"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:26:35 GMT, the opaque "J. R. Carroll"
clearly wrote:

There is something that you guys are overlooking.
The US is still in an uproar as the result of the initial attack.
We are still in the process of stripping US citizens of the thing we hold
dear - our constitutionally protected freedoms. UBL isn't doing that and
couldn't.
We are ****ing away hundreds of billions off dollars without much real
positive effect in our attempt to defeat "terrorism".

PRECISELY! Remember that promise lots of folks made when the attack
was over? "We won't let it change us." Fat f*ck*ng lot of good that
did.

Back in 11/04, CBS said "According to bin Laden's math, each $1 al
Qaeda has spent on strikes has cost the United States $1 million in
economic fallout and military spending, including emergency funding
for Iraq and Afghanistan."


Political turmoil is increasing, not abating. The country was as united
as I
have ever seen it on 12 September 2001. Look where we are now.
We have served up the members of our armed forces as targets, hardened
targets I'll grant you but the Russians were willing to take 10 to 1
losses
against the Germans. We are squandering the most professional, well
equipped, best trained, highly motivated fighting force the world has
ever
known and haven't bothered to ask let alone answer the most important
question of all. What does "Victory" look like? Our armed forces are made
up
of some of our finest men and women. We owe it to them to ask and answer
this question. They deserve it.

Amen to that.


We have overlaid our commercial and financial with regulations that
impose
enormous burdens and make us less competitive in the worlds manufacturing
and financial markets at precisely the time we need to be focused on
learning to deal with reality in these areas.
The President of the United States and his entire administration ( our
government ) are in the process of loosing whatever credibility they had
not
with the outside world, but here at home where it really counts because
they
have used any means to pursue ends that may or may not be realistically
attainable rather than being truthful and operating transparently.

Bingo, but do the sheeple know that? Unfortunately, not yet. I wish
they'd hurry up and wake up to it.


The list goes on but one possible reason we have not seen further attacks
here is that we are accomplishing the goals of our enemies quite well
without further prodding. Why waste the energy with so little possible
return.

And while we waste billions on protecting 1 area, 15 more are left
wide open. After 9/11, how many planes do you thing any semi-
intelligent tango would attempt to board and blow up? Once they do
decide to attack here again, look out. It'll surely be our
water/gas/power supplies, other modes of transportation, internet, or
simply any gathering of people anywhere. Let's see any force in the
world protect against that. It just isn't going to happen and all of
this feigned "protection" is wasted. Everything which is being done is
all dog and pony show ****; just a "show" for the fearful public. The
scary thing is that it's working. People are bending to the will of
their overlords.


It sucks. Hard.

Bigtime.


Larry,
This is a message to terrorists that is a little more effective than
anything I have seen from politicians on either side of the aisle:

ftp.machiningsolution.com/avrilkorman.jpg

A picture is worth a thousand words....

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

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:30:54 GMT, "J. R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:26:01 GMT, "J. R. Carroll"
wrote:




"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:26:35 GMT, "J. R. Carroll"
wrote:

But then..thats the Left. They are good at that. The politics of
personal destruction outweighs the good of the nation every time, with
the Left.


So Coulter is a leftie now? Her statements and behavior are embraced by
nut
jobs such as yourself.
Tell me again how this sort of offensive nonsense brings us all together
in
the face of a common enemy. It doesn't. Coulter is acting the fool and
doing
Osama's job for him in the service of ------ what was it again? Remind
me.
Oh yeah, it's that "we" thing you keep talking about. Anne Coulter -
American Taliban.


Its called...responding in kind. But then..you knew that didnt you?

No it isn't. It's called hate speach and if she had used racial epithets she
would have been arrested and jailed.

As for being sexy, there is an old saying - beauty is only skin deep, ugly
is to the bone. Dear Anne hit every branch during her fall from the ugly
tree and she's a pig no matter how much lipstick you smear on her. And she's
a hit and run lawyer to boot.

Chuckle..Ill bet you get a woody when looking at pictures of Bella
Abzug.

Snicker.....

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...l_hate_speech/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...2/155438.shtml
snip thousands more

Lets look at a few more Coulter quotes...shall we?

I particularly like this one..and I think of you and others here when
I read it.....

"Much of the left's hate speech bears greater similarity to a
psychological disorder than to standard political discourse. The
hatred is blinding, producing logical contradictions that would be
impossible to sustain were it not for the central element faith plays
in the left's new religion. The basic tenet of their faith is this:
Maybe they were wrong on facts and policies, but they are good and
conservatives are evil. You almost want to give it to them. It's all
they have left." -- Ann Coulter, P. 199



Here the country had finally given liberals a war against
fundamentalism and they don't want to fight it. They would have,
except it would put them on the same side as the United States." --
Ann Coulter, P. 5

"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They
don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have
indoor plumbing by now." -- Ann Coulter, P. 6

"If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic,
fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't
their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point
out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably
construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be
dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden
motives? Why the evasions?" -- Ann Coulter, P. 10

"What liberals mean by "goose-stepping" or "ethnic cleansing" is
generally something along the lines of "eliminating taxpayer funding
for the National Endowment for the Arts. But they can't say that, or
people would realize they're crazy. So instead they accuse Republicans
of speaking in 'code words.'" -- Ann Coulter, P. 12

"'Moderate Republican' is simply how the blabocracy flatters
Republicans who vote with the Democrats. If it weren't so conspicuous,
the New York Times would start referring to "nice Republicans" and
'mean Republicans.'" -- Ann Coulter, P. 15

"With their infernal racial set-asides, racial quotas, and race
norming, liberals share many of the Klan's premises. The Klan sees the
world in terms of race and ethnicity. So do liberals! Indeed, liberals
and white supremacists are the only people left in America who are
neurotically obsessed with race. Conservatives champion a color-blind
society." -- Ann Coulter, P. 26

"If liberals expressed half as much self-righteous indignation about
crime as they do about the random case of police brutality, one might
be inclined to take them seriously. Criminals they like. It's the
police they hate." -- Ann Coulter, P. 28

"There is no surer proof of a Republican mediocrity than the media's
respect." -- Ann Coulter, P. 51

"Indeed, the media elites covering national politics would be
indistinguishable from the Democratic Party except the Democratic
Party isn't liberal enough. A higher percentage of the Washington
press corps voted for Clinton in 1992 than did his demographic
category: 'Registered Democrats.'" -- Ann Coulter, P. 56

"Liberals pretend to believe that when two random hoodlums kill a gay
man in Oklahoma, it's evidence of a national trend, but when a million
people buy a book, it proves absolutely nothing about the book-buying
public." -- Ann Coulter, P. 103

"Liberals don't believe there is such a thing as "fact" or "truth."
Everything is a struggle for power between rival doctrines." -- Ann
Coulter, P. 113

"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb,
they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would
still have "racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other
highly nuanced arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would
nearly cripple them." -- Ann Coulter, P. 121

