In article .com,
says...

We made mistakes too. Hind sight is alway better. If we had know
everything we now know, I don't think we would have invaded.

Unfortunately the sad thing is, we *did* know much of what we
know now. A lot of information was deliberately ignored and
I personally feel this was treasonous.

Is this thread appropriate for RCM? Hardly.

Agree.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

No worries about having to learn an original idea, either...

Is he *still* using that stupid line? I guess the
cure didn't take. Too much dumpster food I guess.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Gunner says it's his pride. How about you?

I said what? Asshole..is that the way you write for the big drug
companies too?

You just gave us a great big list of the things you're "proud of" about
our
war in Iraq...asshole. Twice, as a matter of fact.

Yes indeed. Actual documented accomplishments. And my pride wasnt one
of them.

What the hell? Your pride was the SUBJECT! You said "I'm proud...," etc, and
then you gave us the list.

You're spinning like a top, Gunner.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:09:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"George Willer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:
I think a lot of people watched the first Gulf
War and had the same reaction. The recent one was a little different,
but
we've become used to more brutal movies in the meantime, as well.

--
Ed Huntress

I see now! His highness, Ed thinks there were two separate wars,
rather
than a continuation of the same one. What a jerk!

So what are you saying, George, that we had a 10-year-long half-time
show?

Unless I'm mistaken, the first war was about making Iraq pull back from
their attempted conquest of Kuwait. The second one allegedly was about
taking out supposed chemical, biological, and soon-to-be nuclear weapons
that, somehow, were a direct threat to us.

You seemed to have missed out on the 10 yrs of continual violations of
the Cease Fire agreement. and UN 1441 among others.

Right...George Bush told America we had to go to war because Saddam Hussein
was showing no respect at all for United Nations Resolution Number 1441. And
all of the UN-lovers in the Neocon Party jumped up and shouted, "Damned
right! He can't dis the United Nations and get away with it, by cracky!" g

Or maybe most Americans believed the other story, the one he told us on the
night we invaded. He certainly dissembled the real reason in one speech or
the other. Which one do you suppose it was? The one he told us, about having
to crush Iraq before we wound up fighting the Iraqis on our shores, or the
one he told the UN, about dissing UN resolutions?

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

No worries about having to learn an original idea, either...

Is he *still* using that stupid line? I guess the
cure didn't take. Too much dumpster food I guess.

Jim

You watch. One day some geographer is going to pop in here, and we'll all
learn that Denial really *is* a river in Egypt. With one stroke, Gunner will
lose half of his best ideas.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
oups.com...
Ed,
It is too early to tell if the war was worthwhile or not. At this time
there is no evidence that theocrats are going to rule Iraq. It is too
early to tell what affect the war is going to have on the governments
of Syria, but considering that they are pulling their troops out of
Lebanon, it appears there may be some other benefits. You need to wait
for another five years before saying it was or was not worthwhile.

Jesus, Dan, what are you trying to do? Inject some sense and reason into
this discussion? I think any possibility of that is long gone. g

Don't tell anybody I said this, but I believe you're quite right. What we DO
know, however, is that the US has just introduced a new principle into
international relations, one that we have been the biggest defenders AGAINST
since Pearl Harbor. We used to maintain a sharp distinction between
"pre-emptive" war and "preventive" war. The first was sometimes Ok, but the
second never was Ok. We're the ones who wrote it, or defended its principle,
in the UN charter.

We accused the Japanese of such action when they attacked us in WWII (their
objective was to keep us from building up military strength somewhere, maybe
the Western Pacific in general, I forget). Harry Truman scrupulously avoided
it when he decided not to take out the USSR with our brand-new nukes. And
JFK followed the doctrine when he refused his advisors' advice to attack
Cuba as soon as we discovered the Soviet rockets there.

As Harry Truman said, "The only thing that preventive war prevents is
peace." (Or something like that.) My feeling is that he was right. We've
just let an ugly genie out of a bottle. Iraq may turn out OK, but the
precedent of employing preventive war could turn around and really bite us
in the ass some day. Whether we win or lose this one, it may turn out to be
something we wished for but later wish we never got.


I personally am not proud to be an American, but I am thankful that I
am.

Well, we differ there. I'm very proud to be an American. I'm just not very
proud of some of the actions being taken in our name by the current resident
of the White House.

I really do not understand how you think that anyone died for the
sake of pride. People died because there were mistakes made.

