Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #401   Report Post  
Abrasha
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gunner wrote:



You name two our of thousands. Care for me to name Dems we hold in
contempt? Names that are household words? Names associated with the
worst in government, and the DNC?

Really want me to go there?

Gunner


Sure, why not. Go there. You're on a roll.

Oh, I forgot, you're always on a roll.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
  #402   Report Post  
Pope Secola VI
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dan wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message
...

On 22 Apr 2005 21:29:28 -0700, "
wrote:


Is Iraq better off because of the invasion? Probably.


A) They had water.


Only in Baghdad it was common for women and children to carry water many
miles from a common well to their homes in the smaller cities in Iraq.

B) They had no terrorists in the streets.


That is unless you don't count the secret police as terrorists. But
they acted the same way as a terrorist so who counts.

C) They had ~100,000+ more people.


Actually the civilian death toll is only about 27,000 or so. A far cry
from your 100,000.

D) they had limited means of self defense.


Self defense on paper maybe. But defense against whom?????

E) They had electrical power.


Initial survey by the US Government Agency for International Development
indicated that 85% of the Iraqi people only had limited electrical
power. The Power averaged about 10 hours a week.

F) They had sewage systems.


If you call flinging a bucket of human wastes out into the street a sewer.

G) They had shops & businesses.


Yeap and Saddam took all the money.

H) They did NOT have religion ruling them.


And they do now. You need to get a better source of info. The Kurds
have been out from under Saddam for at least 8 years now and they don't
have a religious government.

I) They once had good health care.


Yea right they had one of the highest infant death rates around not to
mention that 1/4 of the people who went into the hospital never came
back out.

J) They once had decent schools.


Yea schools with out books, paper, pencils, and teachers that could
barley read or write themselves.



K) They had oil.


They still got oil. Only now the money coming from oil is going into
the public treasury and not in the the pockets of corrupt French, German
and UN officials.

HTH



Of course, you meant "before" and not "because of"

Dan






--
"White people in this country will have quite enough to do in learning how
to accept and love themselves and each other, and when they have achieved
this - which will not be tomorrow and may very well be never - the Negro
problem will no longer exist, for it will no longer be needed."

- James Baldwin -
"The Fire Next Time"




--
This is what extremely grieves us, that a man who never fought
Should contrive our fees to pilfer,
One who for his native land, Never to this day had oar, or lance
or blister in his hand

Aristophanes
450 - 385 B.C.
  #403   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:33:11 -0700, Abrasha
wrote:

Gunner wrote:


Educate yourself, then get back to me. Its not my job to teach you all
the things you have missed out on.


If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com


Id ask you the same question.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
  #404   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:55:24 -0700, Abrasha
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Enjoy life to the fullest.

Shrug.

End of discussion.

Gunner


And the life you have chosen for yourself is living life to the fullest?

Yeah right.

You are a loser of biblical proportions, with nothing more than anger, hate and
fear for all things of beauty around you. You are so blinded by you petty
little emotions, that you can't even begin to see all the great things that life
has to offer.

What a sick sorry excuse for a man you are. What's that line again, you like to
use so much? Oh yeah, "Denial is not a river in Egypt". Look at yourself man,
and act like one for a change. Knowing how to use a gun doesn't make you a man.


Guns? They are only a tool. Like a lathe, a lawnmower or a
screwdriver. Fascinating that you brought that up in the discussion.

Being a homosexual emigre from Holland makes you no more or less a man
either. Shrug.

I have no need to discuss my life, or my responsiblities to others,
with you. In fact, I could care less about your opinion of me. Thats
reserved for family and friends, neither of which group fortunately
includes you.

Im reminded of the movie Rainman. The Dustin Hoffman charector did one
thing in his otherwise autistic life. Very similar to you in fact.
Shrug again.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke
  #405   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:43:45 -0700, Abrasha
wrote:

Gunner wrote:


And you Sir, are a pompus asshole of the first water.


Ah, Gunner is lost for words.

It must really
really suck to be you.


I think you got that one wrong. The man is educated, a published writer,
someone who as actually accomplished some thing(s) in his life. I assume he
also draws a respectable salary. And I would think that he has a family life.

You on the other hand, are uneducated, without any accomplishment or career to
speak off. You live like trailer trash somewhere in the desert in California
with a **** load or rusting metal in what you like to call a back yard.

From what I have been able to put together about you over the years in the ng,
it must really suck to be you.

All you have is your anger. I have a feeling that these few newsgroups may be
the only places where you are actually still taken seriously by a handful of
people, because some people still engage in a discussion with you. Or at least
they take the trouble to respond to you.

Ed is one of those few people, who continues to tirelessly debate you.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com


Again, after so many years, and so much babble from you, your opinion
is noted.

