright showed how it's done to avoid 'appearances'. You
present a Michael Jordan autographed basketball to Kim Jong-il
over raised glasses in ear to ear grinning toast to each other.

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/8314

So there ya have it folks, by the left's own criteria the Clinton
Administration 'supported' the tyrant Kim Jong-il.

And for another shocker, that anti-communist firebrand Vice
President
Nixon shook Khrushchev's hand. And you thought there had been a
Cold War, did ya? Not so, according to the loony left, the U.S.
obviously. 'supported' Khrushchev. There's even a 'video' of it,
woo-hoo.

AND the USA let him have chemical weapons material too.

The U.S. did not "let him have chemical weapons," he made the
stuff on his own except for the turnkey poison gas plants the
Germans and French built for him. Those two, alone, accounted for
about 74% of all Saddam's chemical products, plants, and
facilities.

In a rather rare and stunning act of restraint, when Saddam
approached the Soviet Union for a nuclear power plant they
required it be regulated by the International Atomic Energy
Agency. Saddam declined and the French gladly built it for him, no
conditions, no monitoring and no pesky regulation by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Hey, a 3 billion sale is a 3
billion sale, what France worry just because the Soviets do?

The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended
to be used for manufacturing mustard gas. An Austrian company
provided Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. Austria also
provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the
Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international
sales (that brings the European provided chemical portion to
around 90%). Singapore provided 4,515 tons of precursors for VX,
sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses. The Dutch provided 4,261 tons of
precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses. Egypt
provided 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors and 28,500 tons
of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India
provided 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard
gasses. Luxembourg provided Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas
precursors. Spain provided 57,500 munitions designed for carrying
chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers,
columns and tanks for Iraq's chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the
international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for
chemical warfare. Portugal provided yellowcake between 1980 and
1982. Niger provided yellowcake in 1981.

And then there's Russian MIGs, tanks, attack helicopters,
Chinese/N. Korean SCUDs, French Mirage Jets, England, Spain,
Holland and Switzerland providing parts for his Project Babylon
'super gun' (intended to blind satellites [yes, in space] and lob
chemical/nuclear warheads), and a host of other material.

The idiotic fairy tail that 'the U.S. armed Saddam' is patently
false by *any* measure and that makes the left either terminally
ignorant, brain dead, or world class liars; and my bet is all 3.

JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU ?

About average compared to an upper 10'th percentile I.Q. and you
look to be about average for brain dead.

The USA backed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war as a way of
'getting back at' Iran.

If the U.S. had "backed Saddam" the borders wouldn't have ended up
the same as when it started.

If you can't see that, there's simply no point in bothering to
respond to your insanity.

You're a clueless fool.

Graham


I don't suppose that you can provide any support for all these
claims? Some decent backup might change my viewpoint.

I couldn't begin to list all the sources I've researched over the
years but the short list above is cut and paste from wikipedia.
except I edited "gave" to "provided" because, IMO, "gave" overstates
the case. I also cut a few "to Iraq" out because it was boringly
repetitive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_wmd

None of that is 'new', however.

Another source is FAS. Like this article from 2003.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

Iraqi Scientist Reports on German, Other Help for Iraq Chemical
Weapons Program

"German scientists estimate the production capacity of the Samarra
complex at thousands of tons per year. This was also confirmed in
the 1984 report published by the US Central Intelligence Agency. The
report said that the factories in Sammara were producing lethal
nerve gases. Later, the US government provided the German government
with evidence related to the activities of this complex. The
evidence was in the form of satellite images that revealed six-story
buildings buried underground. The West German government rejected
the evidence claiming that it did not prove anything against Iraq.
This US insistence really worried the German Karl Kolb engineers and
technicians that worked in the Samarra factories. They were so
worried that Israel might bomb the Samarra complex that they
hastened to build shelters to protect the personnel and the
warehouses were the poison gases were stored."

I picked that segment because it not only refers to the German
plants but goes to another of the left wing myths, that the U.S. did
'nothing' when Iraq used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.
In fact, the U.S., as the article shows, was trying to get it
stopped and the Germans refused to believe the evidence.