I'm fairly convinced that many of those mistakes had pride as their origin.
It's one point on which I agree with the real Christians, if there are any
left.

Sadam
was one of those that made mistakes. He wanted the countries around
Iraq to believe that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He did not
think that anyone would invade Iraq. He had not had any problem with
the United Nations when he defied it as far as the terms coming from
the Gulf War. He did not have any problem with the United Nations and
the Food for Oil program.

That all sounds reasonable and even likely.


We made mistakes too. Hind sight is alway better. If we had know
everything we now know, I don't think we would have invaded. But that
is life. One never knows as much at the time as one does later.

There's more to it than that. In terms of international diplomacy, we broke
a lot of important precedents. . .because we're powerful enough that we were
able to get away with it, because we showed little concern for the
consequences of doing so versus the theoretical benefits of manhandling the
politics of the Middle East, and because our administration was so hell-bent
on putting its New American Century program into practice that they had
themselves convinced they were doing it all for the good. They had written
the white papers while they were languishing in the think-tanks and they
were ready for action once they got elected. I think it was half hubris, and
half academic ideology run amok.


Is Iraq better off because of the invasion? Probably. The number of
people that have died because of the invasion is less per year than the
number that died because Sadam was in power.

Most of the sources say that isn't true. Even Amnesty International, as I
quoted indirectly a couple of days ago and which is inclined to put the
worst possible spin on Saddam's human rights record, says that the number of
people he killed was only in the hundreds per year during the last few years
of his reign.

However, as the IBC says, that's not much of an argument. Furthermore, it's
not why we allegedly went to war. Supposedly it was because of a real,
immediate physical threat to the United States.

Will the United States be
loved because we invaded? Of course not.

Loved is not the issue. Undermined, resisted, and terrorized are the issues.


Was it the fault of the Democrats for not doing better in dealing with
Iraq while Clinton was president or was the fault of the Republicans
after Bush became president. Probably both.

Probably both, but avoiding war has the edge in a close call. We avoided war
with the Soviets; the solution came without war. We avoided war with Cuba;
the solution, in terms of our security, came without war. We're avoiding war
right now with North Korea; I favor that, because North Korea is a weak
state that seems likely to collapse before they can get a nuke sent on its
way to Los Angeles. Now we have to be concerned about a nuke on Tokyo, of
all ironies.


Is this thread appropriate for RCM? Hardly.

So, were you doing something that was more useful than organizing your
thoughts for the very reasonable and well-considered case you made above?
g

--
Ed Huntress

On 22 Apr 2005 22:06:37 -0700, (Raul) wrote:

wrote in message roups.com...
I thought as a Retired member of the Military (23 Years US Navy),
I'd add a few comments! I did not really stand behind Prez Bushes
Decision to Go into Iraq, but now there, I see us as Needing to support
it! I was there in the 91 Gulf War and Got out in 98, I was in and out
of Both Kuait and Southern Iraq! We saw ample signs of many forms of
WMD, Both 155 Howdistzer shells with Mustard, VX and other Prohibited
weapons, as well as "AL SAMOD" Missles, NOT SURE I SPELLED THAT RIGHT?
As well, the Border with Syria was open to a Terrible amount of 18
Wheel Truck Traffic just before the Invasion. It's a simple deduction
that the WMD Stockpiles were moved to thier as well as Jordon! Both
countries have denied that,But Neither has been know for Honesty or
support of US or UN Causes! The weapons were there, The French and
Rusians admit to selling them a lot of dual Purpose to Build more,
what, did he have a Pang of Concious and destroyed it all? Grow up and
see the Evil for that which it is! They existed and still exist, now it
just a matter of who owns them now? Syria is a sister country in the
bathist Cause and would want to help Hussain at all costs! Just my .02
cents!

You do know that Iraq used mustard against Iran in the 1980s and
Washington sold arms to Iraq during and after the conflict?

But not WMDs

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

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:46:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:09:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"George Willer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:
I think a lot of people watched the first Gulf
War and had the same reaction. The recent one was a little different,
but
we've become used to more brutal movies in the meantime, as well.

--
Ed Huntress

I see now! His highness, Ed thinks there were two separate wars,
rather
than a continuation of the same one. What a jerk!

So what are you saying, George, that we had a 10-year-long half-time
show?

Unless I'm mistaken, the first war was about making Iraq pull back from
their attempted conquest of Kuwait. The second one allegedly was about
taking out supposed chemical, biological, and soon-to-be nuclear weapons
that, somehow, were a direct threat to us.