Im not quite sure how you escaped from my kill file, but its simple
enough to put you back in. Perhaps you and Fast Eddy will enjoy each
others company. Oh..I would watch out for the semi naked white
supremacists that went in there a week or so ago. I think they are
rough trade gays.

On the other hand..you may Really enjoy their company

plink

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke


  #406   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:11:05 -0400, "Proto" wrote:


Cliff I am not sure if you are asking this of me but if you are I would
respond by simply saying I just don't know and would have to give it some
thought. I have never spent any real time wondering what I might do on a
personal level to change things from their predetermined path if that is
what must be done. Otherwise what would you suggest I be concentrating on
that would be of any consequences. Might you simply care to have me expose
my political views for the sake of criticizing alone? Would you have me say
I am in favor of diminishing the rights of other people for the realization
of a political objective? Otherwise I am not sure if I understand your
question.


I'm not picking on you.
Most of that was agreement.
--
Cliff
  #407   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 25 Apr 2005 05:42:50 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

I suppose invading neighboring countries doesn't
count either.


Apparently not to the Bush.

Note that Saddam's invasion of Iran was proposed, supported, and
informed by us.


Really? That's an interesting spin, seeing how the war between Iraq and
Iran started in Sept. 1980 (when Carter was pres.)


And Iran was holding those hostages that were released on the
day Ronnie Raygun became pres?
They had a deal to get rid of Carter it seems.

Then we had Iran/Contra, right?

and the "record" you
are talking about is US National Security Directive 114 was issued in
Nov. 1983.


From the "National Sercurity Archive":
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

[
The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for
Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear
aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon
capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human
rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on
Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to
provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by
Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald
Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
..........

Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In
that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a
matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document
indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise
the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.
..........
U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution
seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's
chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about
the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response
and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical
warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the
Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's
refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected
from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's
intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of
eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be
inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the
moral and religious basis which it claims."
]

So the use of "WMDs" by Iraq was fine with the US: Rumsfeld,
Bush-I, Ronnie Raygun, etc.
Pretty much the entire crew, except for junior.

It was IRAN that was objecting and wanted Sadam ousted.
The US wanted him IN, "WMDs" & all.

The reason we supported Iraq at that time was because they
were losing the war with Iran. The Iranians were in Iraq all the way to
Basra, and were on the verge of winning the war.


Trying to toss out Saddam ...
I see.

If you want to talk
about history you need to take off your rose colored glasses and look
through the lens of the world that existed in 1983. Would it have been a
good thing for stability in the region to have Iraq taken over by Iran?


Gee, how is it NOW?

From Iraq the Iranians would be a threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the
rest of the Guulf states.


Why? Did Vietnam take over the world too?

Iran is a far different country today than they
were in 1980 don't forget.


Plagues of neocons & wingers ....

I don't see how letting them take control of
the worlds oil supply back in 1980 was a good thing. Maybe you could
enlighten us?


NOW the price has gone up ....
--
Cliff
  #408   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 25 Apr 2005 05:42:50 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

His invasion of Kuwait was authorized by us.


Another fabrication. U.S. ambassador April Glaspie


And a few others IIRC.

met with Saddam a week
before the invasion of Kuwait and assured Saddam that the U.S. wanted
better and deeper relations with Iraq, and that the U.S. didn't want to
wage war with Iraq. The Bush administration wrongly believed that Iraq
was not serious about invading Kuwait.


Saddam seemed rather clear about it & asked ....

They thought Saddam was bluffing
in order to get our attention.


Why? The history of Kuwait ...... and Saddam had just
done a lot of things for Bush-I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ronnie Raygun ..

Saddam mistook the diplomatic efforts as
permission to go ahead and invade.


Perhaps they should have said "No".
--
Cliff
  #409   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 25 Apr 2005 05:42:50 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

In any case, you've taken what I was saying way off track. Cliff is
making the assertion that Saddam didn't commit mass murder, genocide, or
torture. I provided plenty of evidence to the contrary. You snipped what
I wrote and turned it around in an effort to make me look foolish.


At this point all claims on the subject are very suspect IMHO.
You may recall all of the other neocon & winger lies ....

What does Aljazeera say?
--
Cliff
  #410   Report Post  
Bob Brock
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:44:41 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

Does Clinton's evils somehow justify Bush's in your mind?


Poor Monica was none of your business in the first place.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that Monica will never be "poor." Anything done
by a public figure is open for our entertainment. I just keep it in
perspective.




  #411   Report Post  
Bob Brock
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On 25 Apr 2005 05:42:50 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

I suppose invading neighboring countries doesn't
count either.

Apparently not to the Bush.

Note that Saddam's invasion of Iran was proposed, supported, and
informed by us.


Really? That's an interesting spin, seeing how the war between Iraq and
Iran started in Sept. 1980 (when Carter was pres.)


And Iran was holding those hostages that were released on the
day Ronnie Raygun became pres?
They had a deal to get rid of Carter it seems.

