 |
|
| 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 | Display Modes |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 06:48:33 -0400, Cliff wrote:
(snip) So, Cliffie, why are there 2 different versions of this lie in this thread? Was one version not enough? Need more weasel room? Are you drooling on your keyboard again? Remember what happened last time ..... My memory is good enough to remember that you TRIED to dodge my question. You failed. What's the matter, Cliffie? Cat got your tongue? Don't like being caught changing your lies? That's too bad. The proof is right there, for everybody to see, and it get's repeated every time you try to weasel again. Read YOUR own lies up there again, Cliffie, if you can. Does you edition of the Bill Clinton Dictionary define "no WMD's" as "some WMDs"? What does ~1992 have to do with anything? Do you have a more current edition? Are you going with the Hillary Clinton Dictionary of DoubleSpeak? I guess your memory of events is rather poor. Symptom of Winger's Disease, usually. Better get tested ASAP. My memory's fine. You need more oil. You're not slippery enough, though. Found those WMD's or just too ashamed to be so known as being so gullible? Are you going to redefine WMD's yet again? How many redefinitions does this make? Are you going to redefine the phrase every time something else happens? Must be darned inconvenient for you lieberals, eh? Visions of sugar plums too? Nope. Clarity of vision allows me to spot changes in lies. Don't like that, eh? Too bad. BTW, a person who isn't fit to shine a soldier's boots shouldn't try to speak for them. Poor form. Or are you just claiming that you are STUPID? Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional. Too late for you to try that option, eh? Poor little masochistic Cliffie. Can't get good attention, so he'll settle for getting his ass kicked around Usenet. Hey, any attention is better than being ignored, eh? You seem confused .... wingers been at you again? Yep, Cliffie's confused, babbling still. I think that they took his money .... I think you're sorry you tried to change your lie in mid-stream. Nah, you're just sorry you got caught, just like your hero, Bill Clinton. |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 05:32:09 -0400, Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:55:07 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote: http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX Go USA [ The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs. A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the truth(especially among STUPID people).  So they found all those tons of WMDs did they? Notice the lie changed in mid-stream there? The one about all of thse WMDs? Not my lie. Try again if you are so confused. Which lie you gonna go with? Can you choose wisely? You haven't so far. When caught in a lie, it's always good to TRY to change it and hope nobody notices. Found those WMDs did you? Which WMDs? WMDs or TONS of WMDs? Make up your mind, Cliffie. Where? Iraq, remember. Try to focus, Cliffie. (snip Cliffie's tail-chasing) |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com, Halcitron
says... Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtEs, from patria lineage, from patr-, patEr father : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests Love for one's country is one thing. Blind adherence to governmental authority is quite different. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Watcher" wrote No, all they have is the claims by Saddam Hussein's people that they buried them. Actually, all YOU have is the Administation's CLAIM that there are people who claim they existed. Most of those same people ran for office in the election (go figure)... If they didn't bury them, they must still have them stockpiled somewhere. Only if they actually existed, for which there is no [public] evidence. so, beliving in their existence is what? Imagine what that would do for all you lieberal apologist tail-chasers spinning around trying to cover for his lies all these years. :/ Wouldn't do nothing. Belief that lack of evidence is proof is pretty foolish, don't you think. Believing that an Administration that promised a reason for war to actually produce that reason, if it existed, is not so foolish. So, which of us would be "lying" were they proven to be mistaken... I guess somebody wasn't paying attention too well. Don't remember UN inspectors being repeatedly denied access and thrown out of Iraq, eh? Some more of that selective memory, I suppose. Yeah, selective on your part. The inspectors weren't "thrown out" of Iraq, they were asked to leave by the U.S. (U.N.?) at the start of an air interdiction campaign for their own safety. The inspectors that were reporting the LACK of programs or materials just before the war were removed by OUR SIDE because their evidence was embarrassing to a Administration already set on war. Do try and get out more. As I've said before, though, I can't blame George II for making that charge, because Saddam was doing everything possible to convince the world he DID have WMDs in huge quantities. And, let's look at reality: + Korea was thought to have nukes, it still hasn't been invaded. + The Administration KNEW Iraq had no nukes (or other WOTs), and they were invaded. As a leader responsible for the safety of his people, would you make it look like you had no means of defending yourself to an enemy at your gate, or would you leave the invading enemy in doubt, with the attendant inefficiencies planning for (or at least showing the audience you were "planning for," for political reasons) defense against WOTs or nukes? No, that's why we have these Incredible Morphing Lies, eh? Incredible Morphing Lies. Is that a new rock group, or just your feeble imagination fueled by politicians knowing how dumb you really are. Please state some of these "Incredible Morphing Lies." I can. There were several distinct Incredible Morphing Lies given to the American public (like you) by our Foolish Leader, until they found the one that would resonate with the ignorant masses allowing the invasion of Iraq No WMD's, uhhh, NO TONS of WMD's, what's it gonna be next? No POUNDS of WMD's? Huh? What was found that the public doesn't know about (but to which you, evidently, are privy)? A couple of experimental binary shells that date back to when the U. S. was providing the technology and satellite targeting for gassing the irascible Iranians? A couple of years ago, an entire TRAIN load of munitions, dating to WWII was dug up where it was buried because it was too much trouble to reload or even track the material. The train had derailed, and rather than reallocate scarce resources, the materials were bulldozed over and forgotten for decades, until someone happened to dig in the right spot. So, other than programs we KNEW about, any other cases of actual dangerous stuff in Iraq, other than a couple of weather-balloon-filling trucks been found? Talk about Morphing Lies... 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" |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:56 -0400, "Proto" wrote:
Grady wrote: I think it would best serve your argument of "mass murder" if you could post some support factual truth. This does not mean some drivel from some left wing web site either. I will be the first to admit that the mistakes of a few have caused some shame for the US, but I don't see anything that remotely resembles "mass murder". It is actually very simple. For a nation of the size of the US to consider bombing a country with over 50% children and to continue an admitted mistake merely because of the rational that it somehow would be a mistake to back down now proves it is murder. This is an issue or morality. A war waged and continued under admitted falsities is a crime. Plain and simple. The very best that can be said is that in spite of all the mistakes that were made is that we must continue? Sure sounds like an Adolph moment to me. Proto Are you claiming that the military targets such as command and control head quarters, ammo dumps, Republican Guard barracks and so forth, were filled with 50% children? Doesnt speak well for Saddam does it? Gunner wrote in message oups.com... D Murphy wrote: wrote in news:1113623252.731623.100140 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: You demonstrate a pathetic ignorance of simple grammar and spelling, yet you expect to be taken seriously in matters of great importance requiring some abstract thinking? Sorry knucklehead, it doesn't work that way. There was a fellow, some time ago, who didn't do particularly well in school. He had a hard time communicating clearly, and his teachers thought he was a bit of a dullard. Still he managed to get into university, and the professors there felt much the same way. This fellow was odd, couldn't express himself well and asked a lot of stupid questions. They thought he was incapable of the abstract thinking required in his chosen field of study, because he asked lots of questions his professors didn't have the answers to or didn't understand. Upon graduation his professors refused to write letters of recommendation for him, and he ended up taking a job as a clerk. In his spare time he kept at his studies, trying to finish his doctorate. Then in one remarkable year he published five papers that turned virtually every aspect of science on its head and forever changed humankinds understanding of the world, the universe, chemistry, and physics. One of those papers finally earned him his doctorate. Another won him the Nobel prize. That would be several lifetimes' worth of achievement for most people. Yet he followed these papers up some 11 years later with another that has been called "the greatest feat of human thinking about nature ever." We were very fortunate in the United States that he decided to leave his native country and come here. You see his native country had become full of intolerant elitists who were much like yourself. First, the "intolerant elitists" you apparently refer to were clearly not opposed to war, even unjust war, on moral principles. So your "analogy" is not just seriously flawed, but upside down, just like your brain, apparently. Moreover, if Einstein were alive today and stated his antiwar opinion on this newsgroup, small minded people like you and Grady and the others would oppose and denigrate him, just like what's done to me. Don't fool yourself, goofball. Second, when it comes to mass murder and the self-destruction of the U.S., I'd have to agree with you in the sense that I'm pretty intolerant of foolish, immoral people like Grady and you, just as Einstein would have been. These elitists dehumanized people in much the same way you do by calling Grady "Trailer Trash" or "Knucklehead". Sorry, but "people" who rationalize and support mass murder, the way Grady and you and others here do (just like the Nazis), have already dehumanized themselves. Once you remove someone's humanity, you can degrade them, torture them, and even kill them without your conscience bothering you. Just as every failing ideology has done throughout human history. Would you and Grady rather spend some time in one of Bush's torture camps, or maybe breathing in some depleted uranium nanoparticles, or getting bombed, or watching your family slaughtered in real time, i.e., basically receiving the treatment that you support for others, or sitting in front of a computer and be offended by people like me (by being told what you are)? So rather than debate any issues, Most "people" on misc.survivalism don't debate issues. They really can't (as even they themselves apparently realize) as it's clear that there's no logical defense for the U.S. government's heinous crimes. So they recite meaningless platitudes and slogans and trade personal insults. That's not necessarily my idea of how it should be, but that's how it is. Sorry if that offends your gentle, mass murderer's sensibilities. which might expose weakness in your beliefs or flaws in your thinking, you dehumanize him by calling him names and accuse him of being too stupid to understand your lofty thinking. To tell you the truth, Grady looks like Einstein when compared to you. And you look like a pathetic fool, Dan. "To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Watcher" wrote Are you going to redefine WMD's yet again? Well, WMDs USED to mean Weapons of Mass Destruction, i.e., nukes. When this was pointe dout to Shrub, he quickly tried to rename the WOTs (Weapons of Terrorism), but that name just didn't resonate, so WMDs was revived as a redefinition for the Administration's convenience of the road to hoaxing the people into war. Shall we talk about redefining terms in generals? HINT: you will lose THAT battle, too, after crawing into your cave of deceptive lies the Administration approves of. Do try to actually keep up. We cannot expect the likes of you to actually THINK, but you could at least argue from strength... How many redefinitions does this make? A coupel, and all by the Administration. US: 100, YOU: 0. Are you going to redefine the phrase every time something else happens? What happened? Are you discounting the weapons making machinery being sold at the Bazaar in Baghdad, taken (apparently) fromthe weapons cache that didn't exist and wasn't left open to looting by the Administration? Must be darned inconvenient for you lieberals, eh? Truth is uncomfortable to liars. Take two aspirin and you may feel better. 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" |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
-- "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" wrote in message oups.com... BottleBob wrote: wrote: You claim that the war in IRAQ is "illegal", could you list the specific law that's binding on the U.S. that you believe is being broken? The U.S. is a party to various treaties which clearly prohibit aggressive war, treaties like the UN Charter. Not too many people read the Constitution any more. Dan |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 16 Apr 2005 00:01:02 -0700, wrote:
Gunner wrote: On 15 Apr 2005 17:08:54 -0700, wrote: During my few days as a law enforcement officer, A "few days" only? I'm not surprised. Based on statements you've made in this forum, it's clear you're morally incompetent, that you have no respect for what reasonable people would know as "law", and that you're completely lacking in critical thinking skills; put simply, you're hardly suitable for any kind of "law enforcement" work. Chuckle..the 3 yrs I spent on the street taught me that law enforcement was not my cup of tea. I found myself enforcing law that I disagreed with, and my moral compass unfortunately was much stronger than the corrupt officers I worked with. ROTFL! Yet you apparently support a war that is illegal and immoral. And in light of this, it's more likely that your "moral compass" is not "stronger", than theirs, idiot, but rather points in the wrong direction. When you can provide something besides your opinion on the illegality and immorality of the war, then we can talk. No leftwing blogs, or sound bites from Liberals thankyouveddyveddymuch. When people like you were making their "appeals to authority" and the "authority" they were using as some moral authority was every bit as criminal as the criminals they were sworn to deal with Ok then, how about giving some specific examples of your superior moral sensibilities in action in these situations? Such as? Not shaking down illegal immigrants for their sock money? And dropping a dime on those that did? Friends of yours by any chance? A number also provided hookers to farm labor camps. One of them shopping out your mom and sister by any chance? ..shrug..I left the force and went into other lines of work..work that didnt leave me feeling dirty at the end of the shift. Wow, I'm awed! Apparently you're a legend in your own mind! Actually, you are butt ignorant. But if you feel awed..all the power too you. I bet you twisted inside out the first time you saw rubber cement too. I'd be interested to know exactly what kind of things could occur that would leave a statist Bush supporter like you, "feeling dirty at the end of the shift"? What, did you accidently help an old lady cross the street or something? How did you get that grievious head injury? But hey...those are the folks you wish to hold on high. I guess it's just like you to studiously avoid posting anything of substance...you'd rather create a strawman to attack, out of the mountain of ambiguous bull**** you've spewed. Anyone see the irony in that sentence? ROFLMAO! Good on ya Mate. Oh shutup, goofball. Oh oh...running out of argument already? Lightweight. Im sure you would have made a fine Party official in 1942 Germany. Or even a better Political Commisar in 1942 Russia. Let's see, I'm the one that has taken a public position against an immoral and illegal war, its architects and their perverse ideology, and you've apparently taken an opposite position, yet I'm the Nazi? Are you? No idea. But you are so well idocrinated in the Party newspeak, that its obvious you would have fit right in, at the least as I state, in the USSR. Tovarish. You really need to pull your head out of your ass and get some air, moron. Yup...running out of arguments.. Pity that you are so shallow. Maybe you could clean bathrooms at McDonalds, instead. And cost you your job? How would that cost me my job? They need two toilet cleaners? That would be too cruel even for me. Being that you apparently see nothing wrong with mass murder, for example, I doubt there's much you'd find "too cruel". When you point out some mass murder that Ive approved of, we shall discuss it. I often dealt with the insane, deranged and outright goofy. Admittedly the one area where you may be uniquely qualified...I'm sure you can at least relate to others of your ilk. Other ex cops? Oh, are there lots of other loons like you in "law enforcement"? That's kind of scary. Chuckle...seems your icons may be flawed huh? Oh, I do. And we can all recognize nutbars like yourself. I guess a fruitcake like you would tend to think that rational people like me are abnormal. I guess an abnormal like yourself would tend to think that Im a fruitcake. Shrug..typical. Your plain language statements were no different in substance as theirs. Coming from a mentally and morally defective imbecile like you (your faulty grammar notwithstanding), I'll take that as a compliment, thanks. LOL...the deranged such as your self exhibit the same arrogant in their self centeredness. Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand your nonsensical idiotspeak. Please try harder to construct a coherent sentence. Reading comprehension is not your strong suite, is it? That Super Ego issue of yours is textbook. LOL! look who's talkin', the self-proclaimed legend-in-his-own-mind! Since you are the only person bringing up Legends....it would appear you have some Transference issues huh? Seek out a mental health professional as soon as possible for treatment. Well, I'm glad you at least acknowledge you need help; and I'd be willing to help you as much as I can, but wouldn't it be better if you make your own appointment? I don't even know where you live. Good. That means my neighborhood still retainss some value. If you were around...fire sale time. Remember, its for the children. Are there children that live near you who may be endangered by your psychopathic and dangerous anti-social behavior? Odd that the State of California and the FBI give me a clean bill of health every 2 years. Can you say the same? Snicker Gunner "The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption. The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is made up of government unions, government dependent professions (teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies, African Americans being the most prominent, who are disproportionately invested in government jobs and in programs that government provides. " The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically feasible, and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as possible'. Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda. Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them." -Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Watcher" wrote in message ... On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote: So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they? Notice the lie changed in mid-stream there? When caught in a lie, it's always good to TRY to change it and hope nobody notices. Can you please point out the lie. The ADMINISTRATION claimed there were tons of WMDs (redefined to include chemical and biological weapons). Where are those tons of WMDs? 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" |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Watcher" wrote in message ... On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 05:32:09 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:55:07 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote: http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX Go USA [ The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs. A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the truth(especially among STUPID people). So they found all those tons of WMDs did they? Notice the lie changed in mid-stream there? The one about all of thse WMDs? Not my lie. Try again if you are so confused. Which lie you gonna go with? Can you choose wisely? You haven't so far. When caught in a lie, it's always good to TRY to change it and hope nobody notices. Found those WMDs did you? Which WMDs? WMDs or TONS of WMDs? Make up your mind, Cliffie. Where? Iraq, remember. Try to focus, Cliffie. (snip Cliffie's tail-chasing) And The Watcher spirals ever downward into the cesspool of his own steaming desires. This guy is really a fruitcase. 