"This is how six-year-olds argue: They call everything "stupid." The
left's primary argument is the angry reaction of a helpless child
deprived of the ability to mount logical counterarguments. Someday we
will turn to the New York Times editorial page and find the Newspaper
of Record denouncing President Bush for being a 'penis-head.'" -- Ann
Coulter, P. 121

"'Stupid' means one thing: "threatening to the interests of the
Democratic Party." The more Conservative the Republican, the more
vicious and hysterical the attacks on his intelligence will be." --
Ann Coulter, P. 125

"Most preposterously, the New York Times reported -- as if it were
news -- "With his grades and college boards, Mr. Bush might not have
been admitted [to Yale] if he had applied just a few years later."
"Might not have been admitted"? What on earth does that mean? Bush
also "might not have been admitted" if he had dropped out of high
school and become a Gangsta Rapper. It so galls Northeastern liberals
that Republican George Bush went to an Ivy League school, they can't
resist publicly fantasizing about an alternative universe in which
Yale rejects him." -- Ann Coulter, P. 136

"The only definition of the "religious right" that ever holds up is
"Republicans Liberals Don't Like." In this sense, it is the molecular
opposite of 'moderate Republicans.'" -- Ann Coulter, P. 174

"Considering the invective constantly being heaped on the "religious
right," it is probably not surprising that few people identify
themselves as members. "Religious Right" is always something somebody
else is, like a 'son of a bitch.'" -- Ann Coulter, P. 177

"The imaginary threat of the "religious right" is important because it
allows liberals to complain about their victimization by religious
zealots. It is not sufficient compensation to be applauded wildly on
Politically Incorrect and other late-night TV shows, profiled in
fawning articles in the New York Times, photographed for People
magazine, showered with awards, Pulitizer Prizes, and other sundry
tributes. Liberals insist that they also be admired for their bravery
in standing up to Christians." -- Ann Coulter, P. 183

"Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for
liberals and they can't stand the competition." -- Ann Coulter, P. 194


"(L)iberals don't think a majority of Americans support abortion --
otherwise they would welcome the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which
would do nothing more than put abortion to a vote. As their theatrics
on Roe demonstrate, the last thing they want is a vote. Once Americans
were allowed to vote on abortion. Then Roe came along and overturned
the democratically enacted laws of forty-eight states." -- Ann
Coulter, P. 201

"Most of the time, liberals do not imagine the world is real. Their
contribution to political debate is worthless, since even they do not
believe things they say. The more shocking and iconoclastic they are,
the more fashion points they accrue. Liberal Manhattanites believe in
redistribution of their own wealth and ceaseless police brutality like
they believe in Martians." -- Ann Coulter, P. 203



Snicker.....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/pr...TICLE_ID=29414


Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:51:46 GMT, the opaque "J. R. Carroll"
clearly wrote:

Larry,
This is a message to terrorists that is a little more effective than
anything I have seen from politicians on either side of the aisle:

ftp.machiningsolution.com/avrilkorman.jpg

A picture is worth a thousand words....

Heh heh heh. She got it in one, as did these guys.
http://www.attackonamerica.net/new-wtc.jpg

The problem is that the media and pols have been playing the public
and stirring up all sorts of fears where there should be none, or
relatively few. Since there is nothing we can do to prevent terrorist
attacks by anyone, foreign or domestic, other than vigilance to catch
a few percent, I see this as a grab by them for more and more control
over the public. (They already have the sheeple and now they want us.
I think that may sound a whole lot more paranoid than I really am.)


- Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag? -
http://diversify.com Full Service Web Application Programming

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 03:30:11 GMT, the opaque Gunner
clearly wrote:

Lets look at a few more Coulter quotes...shall we?

"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They
don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have
indoor plumbing by now." -- Ann Coulter, P. 6

bseg


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400054184/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-0554864-4657760#/102-0554864-4657760
"Listen to Ann Coulter read an excerpt from "How to Talk to a Liberal
(If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter" [RealAudio]"
The first clip from this is very telling. This broad is SCARY!


- Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag? -
http://diversify.com Full Service Web Application Programming

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 04:12:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

The problem is that the media and pols have been playing the public
and stirring up all sorts of fears where there should be none, or
relatively few. Since there is nothing we can do to prevent terrorist
attacks by anyone, foreign or domestic, other than vigilance to catch
a few percent, I see this as a grab by them for more and more control
over the public. (They already have the sheeple and now they want us.
I think that may sound a whole lot more paranoid than I really am.)

Civil War, D.C.-style

Michael Goodwin
New York Daily News


It's a civil war in Washington. The combatants have an eye-for-an-eye
mentality.
The partisanship is heated and nasty.

Republicans versus Democrats? Nah. This one pits the media against the
White
House.

It's a war the media can't win, and shouldn't wage.

The intense grilling that White House reporters inflicted on
presidential
spokesman Scott McClellan Monday over whether political guru Karl Rove
leaked
the name of a CIA operative was no ordinary give-and-take. It was a
hostile
hectoring that revealed much of the mainstream press for what it has
become: the
opposition party.

Forget fairness, or even the pretense of it. With one of its own
locked up -
Judith Miller of The New York Times - much of the Beltway gang has
declared war
on the White House.

Reporters apparently have decided Democrats aren't up to the job.
Can't blame
them. With Dems reduced to Howard Dean's rants and Hillary Clinton's
juvenile
jab that President Bush looks like Mad magazine's Alfred E. Neuman,
somebody has
to offer a substantive alternative. The press has volunteered.

That the mainstream media are basically liberals with press passes has
been
documented by virtually every study that measures reporters' political
identification and issue positions. But bias has now slopped over into
blatant
opposition, a stance the media will regret. Instead of providing
unvarnished
facts obtained by aggressive but fair-minded reporting, the media will
be
reduced to providing comfort food to ideological comrades.

Already held in lower esteem by the public than lawyers and Congress,
the press
risks looking like a special interest group. Its claims to represent
"the
American people," as one McClellan inquisitor did, are easily ignored
when it
serves as an echo chamber for the anti-Bush.

Indeed, as soon as Monday's bash-by-press session ended, Sen. John
Kerry
(D-Mass.) called on Rove to resign. If everybody resigned when Kerry
demanded
it, Washington would be empty.

In fairness, the media have many reasons to feel frustrated. The Bush
White
House has not only restricted information, but has aggressively moved
against
traditional press privileges. In the past year, about 25 reporters
have been
subpoenaed or questioned in courts about their sources, according to
the
Newspaper Association of America.

The most famous case has seen The Times' Miller sent to prison for up
to four
months after she refused to disclose who in the government talked to
her about
CIA agent Valerie Plame.

A federal prosecutor is probing whether a crime was committed by
someone who
blew Plame's secret status. Rove has emerged as the latest press
suspect; his
lawyer denies any wrongdoing.

Miller - a former colleague of mine - has taken her punishment with
grace. Her
husband, book editor Jason Epstein, told Editor & Publisher magazine,
"She was
quite prepared to take the consequences and the judge had no choice,
she
understood that." Epstein said Miller believed she had to protect her
source,
even if that meant jail.