A place to get weapons and military stores is globalsecurity.org.
Like here where you can find Saddam's Air Force inventory (as well
as current Iraqi Air Force inventory)


http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-equipment.htm

Btw, another point of interest, Saddam's integrated air defense
system (IADS) was provided by the French too, named "KARI IADS"
because "KARI" is Irak (French for Iraq) backwards, upgraded to
fiber optic interconnects by the Chinese.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ir-defence.htm

For the Project Babylon Supergun, it's also referenced in the
wikipedia article

"The [British] government secretly gave the arms company Matrix
Churchill permission to supply parts for the Iraqi super gun,
precipitating the Arms-to-Iraq affair when it became known."

and you can find more detail at FAS

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm

Let's see: you seem to expect me to really take Wikipedia as
authoritative after you announce that you have edited it to suit;
You call on fas.org when the whole supergun thing is pure poppycock
and completely un-physical 1920's b-grade science fiction hokum;
Not even Al Jazeera trusts anything global security has to say.

Don Bowey posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On 10/21/07 5:08 PM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

On 10/21/07 1:43 AM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On 10/20/07 7:06 AM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:

Don Bowey posted to sci.electronics.design:

On 10/18/07 10:10 AM, in article
, "Jim Thompson"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:42:34 -0700, Don Bowey


SNIP



You initiated this thread with a blurting of your personal
opinion (as you
often do). Why don't you expect better of yourself?

Typical leftist weenie SUBTERFUGE as a response.

Your paranoia is crashing though. Quit being a chicken ****;
what is my ulterior motive?

My response may be an indication that at least one person on
the board finds your elitist and personal use of the boards, a
waste of space.


Board? Board? Like an 1970's or 1980' BBS? Is that what you
think
USENET is? Or is it just sloppy language use that you won't
bother
to clean up? BTW sloppy language use typically corresponds
well with sloppy thinking (r 0.9).




I believe what I posted was clear to most. No matter the means,
SED is a newsboard.

You're welcome to your opinion, as am I, and mine is you are
behaving as an ass, making a mountain where there isn't even a
molehill.

Find a better issue, and then try again, troll.

Sloppy word choice reflects sloppy thought. It was very specific
guidance offered that you may use to produce more credible posts.


Specific guidance? You give yourself too much credit.

In any case, I believe what I posted was clear enough for anyone
who wasn't trolling the newsboard looking for something to get
picky about.

I suppose that you never have been burned by a BBS pretending that
it was an Internet connection.

I don't even understand the meaning of what you just said. Why
would one pretend a BBS is an internet connection.

I don't suppose that you have ever heard of the "profit" motive?


Even though it was long ago, it taught
me the difference painfully. Even as a child i was taught to use
language carefully and as correctly as i can. I consistently find
it rewarding to forward the value of using language as accurately
as
possible. Your experience does not seem to be similar to mine.


Language is vital. A good part of my career required high language
skills, which I obtained while in college, during which I never got
less than a 4.0 along with other pleasant recognitions for my
writing.

But I generally I don't believe in using a dozen words when a few
will do, as long as a usable communication will take place (unless
I'm just horsing around).

What an amazing claim, i never asked for a dozen words, just one
different one. Your claim to skill and care in word choice has not
supported.

JosephKK wrote:

Eeyore posted
JosephKK wrote:
Eeyore posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:
JosephKK wrote:

You do realize that the UK is pretty much the last
monarchy on the planet don't you?

Wikipedia lists 45 monarchies worlwide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch...s_of_the_world

Interesting. A good third of them are somehow related to the UK.

Commonwealth members.

Most of the rest are mid-eastern or African.

So ? And how about the 9 other European ones ?

They are probably all closely related, over a millenium of limited
choice in spouses.

So what ? Irrelevant.


Thankfully a constitutional monarchy avoids the possibility of the
likes of the Bush dynasty.

Not in the least, you might study some of the mid-eastern and African
monarchies some more. Some of them are quite ugly.