You seemed to have missed out on the 10 yrs of continual violations of
the Cease Fire agreement. and UN 1441 among others.

Right...George Bush told America we had to go to war because Saddam Hussein
was showing no respect at all for United Nations Resolution Number 1441. And
all of the UN-lovers in the Neocon Party jumped up and shouted, "Damned
right! He can't dis the United Nations and get away with it, by cracky!" g

Or maybe most Americans believed the other story, the one he told us on the
night we invaded. He certainly dissembled the real reason in one speech or
the other. Which one do you suppose it was? The one he told us, about having
to crush Iraq before we wound up fighting the Iraqis on our shores, or the
one he told the UN, about dissing UN resolutions?

Make up your mind.

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

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:46:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Right...George Bush told America we had to go to war because Saddam Hussein
was showing no respect at all for United Nations Resolution Number 1441. And
all of the UN-lovers in the Neocon Party jumped up and shouted, "Damned
right! He can't dis the United Nations and get away with it, by cracky!" g

When it came time for Congress to vote on attacking Iraq..how did the
Left vote?

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

On 22 Apr 2005 22:22:50 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article .com,
says...

We made mistakes too. Hind sight is alway better. If we had know
everything we now know, I don't think we would have invaded.

Unfortunately the sad thing is, we *did* know much of what we
know now. A lot of information was deliberately ignored and
I personally feel this was treasonous.

Is this thread appropriate for RCM? Hardly.

Agree.

Jim

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have
alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He
is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of
Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
"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

In article , Gunner says...

When it came time for Congress to vote on attacking Iraq..how did the
Left vote?

Well you're right on that one. At the time I was ashamed at how
many democrats voted. Is *your* rule, "if it's republican, it's
correct?"

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Ed Huntress wrote:


Don't tell anybody I said this, but I believe you're quite right.
What we DO
know, however, is that the US has just introduced a new principle
into
international relations, one that we have been the biggest defenders
AGAINST
since Pearl Harbor. We used to maintain a sharp distinction between
"pre-emptive" war and "preventive" war. The first was sometimes Ok,
but the
second never was Ok. We're the ones who wrote it, or defended its
principle,
in the UN charter.

Unlike the Japanese we did not attack without declaring war. I think
there is a big difference here. We stated that if Sadam did not live
up to the terms of the Gulf War surrender, that we would invade.

I don't know how else we could have enforced the terms of surrender.
We did try economic pressure, but Sadam had the UN in his pocket.

Well, we differ there. I'm very proud to be an American. I'm just not
very
proud of some of the actions being taken in our name by the current
resident
of the White House.

Curious, I am only able to be proud of my own accomplishments. Never
was really a team player. I had very little to do with shaping the
U.S. And therefore have not figured out why I should be proud of being
an American.


Is Iraq better off because of the invasion? Probably. The number
of
people that have died because of the invasion is less per year than
the
number that died because Sadam was in power.

Most of the sources say that isn't true. Even Amnesty International,
as I
quoted indirectly a couple of days ago and which is inclined to put
the
worst possible spin on Saddam's human rights record, says that the
number of
people he killed was only in the hundreds per year during the last
few years
of his reign.


Sure if you pick the right day the number of people he killed might be
none. But you have no way of knowing what he would do in the future.
So I don't think you can pick and choose which times to use in deciding
his human rights record. You need to use all of them.

However, as the IBC says, that's not much of an argument.
Furthermore, it's
not why we allegedly went to war. Supposedly it was because of a
real,
immediate physical threat to the United States.

I never thought we went to war because of a real immediate threat. I
thought we went to war because Sadam would not honor his agreements. I
don't see how anyone would have thought that there was an immediate
physical threat.

Loved is not the issue. Undermined, resisted, and terrorized are the
issues.

We were being undermined, resisted and terrorized before we invaded. I
don't think the invasion has changed that.


Is this thread appropriate for RCM? Hardly.

So, were you doing something that was more useful than organizing
your
thoughts for the very reasonable and well-considered case you made
above?
g

Absolutely. Just before posting that I made a bit for a Simplicity
Tractor I am bringing back to life. Very simple part, just a bar
silver soldered to a bolt for the parking brake clamp.

Dan

In article . com,
says...

I never thought we went to war because of a real immediate threat. I
thought we went to war because Sadam would not honor his agreements. I
don't see how anyone would have thought that there was an immediate
physical threat.