"I don't see how it could have been avoided because the law is the
law," he
said. "She exhausted her appeals and had no place left to go."

What a refreshing, adult point of view. Here's hoping it spreads. Then
the press
can get back to reporting on the President instead of fighting him.

Originally published on July 12, 2005

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/...p-279954c.html
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

I did some mass snipping to whittle this exchange to a more
reasonable size. I'm honestly trying to keep anything that's important,
but I apologize in advance if I've screwed up.

Nah, I'm only blaming him for tossing more fuel on the fire.

You just aid we picked the fight. Right up there, where it starts
the line with .

Can you not separate an analogy from the concept it's trying to
illustrate?
But I can comfortable say that Bush did pick the fight in Iraq.

OK, then explain to me how invading Iraq, killing lots and lots of
civilians, (and some insurgents who may or may not be local) and
installing a government that appears to be completely powerless is gonna
"not give someone an opening" to attack the US. Because I don't see it.

Well, so far it seems to have worked, so I guess it doesn't matter if
you're "seeing it" or not.

Define "work" as you're applying it here. I see a whole lot of dead
people on both sides, and a huge monetary expense to the US. In
exchange for, as you said, not a perfect guarantee the US won't be
attacked again.

I mean, here we are over here, in North America, and there our army is,
on the other side of the planet. How does that make sense?

Are you pretending our _entire_ army is over there? Seriously?

No, but enough of it to make any major response over here impossible.
Besides people, equipment is deployed over in Iraq, including hardware
that had been mothballed. We don't even have a good "plan C" if
something goes ape**** over here.

Oh well, at least you got off the hugging thing.

And yet, you're still pretending that if we're just nice to 'em they'll
reciprocate by being nice to us. It's still dangerously naiive.

Some will, some won't. People tend to give as good as they get--be
mean to people, and they'll be mean back. Be nice to people and they'll
be nice back. Not 100%, but pretty high.

Do we know each other from a.g.d. by the way?

Yup. (:

I mean, if what he's doing is effective then there should at least
be a slowdown in the increase, but that isn't what's happening.

Where was that followup to 9/11/01 that OBL threatened us with again?
I keep not seeing it.

Ask Tony Blair.

I wasn't aware that he lives in this country.

I'm not restricting the conversation to the US alone. My complaint
is with Bush's war on terror, which is supposedly worldwide. To quote
me: "Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on
the rise since Bush began 'responding strongly'?" Message ID is
if you'd
like to check the context of that remark.
What I'm trying to get at is that you keep falling back on the "we
haven't been attacked again" defense of this war. First, correlation
isn't causation. Second, what defense will you use if we do get
attacked over here? If your only justification for this war is that we
haven't been attacked yet, then as soon as we do get attacked again your
entire justification is gone. At that point I suppose you could
redefine it as "It isn't as bad this time" or "it took X years for it to
happen again," but those are ****-poor results for $1.25billion a week,
plus thousands of casualties. So I would like to know if you've got any
other justification for this activity in Iraq?

OK, Mr. Hugbot. http://research.lifeboat.com/worldterror.htm

Mr. Hugbot. I kinda like that.

Go websearch for "Perry Bible Fellowship." That's where I got the
name from. Funny as hell.
BTW, you also got your support for my "unsupportably weak
generality." You're welcome.

Were they born evil?

Nature vs. nurture? Who knows. Centuries of hate has a habit of
changing cultures.

That's not an answer. "Who knows?" is a weak argument to support a
war. So is the corollary: "Just in case."

It doesn't matter if they were born evil or not. The reason is
irrelevant. The fact is, they want to kill us, and will do so given the
opportunity. If we show weakness (which you think is "kindness" or
whatever your words were), they'll take that opening. Just as they did
repeatedly when Clinton failed to respond positively following the
incidents working up to 9/11/01.

Well, yeah, the reason they hate us does matter. They didn't just
jump off a spaceship one day--something here on Earth turned some people
into terrorists. Until we fix that something it's highly unlikely we'll
be able to kill enough terrorists to eliminate terrorism. A dripping
faucet can fill the biggest bucket, as one fortune cookie told me.

OK, I blame all the people who voted for it. And all of the goons
who voted for them and plan to keep on voting for them.

So would that include yourself? How did your representatives vote? You
do know, I assume?

Yup, I know how he voted. I also know that I did not vote for him
when he ran for office. But if I had voted for him I would not plan to
keep voting for him.

Now that we've got the blaming out of the way, how does all of this
blaming make Iraq not a ****up? A ****up which the republicans in the
White House are planning and leading.

Well, let's see. Their woodchipper-people-shredding dictator and his
sons are out of power and/or dead, the infrastructure is being rebuilt,
most of the country is safe. Hm, maybe there's more going on over there
that's good, that we're not hearing much about. A couple friends of
mine have come back from over there, and tell me that it's a different
country than the press shows. Lots of good progress, and they're both
****ed that the press isn't giving them any mention for the progress.

Cool, glad to hear it. But it seems the attacks and bombings in Iraq
are increasing instead of decreasing, which is not a positive trend.
Our military is losing people and machinery faster than they can be
replaced--another bad trend. Every pivot point we've heard about:
taking Baghdad, killing Saddam's sons, catching Saddam, government
handover, and the elections; they have all been played up before they
took place as a turning point after which things would show a marked
improvement. But that's never happened--after each event all trends in
Iraq remained the same as they were before.
Either the leaders are bull****ting us on a regular basis, or they
don't know what they're doing. Both scenarios fit my definition of
"****up." What also fits my definition is the

Because your people also voted for it, so don't just blame my people.

I don't own or control them--they are not "mine." But to use your
language: "Your people" have the authority to end it, but they don't.

They were working on the same intel as "my people".

But now they have all-new intel that tells them that the old intel
was utter horse ****, but they don't change their plans one bit. How is
that acceptable?

In fact it's plainly obvious at this point that "your people" lied their
asses off to get "my people" to consent to this cluster****.

Gunner _JUST_ quoted Kerry, Clinton, Albright, and all those folks
regarding Iraq. Do I need to dig 'em out, or can we stipulate that
"your people" also agreed that he had the stuff and was a danger? Oh,
and those quotes predate the W administration. So much for _that_ plan.

Gunner's in my killfile, so I don't see anything he posts anymore.
Anyway, the vote itself does not predate the W administration. That
vote would be the point at which "my people" consented.

So, yeah,
I'll keep on blaming "your people" until they either fix what they broke
or lose power--whichever comes first.

Both sides voted for it, but you blame the other side. Got it.

Yeah, because one side gives orders to the military. Orders that I
think are completely counterproductive and stupid. The other side only
gets to bitch about it.

Yes, that _IS_ what I was saying. Democrats also voted for it. I can
roll out all the quotes from Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, and all those, if
you'd like, regarding OBL, SH, and so on. But, you've seen 'em already.

And you are correct, sir, I've seen 'em all. It's amazing how many
republicans in the workplace love their copy machines.