And completely different to the European monarchies. How many of those you
mention are *constitutional* monarchies

Graham

On 10/26/07 5:57 AM, in article
, "JosephKK"
wrote:


But obviously, better than your own. Allow me to correct your sentence to
what you intended, no matter how wrong:


Your claim to skill and care in word choice has not supported.
^
been

Jim Thompson wrote in
:

Where's the benefit to our country when a Democratic-Party-dominated
Congress is trying to pass a bill chastising the Turks for Armenian
"genocide" that occurred in 1915... NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO?

The answer... NONE!

It's nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to anger a very good ally.

Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?

...Jim Thompson

What in the hell does this have to do with anything electronic? I come here
for and to help, not get mixed up in political debat. This entire thread is
so plonked it is not even funny.

--
~Ohmster | ohmster /a/t/ ohmster dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:16:27 -0500, Ohmster
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote in
:

Where's the benefit to our country when a Democratic-Party-dominated
Congress is trying to pass a bill chastising the Turks for Armenian
"genocide" that occurred in 1915... NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO?

The answer... NONE!

It's nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to anger a very good ally.

Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?

...Jim Thompson

What in the hell does this have to do with anything electronic? I come here
for and to help, not get mixed up in political debat. This entire thread is
so plonked it is not even funny.

Who the hell is Ohmster?

John

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:49:24 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:16:27 -0500, Ohmster
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote in
m:

Where's the benefit to our country when a Democratic-Party-dominated
Congress is trying to pass a bill chastising the Turks for Armenian
"genocide" that occurred in 1915... NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO?

The answer... NONE!

It's nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to anger a very good ally.

Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?

...Jim Thompson

What in the hell does this have to do with anything electronic? I come here
for and to help, not get mixed up in political debat. This entire thread is
so plonked it is not even funny.

Who the hell is Ohmster?

John

Someone who can't spell ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:49:24 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:16:27 -0500, Ohmster
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote in
m:

Where's the benefit to our country when a Democratic-Party-dominated
Congress is trying to pass a bill chastising the Turks for Armenian
"genocide" that occurred in 1915... NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO?

The answer... NONE!

It's nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to anger a very good ally.

Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?

...Jim Thompson

What in the hell does this have to do with anything electronic? I come here
for and to help, not get mixed up in political debat. This entire thread is
so plonked it is not even funny.

Who the hell is Ohmster?

John

Someone who can't spell ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:59:20 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:49:24 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:16:27 -0500, Ohmster
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote in
:

Where's the benefit to our country when a Democratic-Party-dominated
Congress is trying to pass a bill chastising the Turks for Armenian
"genocide" that occurred in 1915... NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO?

The answer... NONE!

It's nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to anger a very good ally.

Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?

...Jim Thompson

What in the hell does this have to do with anything electronic? I come here
for and to help, not get mixed up in political debat. This entire thread is
so plonked it is not even funny.

Who the hell is Ohmster?

John

Someone who can't spell ?:-)

...Jim Thompson


That narrows down the field only slightly.

John

Eeyore posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:



JosephKK wrote:

Eeyore posted
JosephKK wrote:
Eeyore posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:
JosephKK wrote:

You do realize that the UK is pretty much the last
monarchy on the planet don't you?

Wikipedia lists 45 monarchies worlwide.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch...s_of_the_world

Interesting. A good third of them are somehow related to the
UK.

Commonwealth members.

Most of the rest are mid-eastern or African.

So ? And how about the 9 other European ones ?

They are probably all closely related, over a millenium of limited
choice in spouses.

So what ? Irrelevant.

The same diseased gene pool.



Thankfully a constitutional monarchy avoids the possibility of
the likes of the Bush dynasty.

Not in the least, you might study some of the mid-eastern and
African
monarchies some more. Some of them are quite ugly.

And completely different to the European monarchies. How many of
those you mention are *constitutional* monarchies

Now you are trying to make a distinction, just two posts ago you were
lumping them all together. Consistency is certainly not a hobgoblin
for you.