I think that's the whole PNAC thing though. Influential guys
like Wolfowitz were there saying things like "if there's even
a *ten* percent chance that Saddam was behind the WTC events,
then we should invade iraq."

They wanted to introduce to the US citizens the following chain:

WTC - Physical Threat to US - Saddam - Iraq - Invade.

They were hoping for a Pearl Harbor event. They just didn't
realize what it would be.

What I never could figure out, when Bush was in the schoolroom,
and they came in and told him about the plane that hit the
tower - that was the *second* plane.

Not the first one.

What was going on there?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:57:47 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 05:22:03 -0400, "Proto"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:52:08 -0400, "Proto"
wrote:

Perhaps you should take some remedial courses in military
history, geopolitics and concentrate on the History Channel
before showing your ass here.

Maybe while you are calling me stupid YOU could cite some
examples of how
I am so wrong instead of just saying I don't know history. I am
generalizing


Generalizing? No ****.

A similar type of generalization you promoted...

"The Earth is green"

Sure is..except for the ****ing deserts and the 75% of the planet
that is water.

I didn't call you stupid.
I called you ignorant and uneducated.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Am now I am awaiting for you to educate me. Show what you got. How
does it go? put up or what?


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

Might I suggest finding a good library on military histories?

Sigh...Ok..Ill give you a starting place

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM
http://www.rnrc.org/Html/default.htm (needs high speed for best
viewing)
http://www.geocities.com/nankingatrocities/
http://www.gotrain.com/dan/nanking2.htm
http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/...enfirestor.htm
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...of_dresden.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
http://history.designerz.com/by-time...rld-war-ii.php

Come back to me in a few months and we shall discuss the issues.


Sorry to if I don't subscribe to the Gunner school of upbringing. I
leaned as much about war and killing as was required. I found no
fascination in becoming any more educated in that regard as I never
considered it a career of opportunity. I can see now all that I have
missed. I feel shame.


You learned as much about war and killing as you thought you needed.
Unfortunately the big bad world refuses to comform to your world view.

As a very learned man once wrote..those that ignore history, are
doomed to repeat it.

Its evident that you are doomed. And should feel shame at going
through life butt ignorant about the things that can bite you in the
ass without a moments notice.

But hey...wipe the spittle smudges from your rose colored glasses and
keep on keeping on. And have a good nights sleep.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men
stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell

Once again I thank you for your words of wisdom and feel comfort knowing
there are people like you out there. Way out there. I am concerned though
that someone must be dealing with so much fear to embrace standards of such
caliber. Feeling a need to be ready to confront a perceived world of death
and destruction must be extremely stressful.

Best wishes.

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

At this time
there is no evidence that theocrats are going to rule Iraq.

What business is it of yours if some Pope takes over again?
--
Cliff

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

It is too
early to tell what affect the war is going to have on the governments
of Syria, but considering that they are pulling their troops out of
Lebanon, it appears there may be some other benefits.

Perhaps they think that they have a better use .......
--
Cliff

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

I personally am not proud to be an American, but I am thankful that I
am. I really do not understand how you think that anyone died for the
sake of pride. People died because there were mistakes made. Sadam
was one of those that made mistakes. He wanted the countries around
Iraq to believe that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

That probably explains why he kept saying that he had none,
right? And why the UN inspectors were saying the same thing?
And why a few more weeks of cheap inspections could not be
allowed ....?
--
Cliff

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

We made mistakes too. Hind sight is alway better. If we had know
everything we now know, I don't think we would have invaded. But that
is life. One never knows as much at the time as one does later.

So when the neocons claimed that they knew & had irrefutable proof
and refused to tell any that asked?
When they set up their plans to tell lies?

Can you use this excuse to break into your neighbor's house,
steal his things, murder him & his family, burn the house down,
call all your other neighbors that would not help you "terrorists",
and get off with huge prizes from the police?

"Officer, someday he might have had a BB gun in his basement"?
--
Cliff

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

Is Iraq better off because of the invasion? Probably.

A) They had water.
B) They had no terrorists in the streets.
C) They had ~100,000+ more people.
D) they had limited means of self defense.
E) They had electrical power.
F) They had sewage systems.
G) They had shops & businesses.
H) They did NOT have religion ruling them.
I) They once had good health care.
J) They once had decent schools.

K) They had oil.

HTH
--
Cliff

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

The number of
people that have died because of the invasion is less per year than the
number that died because Sadam was in power.