OK, evasion noted. What about those quotes, specifically?

Ya know, I'll bet that Gunner's list you referred to is almost a
carbon copy of the lists I've been accosted with at work.
And what is this evasion you speak of. I even said you were correct!
Yes, I've seen the quotes, and yes, they said exactly what all of those
quotes say they said. What in the holy hell do you think I'm evading?
Are we not speaking the same language?

Anyway, I know
now, and I knew then that Democrats also voted for the war. I was right
there, yelling at the TV when it happened on C-Span. But I just can't
seem to figure out how any of that is supposed to turn a ****up into a
nota****up.

But you're happy to criticize, even though you have nothing constructive
to contribute. Got it.

Huh? Do you not remember what you called "hugging" earlier?

Take it up with your congresscritters then.

They're not the ones replying to me--you are. It seems odd that you
would butt into a conversation and then suggest that I leave.

Butt into? Bite me. What have your congresscritters responded to you
with? You _have_ contacted them, right? Mine are pretty damn
responsive, even though I disagree with 1.5 of the 3 of them.

Amazing. It must be the bane of being a liberal in Texas. I only
get the standard: "Thank you for your comments. The representative's
views on this issue a bla bla bla. Please send a check." This is
the same state, after all, that gave us the chicken **** president who
screens his audiences because he fears hecklers. No surprise then that
the congressmen (and women) feel they can also ignore their opponents.

Well, I know you're trying to be a snot, but his job is to run the damn
country, not govern based on polls like the last guy did.

Well, I know you're trying to be a snot, but his job is to run the
damn country somewhere other than into the ground.

My point is that we voted for someone based on their pre-election
statements. Changing policy at the whim of polls is _not_ what they're
elected to do. Clinton didn't care; he just bounced around on whatever
topics he thought would increase his poll numbers.

Clinton is not in office. Clinton no longer has any control over
what happens. Therefore Clinton has basically jack **** to do with
anything going on in Iraq, regardless of what his position is, was, or
was supposed to be.
Can you respond without invoking "Clinton?"

What "stuff" are the terrorists trying to take? AFAIR some want us
out of the Middle East, and a few want us all dead. But the vast
majority would probably be pretty satisfied with an end to bombings in
their cities, which I figure is an easily achievable goal. It would
save us money on bombs and funerals to boot.

You're being intentionally dense. If someone threatens you, the best
way to deal with that threat is to provide an effective defense, not as
you'd suggest, to try to reason with them.

So who would you say is being the bully in Iraq?

I bet you're the type that, if faced with a mugger, would rather "give
the man your wallet and hope he doesn't hurt you much", rather than to
arm yourself with a legally concealed weapon. Am I wrong?

Yup, you're wrong. The last guy that tried to mug me left with a
broken elbow, broken wrist, and a few missing teeth. I still have his
knife.

If you haven't studied history, I'm not going to try to fix that here.
Sorry, but if you have no understanding of what's happened in the last
thousand years or so, that might explain why you think you can reason
with those people. Yes, I said "those people".

Suit yourself.

Which "He" are you referring to in the above?

Context makes it quite obvious that "He" applies to Clinton. Need I
diagram the sentences for you?

Yes, get to it.

And how does one go
about emboldening a group that's currently taking on the US military
with homemade bombs?

By showing weakness. Do pay attention.

So what would be the next level of "bold" after throwing grenades at
an oncoming tank?

How do you embolden a guy who's willing to take on
a mission that requires his own violent death? Seems like those folks
are riding the upper reaches of boldness already.

Apparently they are not currently bold enough to attack the US on US
soil again.

Yeah, they're being less bold by attacking hardened military targets
in the middle of a ****ing war zone. 'Cause if I had the option: fight
with trained, armed, and ****ed-off marines vs. evade mall security,
it's the marines every time!
Or were you being intentionally dense to get back at me?

And then people like you would call them "puppets of the Bush regime" or
something. Yes, that's already happening.

No, people like me wouldn't. That's why I'm not. Those people who
are calling them puppets aren't like me.

OK, fair enough. Then why do you pretend the population who is helping
us, isn't?

What are you referring to?

See what I mean?

Nope. Could you quote some relevant text instead of acting like a
pud? Hell, just paraphrase it.

Well then, let's get independant of their resources and they can just
kill each other instead of us. I'm fine with that.

Me too! Yay! Agreement!

Far as I'm concerned, we should tell 'em "Look. We helped SH, he got
out of hand, and we came in and took him out. We gave you a reasonably
good guy this time. Keep his ass in line, or we'll wander through
_again_ with our forces, take _him_ out, and repeat as needed. Get your
**** together and we won't have to keep doing this, but if the next guy
makes noises like this last guy, we're taking him out. Now behave."

Hopefully that makes my point of view clear. Given that it's not
going to happen any time soon, the next best thing is to whack the
troublemakers hard and repeatedly until they either change (ha!) or die.
The alternative is to not take them out, and they'll take us out.

Umm, I'm really not at all convinced Saddam was any danger to us in
any realistic way. Maybe a pain in the ass, but certainly no danger.
OTOH, the guys who have been successfully killing our soldiers are
extremely dangerous, and they weren't around before this war. As far as
I'm concerned none of this should have happened at all.
Now that it has happened, maybe your idea would be best, but what
Bush is doing right now is a mistake. And we all get to pay for it.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:11:41 GMT, the opaque Gunner
clearly wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 04:12:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

The problem is that the media and pols have been playing the public
and stirring up all sorts of fears where there should be none, or
relatively few. Since there is nothing we can do to prevent terrorist
attacks by anyone, foreign or domestic, other than vigilance to catch
a few percent, I see this as a grab by them for more and more control
over the public. (They already have the sheeple and now they want us.
I think that may sound a whole lot more paranoid than I really am.)

Civil War, D.C.-style

Michael Goodwin
New York Daily News
--snippathon--

These two points caught my eye:

That the mainstream media are basically liberals with press passes has
been
documented by virtually every study that measures reporters' political
identification and issue positions. But bias has now slopped over into
blatant
opposition, a stance the media will regret. Instead of providing
unvarnished
facts obtained by aggressive but fair-minded reporting, the media will
be
reduced to providing comfort food to ideological comrades.

Sad, ain't it?


In fairness, the media have many reasons to feel frustrated. The Bush
White
House has not only restricted information, but has aggressively moved
against
traditional press privileges. In the past year, about 25 reporters
have been
subpoenaed or questioned in courts about their sources, according to
the
Newspaper Association of America.

What's THAT all about? Could it be more erosion of our freedoms?

-
- Let Exxon send their own troops -
-------------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming

On 12 Jul 2005 15:38:43 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

John's number was what, $5B per month of your tax money, yes?
Escalation or not, that's still a hunk-O-change. What would
*you* like to see money like that spend on?

Well, you act like that money evaporates. Doesn't it, you know, get
spent to make things, employ people who spend, that sort of thing?

You are still missing the point.