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" |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:16:15 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said: http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg Your reference clips the 9-11 Commission report at an interesting and probably (for them) a convenient place. Here's what they left out, after their last sentence, "According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq..." "Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. [76]" That's from the Commission Report. It's exactly the way _The New York Times_ reported it, and other print media reported much the same thing. -- Ed Huntress Of interest..take if or leave it. http://www.geocities.com/republican_...Bin-Laden.html There are also a couple names that seem to be undiscussed much... Farooq al-Hijazi And then, there is this.... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in647507.shtml .. Thomas Kean, co-chairman of the September 11 Commission, went far beyond mere "links" between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," he said at a press conference on July 22, 2004. "Relationship" is also the word used to describe Iraq-al Qaeda contacts in an internal Iraqi Intelligence document, authenticated by U.S. intelligence and first disclosed on June 25, 2004, in the New York Times. When bin Laden left the Sudan in 1996, according to the document, his Iraqi Intelligence contacts began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." The document makes no mention of any formal arrangement between Iraq and al Qaeda, but instructs that ''cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement." Might want to read the article in its entirety..as you will note..CBS is not a Rightwing blog.... Gunner "The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption. The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is made up of government unions, government dependent professions (teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies, African Americans being the most prominent, who are disproportionately invested in government jobs and in programs that government provides. " The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically feasible, and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as possible'. Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda. Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them." -Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Willcox" wrote in message The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said: http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg Your reference clips the 9-11 Commission report at an interesting and probably (for them) a convenient place. Here's what they left out, after their last sentence, "According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq..." "Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. [76]" That's from the Commission Report. It's exactly the way _The New York Times_ reported it, and other print media reported much the same thing. -- Ed Huntress The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com... Ed Huntress wrote: "Willcox" wrote in message The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said: http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg Your reference clips the 9-11 Commission report at an interesting and probably (for them) a convenient place. Here's what they left out, after their last sentence, "According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq..." "Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. [76]" That's from the Commission Report. It's exactly the way _The New York Times_ reported it, and other print media reported much the same thing. -- Ed Huntress The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on the actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk and some wishful thinking, but no "ties." Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative action between them. -- Ed Huntress |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:48:49 GMT, Gunner
wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:16:15 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said: http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg Your reference clips the 9-11 Commission report at an interesting and probably (for them) a convenient place. Here's what they left out, after their last sentence, "According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq..." "Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. [76]" That's from the Commission Report. It's exactly the way _The New York Times_ reported it, and other print media reported much the same thing. Of interest..take if or leave it. http://www.geocities.com/republican_...Bin-Laden.html Oh, Goodie. Gummer's using old reports of long discredited winge & neocon lies to support those very same lies. That's like saying "They lied. Here's the lie again. It must be true." Oops ... forgot ... that's EXACTLY how gummers winger BS works. There are also a couple names that seem to be undiscussed much... Farooq al-Hijazi And then, there is this.... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in647507.shtml . Thomas Kean, co-chairman of the September 11 Commission, went far beyond mere "links" between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," he said at a press conference on July 22, 2004. "Relationship" is also the word used to describe Iraq-al Qaeda contacts in an internal Iraqi Intelligence document, authenticated by U.S. intelligence and first disclosed on June 25, 2004, in the New York Times. When bin Laden left the Sudan in 1996, according to the document, his Iraqi Intelligence contacts began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." The document makes no mention of any formal arrangement between Iraq and al Qaeda, but instructs that ''cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement." Might want to read the article in its entirety..as you will note..CBS is not a Rightwing blog.... And you had your usual reading comprehension impairment troubles again too, right? Gunner "The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption. The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is made up of government unions, government dependent professions (teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies, African Americans being the most prominent, who are disproportionately invested in government jobs and in programs that government provides. " The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically feasible, and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as possible'. Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda. Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them." -Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz Gummer's an idiot. -- Cliff |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 10:04:47 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote: "Cliff" Might as well. The dumbDemocrats are trying to blame him for everything anyway. There are dumb ones there too. But they are not the raving pack of lying loons ... -- Cliff Are you trying to be serious? You don't think that that there are any dumb Democrats? That's a hard case to make to anyone who has read anything you have written. You think it's just the wingers & neocons? -- Cliff |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:00:50 GMT, BottleBob