So far the neocons have murdered ~ 100,000 +.
The sanctions may have resulted in many deaths.

Rumors of Saddam killing people seem greatly exaggerated,
if true at all (the same folks brought you the WMD lies
& all the others). Even if true, that was all long ago.

Seen the look on Herr shrubbies face when he's
raving about the voices telling him to kill?
Recall all those that died in Texas ......?

Havng problems counting?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:21:57 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/757cy 85 posts a day? Seems like the normal amount
of smoke to me. Nothing to be alarmed about unless it goes over 100,
or turns white. G

Found a nutcase, eh?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:34:22 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:57:47 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 05:22:03 -0400, "Proto"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:52:08 -0400, "Proto"
wrote:

Perhaps you should take some remedial courses in military
history, geopolitics and concentrate on the History Channel
before showing your ass here.

Maybe while you are calling me stupid YOU could cite some
examples of how
I am so wrong instead of just saying I don't know history. I am
generalizing


Generalizing? No ****.

A similar type of generalization you promoted...

"The Earth is green"

Sure is..except for the ****ing deserts and the 75% of the planet
that is water.

I didn't call you stupid.
I called you ignorant and uneducated.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Am now I am awaiting for you to educate me. Show what you got. How
does it go? put up or what?


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

Might I suggest finding a good library on military histories?

Sigh...Ok..Ill give you a starting place

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM
http://www.rnrc.org/Html/default.htm (needs high speed for best
viewing)
http://www.geocities.com/nankingatrocities/
http://www.gotrain.com/dan/nanking2.htm
http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/...enfirestor.htm
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...of_dresden.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
http://history.designerz.com/by-time...rld-war-ii.php

Come back to me in a few months and we shall discuss the issues.


Sorry to if I don't subscribe to the Gunner school of upbringing. I
leaned as much about war and killing as was required. I found no
fascination in becoming any more educated in that regard as I never
considered it a career of opportunity. I can see now all that I have
missed. I feel shame.


You learned as much about war and killing as you thought you needed.
Unfortunately the big bad world refuses to comform to your world view.

As a very learned man once wrote..those that ignore history, are
doomed to repeat it.

Its evident that you are doomed. And should feel shame at going
through life butt ignorant about the things that can bite you in the
ass without a moments notice.

But hey...wipe the spittle smudges from your rose colored glasses and
keep on keeping on. And have a good nights sleep.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men
stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell

Once again I thank you for your words of wisdom and feel comfort knowing
there are people like you out there. Way out there. I am concerned though
that someone must be dealing with so much fear to embrace standards of such
caliber. Feeling a need to be ready to confront a perceived world of death
and destruction must be extremely stressful.

Best wishes.

It apparently has escaped your attention that we live in a world of
death and destruction. If you look at a historical timeline of the
world, you will find it to be mostly a history of war, death and
destruction, with very small intervals of "peace". This of course
does not touch on the natural disasters that interpose themselves here
and there. It has been less then 15yrs since WW3 ended ( the Cold
War) and the period between it and the start of WW4 (9-11) was filled
with death and destruction.

Simply because by the grace of whatever deity you hold holy, you were
not directly involved in the misfortunes that so many others were, is
not confirmation that it will hold true for you forever.

Can you tell me how many wars are currently active on this planet?
Actually..its probably less now then at any other time in history
http://comnet.org/wilpf/listofwars.html

But tell that to the dying and the dead.

And then of course....there are the disasters Mom Nature tends to
spread around.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001437.html

So viewing the world through rose colored glasses simply means you
have limited your chances of surviving an event.

Shrug. As you noted..it can be stressful, if you view reality with
the wrong outlook. I perfer the non stressful world view of

Bad **** can happen
Be prepared as best you can
Enjoy life to the fullest.

Shrug.

End of discussion.

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

On 23 Apr 2005 08:47:59 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

When it came time for Congress to vote on attacking Iraq..how did the
Left vote?

Well you're right on that one. At the time I was ashamed at how
many democrats voted. Is *your* rule, "if it's republican, it's
correct?"

Jim

Of course not. Im ****ed as hell at Bush on the immigration issue. He
has the same stance that the Left has held for years. And I didnt
want another moderate in the Whitehouse, which is exactly what we got.
On the other hand..he is not a Leftist, which is what we have had on a
number of occasions. So while he is disappointing to most
conservatives on some issues..he is still better than having a Dem
(with the possible exceptions of Joe Leiberman or Zell Miller) in
office.