I _get_ your point, Jim, I _disagree_ with it.

The present adminstration
is acting like a crack whore with unlimited use of stolen
credit cards. YOUR credit cards. YOU pay the bills for their
largess.

YOU don't get anything when they spend the money.

Sure I do. We're safer.

YOU don't see terrorism being combatted in any way.

Well, I haven't gone over there, but they haven't come over here again
either, so I think I do see it being effectively combatted, in several
ways.

YOU are going to have to deal with the screwed up economy for years
to come.

Why can't use consider using that $5B/month for doing some good
in the world?

They are. Not only haven't there been the promised followup attacks in
the US, but that $5B a month is stimulating the economy, employing
people who spend it and buy stuff.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:32:51 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

I did some mass snipping to whittle this exchange to a more
reasonable size. I'm honestly trying to keep anything that's important,
but I apologize in advance if I've screwed up.

No problem.

Nah, I'm only blaming him for tossing more fuel on the fire.

You just aid we picked the fight. Right up there, where it starts
the line with .

Can you not separate an analogy from the concept it's trying to
illustrate?
But I can comfortable say that Bush did pick the fight in Iraq.

Bush's thinking, which he explained with his usual clearness and
elocutification (heh), was pretty well put in his 2002 state of the
union address. Went something like this:

"Well, that was bad (9/11). It'd be even worse if these guys get
together with Saddam Hussein, because we know he has used WMD in the
past, and that could get really ugly. We need to stop that from
happening".

So, if you want to say he "picked the fight", you're partially right.
SH had been violating UN resolution after resolution, stonewalling the
inspectors, and all that stuff he agreed not to do. We know he had WMD,
because, well, we sold it to him, and he didn't properly account for the
alleged destruction of it. Bush's attacks were proactive rather than
reactive, but I'd rather that prevention be done than retribution after
it's too late.

OK, then explain to me how invading Iraq, killing lots and lots of
civilians, (and some insurgents who may or may not be local) and
installing a government that appears to be completely powerless is gonna
"not give someone an opening" to attack the US. Because I don't see it.

Well, so far it seems to have worked, so I guess it doesn't matter if
you're "seeing it" or not.

Define "work" as you're applying it here. I see a whole lot of dead
people on both sides, and a huge monetary expense to the US. In
exchange for, as you said, not a perfect guarantee the US won't be
attacked again.

And yet, the US hasn't been attacked again, certainly not with AQ and
SH's WMDs, so that which was a real risk has been prevented.

I mean, here we are over here, in North America, and there our army is,
on the other side of the planet. How does that make sense?

Are you pretending our _entire_ army is over there? Seriously?

No, but enough of it to make any major response over here impossible.

Bah.

Besides people, equipment is deployed over in Iraq, including hardware
that had been mothballed. We don't even have a good "plan C" if
something goes ape**** over here.

I think you'd be surprised.

Oh well, at least you got off the hugging thing.

And yet, you're still pretending that if we're just nice to 'em they'll
reciprocate by being nice to us. It's still dangerously naiive.

Some will, some won't. People tend to give as good as they get--be
mean to people, and they'll be mean back. Be nice to people and they'll
be nice back. Not 100%, but pretty high.

Not even close. The time we left SH alone, he used to build back up his
military. Leave 'em alone doesn't work when they keep building up
during the time we're doing it. Percentages aside, specifics are more
important.

Do we know each other from a.g.d. by the way?

Yup. (:

Thought so. How's that madhouse these days?

Where was that followup to 9/11/01 that OBL threatened us with again?
I keep not seeing it.

Ask Tony Blair.

I wasn't aware that he lives in this country.

I'm not restricting the conversation to the US alone. My complaint
is with Bush's war on terror, which is supposedly worldwide.

And yet, it's the US's money. The US is seeing benefits from it, I
feel.

To quote
me: "Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on
the rise since Bush began 'responding strongly'?" Message ID is
if you'd
like to check the context of that remark.

Nah, no point.

What I'm trying to get at is that you keep falling back on the "we
haven't been attacked again" defense of this war. First, correlation
isn't causation.

Of course not. I've never said it did. It's impossible to prove the
negative - prove to me there are no WMD in Iraq, for instance.

Second, what defense will you use if we do get
attacked over here? If your only justification for this war is that we
haven't been attacked yet, then as soon as we do get attacked again your
entire justification is gone.

Um, no, I think the obvious would be "Wow, that sucked, just imagine
what would have happened if we hadn't knocked SH out of power and he'd
given AQ some nasties at that time".

At that point I suppose you could
redefine it as "It isn't as bad this time" or "it took X years for it to
happen again,"

There ya go.

but those are ****-poor results for $1.25billion a week,
plus thousands of casualties. So I would like to know if you've got any
other justification for this activity in Iraq?

It seems to be working so far, and the press isn't reporting the good
parts; just the newsworthy parts. Nobody gets ratings from showing the
new water processing plants, or power distribution network; the press
wants to show blood.

OK, Mr. Hugbot. http://research.lifeboat.com/worldterror.htm

Mr. Hugbot. I kinda like that.

Go websearch for "Perry Bible Fellowship." That's where I got the
name from. Funny as hell.

OK, I'll check it out.

It doesn't matter if they were born evil or not. The reason is
irrelevant. The fact is, they want to kill us, and will do so given the
opportunity. If we show weakness (which you think is "kindness" or
whatever your words were), they'll take that opening. Just as they did
repeatedly when Clinton failed to respond positively following the
incidents working up to 9/11/01.

Well, yeah, the reason they hate us does matter. They didn't just
jump off a spaceship one day--something here on Earth turned some people
into terrorists. Until we fix that something it's highly unlikely we'll
be able to kill enough terrorists to eliminate terrorism. A dripping
faucet can fill the biggest bucket, as one fortune cookie told me.

So, we should let the fire spread while we remove the fuel from around
it? That'd be OK if it was a contained fire. Gotta contain the fire
first before you start doing cleanup. And, I contend that rebuilding
the infrastructure in Iraq, similar to what we helped with in Japan,
might be able to turn an enemy into a trading partner and ally given
time.

Now that we've got the blaming out of the way, how does all of this
blaming make Iraq not a ****up? A ****up which the republicans in the
White House are planning and leading.

Well, let's see. Their woodchipper-people-shredding dictator and his
sons are out of power and/or dead, the infrastructure is being rebuilt,
most of the country is safe. Hm, maybe there's more going on over there
that's good, that we're not hearing much about. A couple friends of
mine have come back from over there, and tell me that it's a different
country than the press shows. Lots of good progress, and they're both
****ed that the press isn't giving them any mention for the progress.

Cool, glad to hear it. But it seems the attacks and bombings in Iraq
are increasing instead of decreasing, which is not a positive trend.

Could be seen as a sign of "last-ditch" effort. Hard to know based on
what we're told.

I don't own or control them--they are not "mine." But to use your
language: "Your people" have the authority to end it, but they don't.

They were working on the same intel as "my people".