wrote: Cliff wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:19:59 GMT, BottleBob wrote: Cliff wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:39:05 GMT, BottleBob wrote: Cliff: Ipsmith stated the war was "illegal". Do YOU have evidence of that illegality? Do you have any that it was not? Cliff: YOU were supporting Ipsmith's claims, so it's up to you to support them with factual evidence. You are supporting the winger's. Do you have any foorp at all? Cliff: Silly Wabbit, I'm "supporting" no one. Go back and re-read my original post to Ipsmith for content, and not as a basis for one of your off-the-wall emotional knee-jerk reactions. I asked Ipsmith: "...could you list the specific law that's binding on the U.S. that you believe is being broken?". I also asked him what immoral means to him. snip rest of your comments that are totally irrelevant to my original comments I thought you said in another post that you could READ. This proves you see the personal bogeymen that you WANT to see regardless of the content of the post. You probably missed what I posted G. -- Cliff |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
ftp.machiningsolution.com/SR_wmd_report.pdf ftp.machiningsolution.com/911_Report.pdf -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Willcox" wrote in message ess.com... Ed Huntress wrote: "Willcox" wrote in message The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said: http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg Your reference clips the 9-11 Commission report at an interesting and probably (for them) a convenient place. Here's what they left out, after their last sentence, "According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq..." "Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. [76]" That's from the Commission Report. It's exactly the way _The New York Times_ reported it, and other print media reported much the same thing. -- Ed Huntress The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on the actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk and some wishful thinking, but no "ties." Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative action between them. Yep, Just read the report. Why bother with the main stream anything. ftp.machiningsolution.com/SR_wmd_report.pdf ftp.machiningsolution.com/911_Report.pdf -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:19:17 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 05:36:21 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:56:51 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On 16 Apr 2005 15:54:20 GMT, (Frank White) wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote: http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX Go USA [ The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs. A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the truth(especially among STUPID people). So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they? Where? I believe some mustard gas and binary nerve agent artillary shells have been found. But the stockpiles of atomic/biological/chemical weapons Iraq was supposed to have, simply don't seem to exist. The TONS of chemical weapons he allegedly buried probably still exist, since burying them in sand usually doesn't harm them. Pity that they can find nobody that buried them. Did they offer a huge reward or just torture people? No, all they have is the claims by Saddam Hussein's people that they buried them. Would these be the ones that they tortured til they said that? Got clues? Be easy enough to ask where & go dig a few up, right? Except that it was all accounted for it seems .... If they didn't bury them, they must still have them stockpiled somewhere. So now YOUR claim (see above) is a lie? Is this winger-logic or what? Any claim needed to tell a whopper ..... over & over again .... On top of all of that, WHAT POSSIBLE BUSINESS WAS IT OF YOURS? Lets's see: Who were we supposedly protecting from attack? All of those that refused to even allow US troops to use their soil and protested the attacks, right? Those with absolutely no concern ..... why is that? Imagine what that would do for all you lieberal apologist tail-chasers spinning around trying to cover for his lies all these years. :/ I'm not the one that told the lies. Who did? ANY clues yet? A) Saddam and the "WMDs" were right where the neocons claimed. B) No WMDs to be found ANYWHERE (not counting the spoiled sandwich in the bombed-out fridge) and guess who lied. Or did they instead just camp out in ammo bunkers and not even bother to look, knowing that there were none ....? Then march on after breaking camp and take over the Oil Ministry,hunting for WMDs? I guess somebody wasn't paying attention too well. Don't remember UN inspectors being repeatedly denied access and thrown out of Iraq, eh? Some more of that selective memory, I suppose. Tossed out by Bush ..... 95% done ... As I've said before, though, I can't blame George II for making that charge, because Saddam was doing everything possible to convince the world he DID have WMDs in huge quantities. I can blame Dubya for all sort of things, but not that. Might as well. The dumbDemocrats are trying to blame him for everything anyway. There are dumb ones there too. But they are not the raving pack of lying loons ... No, that's why we have these Incredible Morphing Lies, eh? No WMD's, uhhh, NO TONS of WMD's, what's it gonna be next? No POUNDS of WMD's? Not even an ounce so far, right? Not an ounce == not a pound == not a ton == not hunderds of tons. HUGE threat to the US .... Winger lies & BS? Tons of that. -- Cliff |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:15:43 -0700, "Dan"