Something to remember Jim...those of us who hold conservative views,
have been subject to the most horrendous bias and bigotry for the past
40 or more years, by the Left, along with having to live under the
thumb of the Feelers with their programs and entitlements and deep
dives into our wallets.

We dont "have" to hold ourselves to a higher moral standard when it
comes to giving you boys a little payback. And quite frankly since
the demonization by your blokes on the Left has only intensified since
1994...I enjoy stucking the blade in, and giving it slow vigorous
twists. Your lot will never learn to work with the Right, even though
we were forced to work with you on the Left during all those years.
Because we think, and your lot "feels", and as long as the schools are
still taught by teachers to whom even Mother Tereasa was a demon, let
alone any compassionate conservates...generations of ignorant,
buffoons who cannot think for themselves, only react like frog legs to
voltage, will continue to be churned out who hate conservatives.

Frankly Jim..you keep poisoning the well..and the country has indeed
gotton tired of the taste. Hence the Democrats are rapidly becoming an
entity of no power, little regard and an object of contempt.

"Only good people work with the Dems, on the Dems terms. Any dissent
is the mark of the devil. Dems are not required to work with the
Conservatives. To do so..is the mark of the devil."

A little mindset perpetuated by the Left..and one that has
marginalized them to the point...they are a paper dog.

And elevating the extremist fanatical fringe kooks to Democrat
leadership has harmed your cause far more than anything those of us on
the Right could have done.

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

On 23 Apr 2005 09:10:53 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

What I never could figure out, when Bush was in the schoolroom,
and they came in and told him about the plane that hit the
tower - that was the *second* plane.

Not the first one.

What was going on there?

Jim

Because the first one was thought to be a "normal" aviation disaster.
When a Cessna, or even a bus full of people goes into the dirt, Im
sure the Prez is told sooner or later, or he may read about it in the
paper.

Command and Control was handing or misshandling the other aircrafts
flight details and tracking.

When a tanker truck full of gas hits a freeway overpass in Pacoima, do
you think they rush into a meeting and advise the president of
Standard Oil?

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

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 18:21:57 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

It apparently has escaped your attention that we live in a world of
death and destruction.

Perhaps we just need a cure for Wingers Disease ....
--
Cliff

I guess you never learned that sometimes the most elegant speech is SILENCE!


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

No worries about having to learn an original idea, either...

Is he *still* using that stupid line? I guess the
cure didn't take. Too much dumpster food I guess.

Jim

You watch. One day some geographer is going to pop in here, and we'll all
learn that Denial really *is* a river in Egypt. With one stroke, Gunner
will
lose half of his best ideas.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I don't have a problem with your feeling "ashamed".

However, you seem to imply everyone else should feel ashamed also????


"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

When it came time for Congress to vote on attacking Iraq..how did the
Left vote?

Well you're right on that one. At the time I was ashamed at how
many democrats voted. Is *your* rule, "if it's republican, it's
correct?"

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

It apparently has escaped your attention that we live in a world of
death and destruction. If you look at a historical timeline of the
world, you will find it to be mostly a history of war, death and
destruction, with very small intervals of "peace". This of course
does not touch on the natural disasters that interpose themselves here
and there. It has been less then 15yrs since WW3 ended ( the Cold
War) and the period between it and the start of WW4 (9-11) was filled
with death and destruction.

This never escapes me Gunner I just do not live this reality on a day to day
basis. There is also life and the rest of the world to focus on. I might
like to ponder the fact that there are more people alive on this planet
right now than the total number of people that have died since the beginning
of time. Maybe when this 'Death and destriction' factor begins to have an
effect on this equasion I might call myself gunner also. But I can sure wait
for that time to arrive as you might predict.


Simply because by the grace of whatever deity you hold holy, you were
not directly involved in the misfortunes that so many others were, is
not confirmation that it will hold true for you forever.

Some prefer an outlook with a milder taste. I have learned to appreciate
life more and often give thanks in regards to what you are suggesting

Can you tell me how many wars are currently active on this planet?

Probably all of them.


Actually..its probably less now then at any other time in history
http://comnet.org/wilpf/listofwars.html

But tell that to the dying and the dead.

And then of course....there are the disasters Mom Nature tends to
spread around.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001437.html

So viewing the world through rose colored glasses simply means you
have limited your chances of surviving an event.

Shrug. As you noted..it can be stressful, if you view reality with
the wrong outlook. I perfer the non stressful world view of

Bad **** can happen
Be prepared as best you can
Enjoy life to the fullest.