Graham

Chuck Harris posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

JosephKK wrote:
flipper posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

As for Bin Laden, your claim of being a 'client' is a nice joke on
circumstances. The U.S. had no one idea who the heck 'Bin Laden'
was (Al Qaeda didn't exist) nor did they 'chose' him for anything.
It just turned out he participated in the Afghan resistance during
the Soviet occupation

Go back a some more years to when we brought Osama here to give him
a
fine US engineering education. It is all there in the records.

Hardly a US political decision. We have allowed hundreds of
thousands of students from foreign countries to come to the US and
get a college
education. You make it sound like some administration or another
looked through the rogues gallery, and said, "Here's a real rotter,
lets educate him so he can become a worthy adversary!"

Ooohh, nice juxtaposition of pure bull****. He came willingly at the
State Department's invitation for the education. After all he was
helping us fight the "commies" back then.

flipper posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:25:42 GMT, JosephKK
wrote:

flipper posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:37:01 -0700, JosephKK
wrote:

flipper posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:04:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your definition)
care about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as,
friend. The government of Turkey, by officially denying it's
citizens free speech, shows a serious lack of character,
dangerously similar to other government leaders that the US
and other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

Including Saddam when it suited the USA.

False


You need to learn your history better, not only was Saddam one of
our previous clients so was Osama bin Laden.


Having done some form of 'business' does not make one a
'supporter' and you should do some historical learning yourself.

Saddam was the Soviet Union's 'boy' in the Middle East (take a
gander at his weapons stock some time) and U.S involvement
consisted of two basic approaches. One was an attempt to wean him
away from the Soviet sphere of influence (primarily with farm
subsidies) and the other was the policy of status quo during the
Iran-Iraq War.

Henry Kissinger probably summed the U.S. opinion of the Iran-Iraq
War best when he said "it's a shame they can't both lose."
(although, one could argue that's exactly what happened in the
end)

As for Bin Laden, your claim of being a 'client' is a nice joke on
circumstances. The U.S. had no one idea who the heck 'Bin Laden'
was (Al Qaeda didn't exist) nor did they 'chose' him for anything.
It just turned out he participated in the Afghan resistance during
the Soviet occupation

Go back a some more years to when we brought Osama here to give him
a
fine US engineering education. It is all there in the records.


What an exquisite example of "so what?" I supposed you figure he
wrote "future head of Al Qaeda and destroyer of the Twin Towers" on
his application.

And 'we brought' him here, kicking and screaming, eh? U.S. officials
went scouring the Middle East trying to find a 'terrorist to
'educate' and, what luck, we found one.

The left would be hilarious if they weren't so intellectually
pathetic.

What's the matter, can't handle a little inconvenient for you truth?
You are a pseudo-hawk in creeps clothing, not even worthy of being
called a sheeple.

flipper posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:51:25 -0700, JosephKK
wrote:

flipper posted to
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:25:25 -0700, JosephKK
wrote:

flipper posted to sci.electronics.design:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:27:21 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Some of us (the leftist weenie contingent by your
definition) care about the
character of the people we choose to call, and treat as,
friend. The government of Turkey, by officially denying
it's citizens free speech, shows a serious lack of
character, dangerously similar to other government leaders
that the US and other governments have castigated.

The USA has a long history of supporting tyrants.

Including Saddam when it suited the USA.

False

So the widely available pic of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand is
a forgery ? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Even better, it's on video !
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8

Well, good golly Miss Molly, imagine that, a diplomat shaking
hands. surprise shock lions and tigers and bears, oh my.
Whuda thunk it?

Certainly not the loony tunes left with their fuzzy wuzzy "we'll
talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime" for ever and ever till our
death you do depart and standard 'diplomatic' greeting of a
swift kick in the balls. No handshakes from them, no sir'ee.

Madeline Albright showed how it's done to avoid 'appearances'.
You present a Michael Jordan autographed basketball to Kim
Jong-il over raised glasses in ear to ear grinning toast to each
other.

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/8314

So there ya have it folks, by the left's own criteria the
Clinton Administration 'supported' the tyrant Kim Jong-il.

And for another shocker, that anti-communist firebrand Vice
President
Nixon shook Khrushchev's hand. And you thought there had been a
Cold War, did ya? Not so, according to the loony left, the U.S.
obviously. 'supported' Khrushchev. There's even a 'video' of it,
woo-hoo.