wrote: "The Watcher" wrote No, all they have is the claims by Saddam Hussein's people that they buried them. Actually, all YOU have is the Administation's CLAIM that there are people who claim they existed. Most of those same people ran for office in the election (go figure)... If they didn't bury them, they must still have them stockpiled somewhere. Only if they actually existed, for which there is no [public] evidence. so, beliving in their existence is what? Imagine what that would do for all you lieberal apologist tail-chasers spinning around trying to cover for his lies all these years. :/ Wouldn't do nothing. Belief that lack of evidence is proof is pretty foolish, don't you think. Believing that an Administration that promised a reason for war to actually produce that reason, if it existed, is not so foolish. So, which of us would be "lying" were they proven to be mistaken... I guess somebody wasn't paying attention too well. Don't remember UN inspectors being repeatedly denied access and thrown out of Iraq, eh? Some more of that selective memory, I suppose. Yeah, selective on your part. The inspectors weren't "thrown out" of Iraq, they were asked to leave by the U.S. (U.N.?) at the start of an air interdiction campaign for their own safety. The inspectors that were reporting the LACK of programs or materials just before the war were removed by OUR SIDE because their evidence was embarrassing to a Administration already set on war. Do try and get out more. As I've said before, though, I can't blame George II for making that charge, because Saddam was doing everything possible to convince the world he DID have WMDs in huge quantities. And, let's look at reality: + Korea was thought to have nukes, it still hasn't been invaded. + The Administration KNEW Iraq had no nukes (or other WOTs), and they were invaded. As a leader responsible for the safety of his people, would you make it look like you had no means of defending yourself to an enemy at your gate, or would you leave the invading enemy in doubt, with the attendant inefficiencies planning for (or at least showing the audience you were "planning for," for political reasons) defense against WOTs or nukes? No, that's why we have these Incredible Morphing Lies, eh? Incredible Morphing Lies. Is that a new rock group, or just your feeble imagination fueled by politicians knowing how dumb you really are. Please state some of these "Incredible Morphing Lies." I can. There were several distinct Incredible Morphing Lies given to the American public (like you) by our Foolish Leader, until they found the one that would resonate with the ignorant masses allowing the invasion of Iraq No WMD's, uhhh, NO TONS of WMD's, what's it gonna be next? No POUNDS of WMD's? Huh? What was found that the public doesn't know about (but to which you, evidently, are privy)? A couple of experimental binary shells that date back to when the U. S. was providing the technology and satellite targeting for gassing the irascible Iranians? A couple of years ago, an entire TRAIN load of munitions, dating to WWII was dug up where it was buried because it was too much trouble to reload or even track the material. The train had derailed, and rather than reallocate scarce resources, the materials were bulldozed over and forgotten for decades, until someone happened to dig in the right spot. So, other than programs we KNEW about, any other cases of actual dangerous stuff in Iraq, other than a couple of weather-balloon-filling trucks been found? Talk about Morphing Lies... Dan Just this once, and once only, I'll pull a Gummer. Bravo. -- Cliff |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:25:45 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 05:32:09 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:55:07 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote: http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX Go USA [ The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs. A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the truth(especially among STUPID people). So they found all those tons of WMDs did they? Notice the lie changed in mid-stream there? The one about all of thse WMDs? Not my lie. Try again if you are so confused. Which lie you gonna go with? Can you choose wisely? You haven't so far. When caught in a lie, it's always good to TRY to change it and hope nobody notices. Found those WMDs did you? Which WMDs? WMDs or TONS of WMDs? Make up your mind, Cliffie. Where? Iraq, remember. Try to focus, Cliffie. (snip Cliffie's tail-chasing) Has sanity ever reared it's ugly head in your family? -- Cliff |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:30:44 -0700, "Dan"
wrote: "The Watcher" wrote in message ... On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 05:32:09 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:55:07 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:55:20 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:32:07 -0400, Cliff wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John" wrote: http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX Go USA [ The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs. A lie, endlessly repeated, often becomes indistinguishable from the truth(especially among STUPID people). So they found all those tons of WMDs did they? Notice the lie changed in mid-stream there? The one about all of thse WMDs? Not my lie. Try again if you are so confused. Which lie you gonna go with? Can you choose wisely? You haven't so far. When caught in a lie, it's always good to TRY to change it and hope nobody notices. Found those WMDs did you? Which WMDs? WMDs or TONS of WMDs? Make up your mind, Cliffie. Where? Iraq, remember. Try to focus, Cliffie. (snip Cliffie's tail-chasing) And The Watcher spirals ever downward into the cesspool of his own steaming desires. This guy is really a fruitcase. Dan Just another typical winger, Dan. -- Cliff |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:07:35 GMT, Gunner
wrote: On 17 Apr 2005 04:28:52 GMT, (Frank White) wrote: In article szf8e.24422$gs4.19743@okepread05, says... I believe if we had no tried so hard to appease the UN and the rest of the world, and went in Iraq on a timely manner, you would be eating your words. All of our negotiations with the UN, Russia, France, etc just gave them time to move them to Syria or wherever. I don't understand where this 'Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria' idea comes from. The guy running Syria and Saddam DID NOT like each. With a capital 'hate'. Stalin would have been more likely to send all of the Soviet Union's nukes to Mao in Communist China AFTER he broke with Russian Communist dogma and went off on his own, than Saddam would have been to give HIS goodies to the Syrians. I suspect the trucks and convoys that went roaring into Syria contained money, files, and men instead of WMDs, and that SAddam was sending them to ships waiting in Syrian harbors to be taken safely out of the area; the money to go into his accounts overseas, and the men and material to set up for a guerilla war so they could come back after the invasion and kick American boo-thay... FW Oddly enough..its possible that they did go on ships. Anyone recall the 3 ships that left harbor in Iraq and sailed around aimlessly for over 2 months? Probably on those flying saucers too .... http://tinyurl.com/bafaz HTH -- Cliff |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:15:44 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Are you claiming that the military targets such as command and control head quarters, ammo dumps, Republican Guard barracks and so forth, were filled with 50% children? No doubt most were empty. Do you think that the people of Iraq were as dumb as wingers? Not that those ammodumps that the US troops went camping in were ever bombed it seems .... Lots of bombing would have released all of those nasy "WMDs" as well with lots dead from them. Oddly, no reports of any such dead ... Keep whimpering guys. It's fun to watch ..... -- Cliff |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:28:31 GMT, Gunner