Shrug.

End of discussion.

Gunner is have been fun.
Regards.
Proto

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 16:18:23 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

I might call myself gunner also.

A parting gift to you.

My nym is Gunner Asch. It might give you a git of insight into the
usage if you do a google on the name. I suspect it may surprise you a
bit. I would strongly suggest reading the trilogy.

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

In article , Gunner says...

When a tanker truck full of gas hits a freeway overpass in Pacoima, do
you think they rush into a meeting and advise the president of
Standard Oil?

I'm pretty sure that where I work, if any employee anywhere gets
killed, the big Kahuna is informed of this fact straight away.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Frankly Jim..you keep poisoning the well..and the country has indeed
gotton tired of the taste. Hence the Democrats are rapidly becoming an
entity of no power, little regard and an object of contempt.

Contempt? Even most religious leader despise Frist and Delay.

Is this the sort of crap you want running your goverment?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Certainly, Jim... when one considers the crap your people came up with when
they had the chance they're giants! Have you forgotten?

George Willer

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

Frankly Jim..you keep poisoning the well..and the country has indeed
gotton tired of the taste. Hence the Democrats are rapidly becoming an
entity of no power, little regard and an object of contempt.

Contempt? Even most religious leader despise Frist and Delay.

Is this the sort of crap you want running your goverment?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Ace" wrote in message
...
I guess you never learned that sometimes the most elegant speech is
SILENCE!

If you have nothing worth saying, that's a good idea, Ace.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Right...George Bush told America we had to go to war because Saddam
Hussein
was showing no respect at all for United Nations Resolution Number 1441.
And
all of the UN-lovers in the Neocon Party jumped up and shouted, "Damned
right! He can't dis the United Nations and get away with it, by cracky!"
g

Or maybe most Americans believed the other story, the one he told us on
the
night we invaded. He certainly dissembled the real reason in one speech
or
the other. Which one do you suppose it was? The one he told us, about
having
to crush Iraq before we wound up fighting the Iraqis on our shores, or
the
one he told the UN, about dissing UN resolutions?

Make up your mind.

Oh, my mind is settled on the subject, barring some new information that
would change it. Given the Bushies' attitude toward the UN, I don't think
there's any question which was the supposedly sincere reason and which was
the dissembly for reasons of international diplomacy.

But if you want to make a case that the whole think was about UN
resolutions, it would be interesting to hear your argument.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:46:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Right...George Bush told America we had to go to war because Saddam
Hussein
was showing no respect at all for United Nations Resolution Number 1441.
And
all of the UN-lovers in the Neocon Party jumped up and shouted, "Damned
right! He can't dis the United Nations and get away with it, by cracky!"
g

When it came time for Congress to vote on attacking Iraq..how did the
Left vote?

Gunner

They didn't vote on it. Neither did the right. Read the bill.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

No worries about having to learn an original idea, either...

Is he *still* using that stupid line? I guess the
cure didn't take. Too much dumpster food I guess.

Jim

You watch. One day some geographer is going to pop in here, and we'll all
learn that Denial really *is* a river in Egypt. With one stroke, Gunner
will
lose half of his best ideas.

d8-)


How about Denali. Would that be close enough if you were dyslexic?


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

In article , Ace
says...

However, you seem to imply everyone else should feel ashamed also????

Any thinking man should be dismayed at how the US constitition
is getting trampled on.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:


Don't tell anybody I said this, but I believe you're quite right.
What we DO
know, however, is that the US has just introduced a new principle
into
international relations, one that we have been the biggest defenders
AGAINST
since Pearl Harbor. We used to maintain a sharp distinction between
"pre-emptive" war and "preventive" war. The first was sometimes Ok,
but the
second never was Ok. We're the ones who wrote it, or defended its
principle,
in the UN charter.

Unlike the Japanese we did not attack without declaring war. I think
there is a big difference here.

The lack of warning doesn't occupy a very large place in historical
scholarship because everyone now knows it was a screw-up. The issue that has
remained an issue in international diplomatic relations is that it was a
preventive war -- one that didn't work, but that was its intent.

We stated that if Sadam did not live
up to the terms of the Gulf War surrender, that we would invade.

That was warning, but the intent was preventive. He hadn't attacked us. He
didn't overtly threaten to attack us. By definition, going after him under
those conditions is a preventive war.


I don't know how else we could have enforced the terms of surrender.