Then we had Iran/Contra, right?

and the "record" you
are talking about is US National Security Directive 114 was issued in
Nov. 1983.


From the "National Sercurity Archive":
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

[
The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for
Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear
aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon
capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human
rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on
Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to
provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by
Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald
Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
.........

Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In
that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a
matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document
indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise
the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.
.........
U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution
seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's
chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about
the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response
and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical
warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the
Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's
refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected
from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's
intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of
eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be
inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the
moral and religious basis which it claims."
]

So the use of "WMDs" by Iraq was fine with the US: Rumsfeld,
Bush-I, Ronnie Raygun, etc.
Pretty much the entire crew, except for junior.


That's not exacty correct. The neo-cons had sights on N. Korea and Iraq as
far back as 1991. Do a search on the "wolfowitz doctrine.

Here is an example...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/wolf.html

Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and
promote American values.
According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim "to address sources of
regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing
respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage
the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."

The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be
threatened by regional conflict: "access to vital raw materials, primarily
Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local
conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking."

The draft relies on seven scenarios in potential trouble spots to make its
argument -- with the primary case studies being Iraq and North Korea.



--------------------------

Read the document from 14 years ago and look at our rhetoric today. It's
pretty obvious what's going on...


  #412   Report Post  
Proto
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:11:05 -0400, "Proto" wrote:


Cliff I am not sure if you are asking this of me but if you are I
would respond by simply saying I just don't know and would have to
give it some thought. I have never spent any real time wondering
what I might do on a personal level to change things from their
predetermined path if that is what must be done. Otherwise what
would you suggest I be concentrating on that would be of any
consequences. Might you simply care to have me expose my political
views for the sake of criticizing alone? Would you have me say I am
in favor of diminishing the rights of other people for the
realization of a political objective? Otherwise I am not sure if I
understand your question.


I'm not picking on you.
Most of that was agreement.


I knew that.


  #413   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:46:00 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:44:41 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

Does Clinton's evils somehow justify Bush's in your mind?


Poor Monica was none of your business in the first place.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that Monica will never be "poor." Anything done
by a public figure is open for our entertainment. I just keep it in
perspective.


Gunner is a public figure, right?
Monica had no intentions of being such AFAIK.
--
Cliff
  #414   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:04:44 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

That's not exacty correct. The neo-cons had sights on N. Korea and Iraq as
far back as 1991. Do a search on the "wolfowitz doctrine.

Here is an example...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/wolf.html

Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and
promote American values.
According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim "to address sources of
regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing
respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage
the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."

The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be
threatened by regional conflict: "access to vital raw materials, primarily
Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local
conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking."

The draft relies on seven scenarios in potential trouble spots to make its
argument -- with the primary case studies being Iraq and North Korea.



--------------------------

Read the document from 14 years ago and look at our rhetoric today. It's
pretty obvious what's going on...


What?
--
Cliff
  #415   Report Post  
Bob Brock
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:46:00 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:44:41 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

Does Clinton's evils somehow justify Bush's in your mind?

Poor Monica was none of your business in the first place.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that Monica will never be "poor." Anything done
by a public figure is open for our entertainment. I just keep it in
perspective.


Gunner is a public figure, right?


That would be up to the Court to decide. I gave up trying to decide what
judges will say a long...long time ago.




  #416   Report Post  
Bob Brock
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:04:44 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

That's not exacty correct. The neo-cons had sights on N. Korea and Iraq
as
far back as 1991. Do a search on the "wolfowitz doctrine.

Here is an example...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/wolf.html

Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and
promote American values.
According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim "to address sources
of
regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing
respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage
the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."

The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be
threatened by regional conflict: "access to vital raw materials, primarily
Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic
missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local
conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking."

The draft relies on seven scenarios in potential trouble spots to make its
argument -- with the primary case studies being Iraq and North Korea.



--------------------------

Read the document from 14 years ago and look at our rhetoric today. It's
pretty obvious what's going on...


What?
--


Did you meet the prequsite?


  #417   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:18:17 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

What?


Did you meet the prequsite?


Well, I *might* have a bit of oil ..... who knows?
--
Cliff
  #418   Report Post  
Bob Brock
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:18:17 -0400, "Bob Brock"
wrote:

What?


Did you meet the prequsite?


Well, I *might* have a bit of oil ..... who knows?
--
Cliff


I have no time or interest in playing games or teaching you how to read or
post.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bizzarro Gunner - aka "Cliff" Lex Luthor Metalworking 5 January 30th 05 02:05 AM
Welcome back Gunner GMasterman Metalworking 5 June 20th 04 05:53 AM
Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner - A Song Tom Watson Woodworking 5 December 10th 03 11:28 AM
Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner Tom Watson Woodworking 0 December 9th 03 10:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"