wrote: When you can provide something besides your opinion on the illegality and immorality of the war, then we can talk. No leftwing blogs, or sound bites from Liberals thankyouveddyveddymuch. Gummer's swearing off old wingerblogs .... -- Cliff |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:28:31 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Oh shutup, goofball. Oh oh...running out of argument already? Lightweight. When gummer looks silly enough he uses his killfile so that he'll not be so embarrassed in public again ..... http://www.drc-gb.org/open4all/servi...ion/Image2.jpg Looks like his head is stuck again though. -- Cliff |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On 16 Apr 2005 00:48:53 -0700, wrote: Most "people" on misc.survivalism don't debate issues. They really can't (as even they themselves apparently realize) as it's clear that there's no logical defense for the U.S. government's heinous crimes. So they recite meaningless platitudes and slogans and trade personal insults. That's not necessarily my idea of how it should be, but that's how it is. Sorry if that offends your gentle, mass murderer's sensibilities. Sounds to me like ol JP is a feeler, not a thinker. His entire post reeks of platitudes and sound bites taken for truth. Anyone see the irony? Yeah, I see the irony in a feeler complaining (whether correct or not) about another person using feeling in his discourse. But then, that is the Republican Party of today: accuse your opponent of the very acts you perform to obscure the fact that the method is yours and not his. Clever. Corrupt, but clever. 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" |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:56 -0400, "Proto" wrote: Grady wrote: I think it would best serve your argument of "mass murder" if you could post some support factual truth. This does not mean some drivel from some left wing web site either. I will be the first to admit that the mistakes of a few have caused some shame for the US, but I don't see anything that remotely resembles "mass murder". It is actually very simple. For a nation of the size of the US to consider bombing a country with over 50% children and to continue an admitted mistake merely because of the rational that it somehow would be a mistake to back down now proves it is murder. This is an issue or morality. A war waged and continued under admitted falsities is a crime. Plain and simple. The very best that can be said is that in spite of all the mistakes that were made is that we must continue? Sure sounds like an Adolph moment to me. Proto Are you claiming that the military targets such as command and control head quarters, ammo dumps, Republican Guard barracks and so forth, were filled with 50% children? No, he's not. Doesnt speak well for Saddam does it? Doesn't speak well for your ability to comprehend the English language. 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" |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On 16 Apr 2005 00:01:02 -0700, wrote: I guess it's just like you to studiously avoid posting anything of substance...you'd rather create a strawman to attack, out of the mountain of ambiguous bull**** you've spewed. Anyone see the irony in that sentence? Yeah, the part about the pot calling the sun black, you mean? 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" |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:32:26 GMT, Gunner
wrote: On 16 Apr 2005 20:05:10 -0700, wrote: The U.S. is a party to various treaties which clearly prohibit aggressive war, treaties like the UN Charter. Actually, you are quite incorrect. Again. Seems to be something of a habit with you. [ Article 2(4) of the UN charter stipulates that "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations". ] Article 6 of the Nuremberg charter of 1945. Article 51 of the UN charter. "Annan explicitly stated that military action violated the UN Charter" The Geneva Conventions. It's a really long list of crimes ..... and even IF the "They have tons of WMDs" excuse were good .... But it was not in any case. That makes it blatent terrorism & murder. -- Cliff |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On 16 Apr 2005 20:05:10 -0700, wrote: The U.S. is a party to various treaties which clearly prohibit aggressive war, treaties like the UN Charter. Actually, you are quite incorrect. Again. Seems to be something of a habit with you. So, pray tell, which part of his statement was incorrect? Don't worry your little head, it was a rhetorical question, because NO part of his statement was incorrect. I guess I incorrectly assumed that this was common knowledge. Our government run schools have apparently seen to it that most Americans are utterly clueless in such matters. Again the irony is overwhelming. Again with the irony of the ignorant lecturing to the informed. 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" |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. R. Carroll" wrote in news:aTz8e.112
: ftp.machiningsolution.com/SR_wmd_report.pdf ftp.machiningsolution.com/911_Report.pdf You should add this one too. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html -- Dan |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D Murphy" wrote in message ... "J. R. Carroll" wrote in news:aTz8e.112 : ftp.machiningsolution.com/SR_wmd_report.pdf ftp.machiningsolution.com/911_Report.pdf You should add this one too. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html Thanks Dan But - I would prefer not to end up being a repository for these things. It would be a waste of bandwidth. The knuckle draggers can't and won't absorb anything beyond pabulum anyway. I have obtained and read a bunch of what our own government has published and the oft stated conclusion and general sense is that Iraq had not had deliverable capacity for years and lacked the infrastructure required for even a bad industrial accident. When Collin Powell testified to that effect in 2001 he was spot on. -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Willcox" wrote in message ess.com... The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on the actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk and some wishful thinking, but no "ties." Tied to defination of "ties" i guess. Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative action between them. And no evidence they weren't cooperating, so what'd your point? Lack of evidence doesn't prove the opposite. |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