AND the USA let him have chemical weapons material too.

The U.S. did not "let him have chemical weapons," he made the
stuff on his own except for the turnkey poison gas plants the
Germans and French built for him. Those two, alone, accounted
for about 74% of all Saddam's chemical products, plants, and
facilities.

In a rather rare and stunning act of restraint, when Saddam
approached the Soviet Union for a nuclear power plant they
required it be regulated by the International Atomic Energy
Agency. Saddam declined and the French gladly built it for him,
no conditions, no monitoring and no pesky regulation by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Hey, a 3 billion sale is a 3
billion sale, what France worry just because the Soviets do?

The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended
to be used for manufacturing mustard gas. An Austrian company
provided Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. Austria also
provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the
Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international
sales (that brings the European provided chemical portion to
around 90%). Singapore provided 4,515 tons of precursors for VX,
sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses. The Dutch provided 4,261 tons
of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses. Egypt
provided 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors and 28,500
tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India
provided 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and
mustard gasses. Luxembourg provided Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas
precursors. Spain provided 57,500 munitions designed for
carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors,
condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq's chemical warfare
program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000
munitions designed for chemical warfare. Portugal provided
yellowcake between 1980 and 1982. Niger provided yellowcake in
1981.

And then there's Russian MIGs, tanks, attack helicopters,
Chinese/N. Korean SCUDs, French Mirage Jets, England, Spain,
Holland and Switzerland providing parts for his Project Babylon
'super gun' (intended to blind satellites [yes, in space] and
lob chemical/nuclear warheads), and a host of other material.

The idiotic fairy tail that 'the U.S. armed Saddam' is patently
false by *any* measure and that makes the left either terminally
ignorant, brain dead, or world class liars; and my bet is all 3.

JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU ?

About average compared to an upper 10'th percentile I.Q. and you
look to be about average for brain dead.

The USA backed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war as a way of
'getting back at' Iran.

If the U.S. had "backed Saddam" the borders wouldn't have ended
up the same as when it started.

If you can't see that, there's simply no point in bothering to
respond to your insanity.

You're a clueless fool.

Graham


I don't suppose that you can provide any support for all these
claims? Some decent backup might change my viewpoint.

I couldn't begin to list all the sources I've researched over the
years but the short list above is cut and paste from wikipedia.
except I edited "gave" to "provided" because, IMO, "gave"
overstates the case. I also cut a few "to Iraq" out because it was
boringly repetitive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_wmd

None of that is 'new', however.

Another source is FAS. Like this article from 2003.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

Iraqi Scientist Reports on German, Other Help for Iraq Chemical
Weapons Program

"German scientists estimate the production capacity of the Samarra
complex at thousands of tons per year. This was also confirmed in
the 1984 report published by the US Central Intelligence Agency.
The report said that the factories in Sammara were producing
lethal nerve gases. Later, the US government provided the German
government with evidence related to the activities of this
complex. The evidence was in the form of satellite images that
revealed six-story buildings buried underground. The West German
government rejected the evidence claiming that it did not prove
anything against Iraq. This US insistence really worried the
German Karl Kolb engineers and technicians that worked in the
Samarra factories. They were so worried that Israel might bomb the
Samarra complex that they hastened to build shelters to protect
the personnel and the warehouses were the poison gases were
stored."

I picked that segment because it not only refers to the German
plants but goes to another of the left wing myths, that the U.S.
did 'nothing' when Iraq used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq
war. In fact, the U.S., as the article shows, was trying to get it
stopped and the Germans refused to believe the evidence.