But now they have all-new intel that tells them that the old intel
was utter horse ****, but they don't change their plans one bit. How is
that acceptable?

Even Kerry admitted that now that we're in it, we're in it until we're
done and it's going to take many years.

Gunner _JUST_ quoted Kerry, Clinton, Albright, and all those folks
regarding Iraq. Do I need to dig 'em out, or can we stipulate that
"your people" also agreed that he had the stuff and was a danger? Oh,
and those quotes predate the W administration. So much for _that_ plan.

Gunner's in my killfile, so I don't see anything he posts anymore.

Ah, so here's a link:
http://www.thiefsden.net/archives/000073.html

Anyway, the vote itself does not predate the W administration. That
vote would be the point at which "my people" consented.

Well, check the names and dates. Claiming that this was strictly a
republican claim is disingenuous and cheapens your argument.

So, yeah,
I'll keep on blaming "your people" until they either fix what they broke
or lose power--whichever comes first.

Both sides voted for it, but you blame the other side. Got it.

Yeah, because one side gives orders to the military. Orders that I
think are completely counterproductive and stupid. The other side only
gets to bitch about it.

Read the quotes.

Yes, that _IS_ what I was saying. Democrats also voted for it. I can
roll out all the quotes from Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, and all those, if
you'd like, regarding OBL, SH, and so on. But, you've seen 'em already.

And you are correct, sir, I've seen 'em all. It's amazing how many
republicans in the workplace love their copy machines.

OK, evasion noted. What about those quotes, specifically?

Ya know, I'll bet that Gunner's list you referred to is almost a
carbon copy of the lists I've been accosted with at work.

Dunno, this one looks pretty well researched.

And what is this evasion you speak of.

That your people said he had 'em, my people said he had 'em, both sides
voted to go to war, and you're only blaming my people.

Anyway, I know
now, and I knew then that Democrats also voted for the war. I was right
there, yelling at the TV when it happened on C-Span. But I just can't
seem to figure out how any of that is supposed to turn a ****up into a
nota****up.

But you're happy to criticize, even though you have nothing constructive
to contribute. Got it.

Huh? Do you not remember what you called "hugging" earlier?

Sorry, that was a cheap shot, and I don't remember what my point was
there.

Take it up with your congresscritters then.

They're not the ones replying to me--you are. It seems odd that you
would butt into a conversation and then suggest that I leave.

Butt into? Bite me. What have your congresscritters responded to you
with? You _have_ contacted them, right? Mine are pretty damn
responsive, even though I disagree with 1.5 of the 3 of them.

Amazing. It must be the bane of being a liberal in Texas. I only
get the standard: "Thank you for your comments. The representative's
views on this issue a bla bla bla. Please send a check."

Yeah, that'd be our Herb Kohl. Useless even as compost. Feingold, even
though I disagree with his reasons, votes the way I would about half the
time. Sensenbrenner seems like a reasonable person and I almost always
agree with his voting record.

This is
the same state, after all, that gave us the chicken **** president who
screens his audiences because he fears hecklers.

Oh, come on. You think Clinton and every other president didn't do the
same thing?

Well, I know you're trying to be a snot, but his job is to run the
damn country somewhere other than into the ground.

My point is that we voted for someone based on their pre-election
statements. Changing policy at the whim of polls is _not_ what they're
elected to do. Clinton didn't care; he just bounced around on whatever
topics he thought would increase his poll numbers.

Clinton is not in office. Clinton no longer has any control over
what happens. Therefore Clinton has basically jack **** to do with
anything going on in Iraq, regardless of what his position is, was, or
was supposed to be.

I'm setting context.

Can you respond without invoking "Clinton?"

Well, given that his wife is running next time, probably not. Oh look,
I just did.

What "stuff" are the terrorists trying to take? AFAIR some want us
out of the Middle East, and a few want us all dead. But the vast
majority would probably be pretty satisfied with an end to bombings in
their cities, which I figure is an easily achievable goal. It would
save us money on bombs and funerals to boot.

You're being intentionally dense. If someone threatens you, the best
way to deal with that threat is to provide an effective defense, not as
you'd suggest, to try to reason with them.

So who would you say is being the bully in Iraq?

SH. He's out now, so once we get things stabilized there, we'll get
out. Personally, I'd prefer we get out sooner, give 'em notice to keep
the new guy in line or we'll come back again.

I bet you're the type that, if faced with a mugger, would rather "give
the man your wallet and hope he doesn't hurt you much", rather than to
arm yourself with a legally concealed weapon. Am I wrong?

Yup, you're wrong. The last guy that tried to mug me left with a
broken elbow, broken wrist, and a few missing teeth. I still have his
knife.

Well, I'll give you credit there then. Not everyone is able to tank
through a situation like that, though. Sometimes the bad guy needs to
be deterred.

Which "He" are you referring to in the above?

Context makes it quite obvious that "He" applies to Clinton. Need I
diagram the sentences for you?

Yes, get to it.

And how does one go
about emboldening a group that's currently taking on the US military
with homemade bombs?

By showing weakness. Do pay attention.

So what would be the next level of "bold" after throwing grenades at
an oncoming tank?

Attacking our country.

How do you embolden a guy who's willing to take on
a mission that requires his own violent death? Seems like those folks
are riding the upper reaches of boldness already.

Apparently they are not currently bold enough to attack the US on US
soil again.

Yeah, they're being less bold by attacking hardened military targets
in the middle of a ****ing war zone. 'Cause if I had the option: fight
with trained, armed, and ****ed-off marines vs. evade mall security,
it's the marines every time!

They're busy over there. Better that than them being busy over here.

Far as I'm concerned, we should tell 'em "Look. We helped SH, he got
out of hand, and we came in and took him out. We gave you a reasonably
good guy this time. Keep his ass in line, or we'll wander through
_again_ with our forces, take _him_ out, and repeat as needed. Get your
**** together and we won't have to keep doing this, but if the next guy
makes noises like this last guy, we're taking him out. Now behave."

Hopefully that makes my point of view clear. Given that it's not
going to happen any time soon, the next best thing is to whack the
troublemakers hard and repeatedly until they either change (ha!) or die.
The alternative is to not take them out, and they'll take us out.

Umm, I'm really not at all convinced Saddam was any danger to us in
any realistic way. Maybe a pain in the ass, but certainly no danger.

Well, we knew he didn't like us. We knew he _had_ WMD. We also knew
that AQ didn't like us, and _wanted_ WMD. Keeping the two from getting
together is, in my opinion, a valid goal.

OTOH, the guys who have been successfully killing our soldiers are
extremely dangerous, and they weren't around before this war. As far as
I'm concerned none of this should have happened at all.

They weren't around?

Now that it has happened, maybe your idea would be best, but what
Bush is doing right now is a mistake. And we all get to pay for it.

I'm not saying I agree with all (or even much) of what has happened, but
now that we're in the soup, we have to finish it out right or it'll be
even worse.

In article , Dave Hinz says...