BottleBob wrote: wrote: Yet you apparently support a war that is illegal and immoral. IPSmith: Let's see if we can pin down a couple of facts. Sure. Jpsmith: I'm sorry, I've been calling you *I* psmith, when I now see that it's *J* psmith. I suppose I should lower the resolution of my monitor, or get a larger monitor. I wonder, do they make reasonably priced 26" monitors, this 21 incher doesn't seem to be doing it for me any longer. You claim that the war in IRAQ is "illegal", could you list the specific law that's binding on the U.S. that you believe is being broken? The U.S. is a party to various treaties which clearly prohibit aggressive war, treaties like the UN Charter. I thought "treaties" were essentially just agreements entered into by two or more parties/countries. What punitive powers does the UN have to enforce such agreements? I guess I incorrectly assumed that this was common knowledge. Our government run schools have apparently seen to it that most Americans are utterly clueless in such matters. I wouldn't necessarily blame U.S. schools, it's been many decades since I was in school, and since I'm pretty much non-political, the intricacies of treaty law are not of great interest to me. But I see in Encarta that there are a number of ways to terminate a treaty. ================================================== =============== TERMINATION Treaties may be terminated in various ways. The treaty itself may provide for its termination at a specified time or it may allow one party to give notice of termination, effective either at the time of receipt or following the expiration of a specified period. A treaty may be terminated by one signatory's repudiation of its obligations; such a unilateral termination, however, may provoke retaliatory measures. A treaty may also be terminated by reliance on the principle rebus sic stantibus ("things remaining that way"), that is, when the state of affairs assumed by the signatory parties (when they signed the treaty, and therefore the real basis of the treaty), no longer exists, and a substantial change in conditions has taken place. "Treaty," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. ================================================== ================ You claim the war is "immoral". First of all, not all war is immoral, in my view. Obviously, it depends on the circumstances. Those circumstances are spelled out generally in treaties, and morally elucidated in the "Doctrine of Just War". Look it up. I'm always willing to learn something new, so I looked it up. Most of the "Just War Doctrine" sites seem to be intertwined with Catholic and Christian ethics. Now since I don't believe in the basic tenets of Catholic or Christian dogma, the more convoluted reasoning that is based upon that dogma seems to have no solid foundation, in my own opinion of course. Put simply, aggressive war is immoral, defensive war is not. That seems like another case of a personal (or group), value judgment. Certain sects of Muslims believe it's their Moral Duty to convert or exterminate infidels. So a person could conclude that "from their point of view" an aggressive war is indeed a moral one. In the case of Bush's present war against Iraq, it's plain to see that it's immoral...it takes no sophisticated moral reasoning, IMO. There are obviously those that believe otherwise. Could you please define what "immoral" means to you. In one important general sense regarding individual behavior, "immoral" simply means doing something to someone else, directly or indirectly, that you know you would not want done to yourself. Simple really. So essentially you are saying that your moral compass is governed by a sort of "negative golden rule", correct? It's when people don't follow this simple Christian doctrine of reciprocity, usually necessitating the involvement of third parties, that things get complicated. Well there's that word "Christian" again. You seem to be concluding that Christian moral systems are the only valid moral systems. I not going to sit here and say I have all the answers, either. I don't, and I won't pretend to. That seems like an intelligent perspective. So why are you so verbally abusive of those who hold differing viewpoints? I thought you ascribed to the "negative golden rule" where you don't treat others in a manner that you wouldn't want to be treated yourself. snip a bunch of interesting stuff due to time constraints If someone demonstrates a lack of understanding of simple grammar, I've generally found it unlikely that they are in any position to debate issues involving complex moral reasoning. I'm having a hard time seeing the correlation between what you call complex moral reasoning and a person's understanding and knowledge of grammar and spelling. Also, if your points are valid they should be able stand on their own merits and not need any bolstering emotional component in the form of statements made solely for the intention of belittling and demeaning others. The problem, BottleBob, is that regardless of the merit of my position, my points are really "valid" only to the extent the other party in the "discussion" is open-mined, morally and mentally competent, and intellectually honest. A rare combination on usenet. Opps, you misspelled open-minded, does that indicate that you're morally incompetent? ...Just kidding. So can we assume that you believe that those who don't agree with your particular mindset fall into the class of individuals that could be characterized as "close-minded", morally and mentally INcompetent, as well as being intellectually DIShonest? Unfortunately I don't have much time in the next few days for much "discussion". Well today's the last day of my weekend, and I don't have much time during the week to post, so our little "chat" will probably come to a screeching halt. -- BottleBob http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Willcox" wrote in message ess.com... Ed Huntress wrote: "Willcox" wrote in message ess.com... The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on the actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk and some wishful thinking, but no "ties." Tied to defination of "ties" i guess. Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative action between them. And no evidence they weren't cooperating, so what'd your point? Lack of evidence doesn't prove the opposite. Hopefully, someday in the future, lack of evidence will not be considered justification for invaision either. |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
"BottleBob" wrote in message ... Cliff wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:39:05 GMT, BottleBob wrote: Cliff: Ipsmith stated the war was "illegal". Do YOU have evidence of that illegality? Do you have any that it was not? Cliff: YOU were supporting Ipsmith's claims, so it's up to you to support them with factual evidence. Would the fact that the president of the United States required amnesty before he could visit Venezuela count? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Bizzarro Gunner - aka "Cliff" | Metalworking | |||
| Welcome back Gunner | Metalworking | |||
| Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner - A Song | Woodworking | |||
| Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner | Woodworking | |||
Linear Mode