The question is why we felt we had to enforce the terms of surrender. If he
was preparing specifically to attack us, and we attacked first, that would
be a pre-emptive war. If he actually attacked us, that would be a defensive
war from our standpoint. If we attacked because we felt a potential threat
as a result of his capabilities, rather than of his overt attempts to attack
us, that's a preventive war.

The war in Iraq was an overtly preventive war, the first one we have fought
since the glorious war in Granada. g In any case, this one is a serious
matter in the relations among nations today, because we just gave the green
light to preventive wars. It's a serious escalation in the level of risk for
the world.

Breaking the terms of surrender, unless the term being broken was a specific
agreement not to attack another country, is not grounds for war under any
doctrine the United States nor the United Nations have ever supported. It
constitutes a justification for some action, whether it's blockades,
sanctions, or other punishments, but not war. At least, it never has. If
we're saying it does now, then we just changed the rules.

We did try economic pressure, but Sadam had the UN in his pocket.

I don't think it's true that he had the UN in his pocket. What he had was so
much oil that many countries felt it was too delicious to let themselves get
all high and mighty about principle. g I think you're right that the UN
was too *weakened* by those temptations to be very effective. But we could
have supplied the backbone. The French and Germans had already put
themselves on the spot: three more months, and they would have supported
war, they say. Maybe they would have or maybe they wouldn't have. Either
way, they would have lost. But we let them off the hook by going to war
ourselves.



Well, we differ there. I'm very proud to be an American. I'm just not
very
proud of some of the actions being taken in our name by the current
resident
of the White House.

Curious, I am only able to be proud of my own accomplishments. Never
was really a team player. I had very little to do with shaping the
U.S. And therefore have not figured out why I should be proud of being
an American.

It's natural to have pride in one's country. I don't take credit for what it
is, but I'm proud to be a part of it. I guess I was a bit more of a team
player.



Is Iraq better off because of the invasion? Probably. The number
of
people that have died because of the invasion is less per year than
the
number that died because Sadam was in power.

Most of the sources say that isn't true. Even Amnesty International,
as I
quoted indirectly a couple of days ago and which is inclined to put
the
worst possible spin on Saddam's human rights record, says that the
number of
people he killed was only in the hundreds per year during the last
few years
of his reign.


Sure if you pick the right day the number of people he killed might be
none. But you have no way of knowing what he would do in the future.
So I don't think you can pick and choose which times to use in deciding
his human rights record. You need to use all of them.

However, as the IBC says, that's not much of an argument.
Furthermore, it's
not why we allegedly went to war. Supposedly it was because of a
real,
immediate physical threat to the United States.

I never thought we went to war because of a real immediate threat.

Neither did I, nor most other reasonably intelligent people. However, as
Bush's speech and the dominant monologue coming from our government claimed,
he was a threat, he'd have nuclear weapons within six months, and we had to
take him out. That was the official story.

I
thought we went to war because Sadam would not honor his agreements.

Nobody ever went to war because someone "would not honor his agreements."
That's a non-starter.

I
don't see how anyone would have thought that there was an immediate
physical threat.

Read Bush's speech on the day we invaded, and see how dumb he thought we all
were.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:57:39 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

those of us who hold conservative views,
have been subject to the most horrendous bias and bigotry for the past
40 or more years, by the Left, along with having to live under ***the
thumb*** of the Feelers with their programs and entitlements and deep
dives into our wallets.

Would that be the thumb used to count out, IIRC, about a half mill to
you and yours? Perhaps it wasn't so much a Right or a Left wing digit,
but a sort of Robin Hood thumb, robbing from the robbers to pay the
robbers.... oh wait, that can't be right, what are you again? Oh yeah,
"survivalist"/victim/unlimited free-time conservative apologist. Sorry
for not finding time to commiserate about the high cost of Mountain
Dew and Marlboros. But as I'm sure you realize, most of us have a
limited amount of sympathy to dish out, and you're a ways down my
list... right between Newt Gingrich and the chili finger lady. She's
gonna' blow by you though if a vending machine eats her quarter and
she posts the story.

Wayne

On 23 Apr 2005 13:55:59 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Frankly Jim..you keep poisoning the well..and the country has indeed
gotton tired of the taste. Hence the Democrats are rapidly becoming an
entity of no power, little regard and an object of contempt.

Contempt? Even most religious leader despise Frist and Delay.

Is this the sort of crap you want running your goverment?

Jim

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



"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