And yet, the US hasn't been attacked again, certainly not with AQ and
SH's WMDs, so that which was a real risk has been prevented.

So Dave, I guess I can be expecting *your* contribution to the
'prevent the peekskill elephant attack' funds then.

I think WMDs are way under-rated, I want you to pay your share
for another $5B/month for elephant prevention.

Jim


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

In article , Dave Hinz says...

YOU don't get anything when they spend the money.

Sure I do. We're safer.

"Safer?" Safer than *what*? That's a nonsensical
statement. Just because you spend a potful of money
that you don't have in the first place, you don't
get 'safety chits' for it.

It doesn't seem to be slowing down the insurgents in
the region at all. Quite the opposite.

Cogent arguments can be made that the present war
actually makes us *less* safe because we're polarizing
the world even worse.

YOU don't see terrorism being combatted in any way.

Well, I haven't gone over there, but they haven't come over here again
either, so I think I do see it being effectively combatted, in several
ways.

Again with the elephants. It hasn't happened so that's proof.

They are. Not only haven't there been the promised followup attacks in
the US, but that $5B a month is stimulating the economy, employing
people who spend it and buy stuff.

Honestly don't you think it would be better off spent on something
besides a war? And if spending money that we don't have is the
best way to improve our economy, don't you think that FIVE BILLION
DOLLARS a month would fix it pretty fast?

And if deficit spending is so great for our economy, what's to stop
us from doing even MORE of it to improve things *faster*?

I think you need to revisit an economics textbook.

Jim


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

On 14 Jul 2005 10:47:11 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...


And yet, the US hasn't been attacked again, certainly not with AQ and
SH's WMDs, so that which was a real risk has been prevented.

So Dave, I guess I can be expecting *your* contribution to the
'prevent the peekskill elephant attack' funds then.

No, we went over this already. There have never, presumably, been
elephant rampages in Peekskill, yes? And yet, SH has unquestionably
both owned, and used, WMDs. And AQ has, unquestionably, attacked the US
on US soil.

I think WMDs are way under-rated, I want you to pay your share
for another $5B/month for elephant prevention.

Apples and oranges, Jim. Or, rather, elephants and WMDs.

In article , Dave Hinz says...

No, we went over this already. There have never, presumably, been
elephant rampages in Peekskill, yes? And yet, SH has unquestionably
both owned, and used, WMDs.

So this means we now have to spend another FIVE BILLION dollars
per month to invade north korea? They've got 'em too ya know.
And not those teeny ones that we never could find in iraq. The
*big* ones where they come right out and say "WE HAVE THE
NUKES RIGHT HERE, COME AND GET US COPPERS!"

They found the same number of wmds in iraq as we have elephants in
peeksill.

Jim


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

In article , Gunner says...

But then..thats the Left. They are good at that. The politics of
personal destruction outweighs the good of the nation every time, with
the Left.

Hmm, interesting though. The Left tried to personally destroy
Plame's husband, eh? It really wasn't Rove after all. Hmm.

Jim


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

They found the same number of wmds in iraq as we have elephants in
peeksill.

Yet Peeksill was littered with elephant droppings, idled elephant
handlers were lined up at the unemployment office, several boxcars of
Purina Pachyderm Chow was discovered on a siding at the edge of town,
and large cages with huge doors stood empty.

Dave Hinz writes:

On 14 Jul 2005 10:47:11 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...


And yet, the US hasn't been attacked again, certainly not with AQ and
SH's WMDs, so that which was a real risk has been prevented.

So Dave, I guess I can be expecting *your* contribution to the
'prevent the peekskill elephant attack' funds then.

No, we went over this already. There have never, presumably, been
elephant rampages in Peekskill, yes? And yet, SH has unquestionably
both owned, and used, WMDs. And AQ has, unquestionably, attacked the US
on US soil.

The problem is there was no link between Iraq and AQ before we invaded.
SH wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people- and hasn't been since
Gulf War 1. There was a far greater link between AQ and Saudi Arabia-
shouldn't we have invaded them instead?

Gregm

On 14 Jul 2005 11:54:05 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

No, we went over this already. There have never, presumably, been
elephant rampages in Peekskill, yes? And yet, SH has unquestionably
both owned, and used, WMDs.

So this means we now have to spend another FIVE BILLION dollars
per month to invade north korea? They've got 'em too ya know.

Whoah - topic drift, dude.

And not those teeny ones that we never could find in iraq. The
*big* ones where they come right out and say "WE HAVE THE
NUKES RIGHT HERE, COME AND GET US COPPERS!"

Maybe Shrub thought he'd practice on an easy one first? Or, maybe he
knows something that you and I don't?

They found the same number of wmds in iraq as we have elephants in
peeksill.

Do you claim that we SH didn't have WMD? Do you claim that he showed
proper documentation that all of his WMD had been destroyed?

On 14 Jul 2005 15:35:18 -0400, Greg Menke wrote:
Dave Hinz writes:

On 14 Jul 2005 10:47:11 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...


And yet, the US hasn't been attacked again, certainly not with AQ and
SH's WMDs, so that which was a real risk has been prevented.

So Dave, I guess I can be expecting *your* contribution to the
'prevent the peekskill elephant attack' funds then.

No, we went over this already. There have never, presumably, been
elephant rampages in Peekskill, yes? And yet, SH has unquestionably
both owned, and used, WMDs. And AQ has, unquestionably, attacked the US
on US soil.

The problem is there was no link between Iraq and AQ before we invaded.

HE NEVER SAID THERE WAS!!! He said "AQ doesn't like us. SH doesn't
like us. Since Iraq is the easier of the two to locate, being a country
and all, I'm going to stop the two of them from getting together by
stopping the potential flow of WMDs there."

SH wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people- and hasn't been since
Gulf War 1.

Tell that to his own people.

There was a far greater link between AQ and Saudi Arabia-
shouldn't we have invaded them instead?

I dunno, has SA used WMD on their own people, and stonewalled the
weapons inspectors for years?

In article , Dave Hinz says...

Do you claim that we SH didn't have WMD? Do you claim that he showed
proper documentation that all of his WMD had been destroyed?

Dave:

1) no tooth fairy

2) michael jackson did it

3) WMDs were only a right-wing talking point

4) OJ did it

5) robert blake did it

6) no easter bunny

Get over it.

Jim




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

On 14 Jul 2005 13:01:46 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

Do you claim that we SH didn't have WMD? Do you claim that he showed
proper documentation that all of his WMD had been destroyed?

Dave:

1) no tooth fairy

So far, so good

2) michael jackson did it

Agreed. Multiple times.

3) WMDs were only a right-wing talking point

Utterly and completely wrong. Did you follow this link?
http://www.thiefsden.net/archives/000073.html

If any of these are wrong, please let me know. I'm a stickler for not
using false quotes, you see.

4) OJ did it

Undoubtedly.

5) robert blake did it

Probably, but they case got so badly muffed that OJ could have done that
one too.

6) no easter bunny

Sure there is; we eat one each Easter.

Get over it.