A place to get weapons and military stores is globalsecurity.org.
Like here where you can find Saddam's Air Force inventory (as well
as current Iraqi Air Force inventory)


http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-equipment.htm

Btw, another point of interest, Saddam's integrated air defense
system (IADS) was provided by the French too, named "KARI IADS"
because "KARI" is Irak (French for Iraq) backwards, upgraded to
fiber optic interconnects by the Chinese.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ir-defence.htm

For the Project Babylon Supergun, it's also referenced in the
wikipedia article

"The [British] government secretly gave the arms company Matrix
Churchill permission to supply parts for the Iraqi super gun,
precipitating the Arms-to-Iraq affair when it became known."

and you can find more detail at FAS

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm

Let's see: you seem to expect me to really take Wikipedia as
authoritative after you announce that you have edited it to suit;

I told you what I changed ("gave" to "provided" because I know for a
fact that Saddam purchased much, if not all, of the material so it
was not 'given' away) ) and it alters not one thing relevant to the
issue at hand and, further, you have the source in case you wonder.

Your 'complaint' is typical left wing bunk: anything to avoid the
truth.

You call on fas.org

Just one of many. Try
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...q/supergun.htm

Or try doing a google. It's no 'secret' anymore despite your
ignorance on the matter.


when the whole supergun thing is pure poppycock
and completely un-physical 1920's b-grade science fiction hokum;

I'll entertain your 'expert' opinion just as soon as you provide
verifiable credentials of your artillery design expertise. Till then
I'll lean in the direction of the real experts, like Gerald Bull,
who had a track record of building some of, if not the, largest
artillery pieces in the world and that are still in service with
multiple military forces.

The Iraqi 'supergun' was an extension of his HARP work during the
time he worked with the U.S. Military.

The 350mm prototype was built at Jabal Hamrayn and worked. It was
dismantled by UNSCOM after the first Gulf War.

The 1000mm version wasn't completed because the British intercepted
the final barrel components. Other Supergun components were soon
discovered throughout Europe, including the breach-block in Italy
and recoil mechanisms in West Germany and Switzerland. Then the Gulf
War occurred, precluding any more work on it.

Not even Al Jazeera trusts anything global security has to say.

Oh, now *there* is a 'trusted source' for artillery information.

Lies and bull****. Your sewage will simply be flushed now. You never
did and never will know squat about physics, strength of materials,
or speed of combustion. These tools alone are sufficient to
demonstrate that there never was any supergun.

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:16:27 -0500, Ohmster
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote in
:

Where's the benefit to our country when a Democratic-Party-dominated
Congress is trying to pass a bill chastising the Turks for Armenian
"genocide" that occurred in 1915... NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO?

The answer... NONE!

It's nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to anger a very good ally.

Are Democrats SO stupid as to think that most Americans will not
recognize this attempt for exactly what it is?

...Jim Thompson

What in the hell does this have to do with anything electronic? I come here
for and to help, not get mixed up in political debat. This entire thread is
so plonked it is not even funny.

---
LOL, you're new here, aren't you?

First, let me point out an apparent contradiction in your post,
namely that you say you're not here to get mixed up in political
debat while in the same breath replying to a thread devoted to
political debat.

Second, let me point out that by replying to the post you will
surely generate replies that wouldn't have occurred had you kept
your mouth shut, further embroiling you in the debat which you
stated you wanted to stay out of.

Third, let me point out that 'debat' is what's used in baseball to
hit deball.


--
JF

JosephKK wrote:

Eeyore posted
JosephKK wrote:
Eeyore posted
JosephKK wrote:
Eeyore posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:
JosephKK wrote:

You do realize that the UK is pretty much the last
monarchy on the planet don't you?

Wikipedia lists 45 monarchies worlwide.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch...s_of_the_world

Interesting. A good third of them are somehow related to the
UK.

Commonwealth members.

Most of the rest are mid-eastern or African.

So ? And how about the 9 other European ones ?

They are probably all closely related, over a millenium of limited
choice in spouses.

So what ? Irrelevant.

The same diseased gene pool.

OH, Puhleeeeze !

Do you seriously think they never marry outside a narrow group ? That is SO
pathetic !


Thankfully a constitutional monarchy avoids the possibility of
the likes of the Bush dynasty.

Not in the least, you might study some of the mid-eastern and
African monarchies some more. Some of them are quite ugly.

And completely different to the European monarchies. How many of
those you mention are *constitutional* monarchies

Now you are trying to make a distinction, just two posts ago you were
lumping them all together.

No I wasn't. You're delsional.

Graham