Get back to me on those quotes please. By calling it GOP talking point,
when there are so many non-GOP people who also said the same thing,
really shoots holes in your argument. If any of those quotes are
disproven I'd love to know it.

In article , Dave Hinz says...

I dunno, has SA used WMD on their own people, and stonewalled the
weapons inspectors for years?

So what, if they came right out and said "hey we've got
WMDs" like n. korea does, we'd leave them alone - like
we leave kore alone?

Jim


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

On 14 Jul 2005 14:00:42 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

I dunno, has SA used WMD on their own people, and stonewalled the
weapons inspectors for years?

So what, if they came right out and said "hey we've got
WMDs" like n. korea does, we'd leave them alone - like
we leave kore alone?

Hard to say, Jim. So what about those quotes from Clinton, Kerry,
Pelosi, and all those folks? Need the link again?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 14 Jul 2005 14:00:42 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

I dunno, has SA used WMD on their own people, and stonewalled the
weapons inspectors for years?

So what, if they came right out and said "hey we've got
WMDs" like n. korea does, we'd leave them alone - like
we leave kore alone?

Hard to say, Jim. So what about those quotes from Clinton, Kerry,
Pelosi, and all those folks? Need the link again?


Haven't you heard Dave - Bush won!

This is what his hand has wrought, and please keep in mind that Iran is on
the State Departments State Sponsored Terrorist list:


"While President Bush continues to vow "no retreat," a variety of reports in
the international online media indicate that the Bush administration may be
more willing to scale back the U.S. military presence as ambitious political
goals in Iraq go glimmering.
Two years ago, the Bush administration envisioned a "coalition of the
willing" installing a secular democratic government in Baghdad that would
support U.S. goals for the region. This week, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani
called for the country to name itself the Islamic Federal Republic of Iraq.
Italy, once a staunch U.S. ally in the war effort, announced plans to pull
out 300 troops.

Worse yet from the White House point of view, Iraq recently made a military
cooperation agreement with neighboring Iran, which Washington views as an
undemocratic terrorist state with nuclear ambitions. On Friday, Iraqi Prime
Minister Ibrahim Jafari and 10 of his cabinet ministers will visit Tehran
seeking to expand relations. When your host goes to your sworn enemy's house
for tea, you may have overstayed your welcome."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071301880.html



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

Dave Hinz writes:

On 14 Jul 2005 15:35:18 -0400, Greg Menke wrote:
Dave Hinz writes:

On 14 Jul 2005 10:47:11 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...


And yet, the US hasn't been attacked again, certainly not with AQ and
SH's WMDs, so that which was a real risk has been prevented.

So Dave, I guess I can be expecting *your* contribution to the
'prevent the peekskill elephant attack' funds then.

No, we went over this already. There have never, presumably, been
elephant rampages in Peekskill, yes? And yet, SH has unquestionably
both owned, and used, WMDs. And AQ has, unquestionably, attacked the US
on US soil.

The problem is there was no link between Iraq and AQ before we invaded.

HE NEVER SAID THERE WAS!!! He said "AQ doesn't like us. SH doesn't
like us. Since Iraq is the easier of the two to locate, being a country
and all, I'm going to stop the two of them from getting together by
stopping the potential flow of WMDs there."

Dude, Iraq was #2 on the Axis Of Evil right after Afganistan- WMD's
ready to launch at the US in 45 minutes!

BUT THERE WERE NO WMD'S! And where the h3ll was he going to get them?
He could barely operate his Scuds!

You supporters of Dubya get 2 choices; either he's a liar or he's the
biggest fool to walk the face of the Earth. Choose one- or both.



SH wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people- and hasn't been since
Gulf War 1.

Tell that to his own people.

There was a far greater link between AQ and Saudi Arabia-
shouldn't we have invaded them instead?

I dunno, has SA used WMD on their own people, and stonewalled the
weapons inspectors for years?

WTFC? A contained psychopath is one thats not causing trouble to
everyone else beyond his limited reach. His luck was due to run out
sooner or later. Intervention in his eventual downfall leads to exactly
what we have now; a bloody mess.

The cultural and philosophical basis of AQ is in large part funded and
developed in Saudi Arabia. I'd say thats the place to pursue the roots
of global terrorism, not in unrelated countries like Iraq- though we've
created and bought that kettle of fish at this point. No doubt once
we're out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria will still be there to deal
with.

Gregm

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

But I can comfortable say that Bush did pick the fight in Iraq.

Bush's thinking, which he explained with his usual clearness and
elocutification (heh), was pretty well put in his 2002 state of the
union address. Went something like this:

"Well, that was bad (9/11). It'd be even worse if these guys get
together with Saddam Hussein, because we know he has used WMD in the
past, and that could get really ugly. We need to stop that from
happening".

So, if you want to say he "picked the fight", you're partially right.
SH had been violating UN resolution after resolution, stonewalling the
inspectors, and all that stuff he agreed not to do. We know he had WMD,
because, well, we sold it to him, and he didn't properly account for the
alleged destruction of it. Bush's attacks were proactive rather than
reactive, but I'd rather that prevention be done than retribution after
it's too late.

You see, I'd probably be OK with the whole military action thing
based on enforcing UN resolutions if the WH had just come out and said
it in the first place. I would probably not have supported it, but I
heard so many other reasons that all turned into crap: WMD, terrorism
ties, etc. When the WH did finally get around to saying that it was
enforcing the UN resolution, half of the Wh was also saying the UN was
irrelevant. Once the UN itself told us not to attack (or at least key
members did) that really did blow the UN resolution enforcement argument
away for me.
Besides, in the lead-up we were heaping requests on Saddam, like
reopening inspections, destroying the Al-Samud missiles, and allowing
inspectors into the palaces. We got all of that from Saddam without
firing a single shot. Granted, the ****ed up by not keeping around
coherent documentation that the WMD were gone, but from the looks of it
they were doing everything they could to prove a negative. Something
you indicate you understand to be impossible.
The only time Saddam didn't give into a request was when the WH
escalated it to the point of demanding he leave the country. And it's
not that big of a surprise he didn't. It's also the one request we made
that had nothing at all to do with WMD.

Define "work" as you're applying it here. I see a whole lot of dead
people on both sides, and a huge monetary expense to the US. In
exchange for, as you said, not a perfect guarantee the US won't be
attacked again.

And yet, the US hasn't been attacked again, certainly not with AQ and
SH's WMDs, so that which was a real risk has been prevented.

Perhaps. Nobody can really show that the lack of an attack on the US
is the result of this war.

Oh well, at least you got off the hugging thing.

And yet, you're still pretending that if we're just nice to 'em they'll
reciprocate by being nice to us. It's still dangerously naiive.

Some will, some won't. People tend to give as good as they get--be
mean to people, and they'll be mean back. Be nice to people and they'll
be nice back. Not 100%, but pretty high.

Not even close. The time we left SH alone, he used to build back up his
military. Leave 'em alone doesn't work when they keep building up
during the time we're doing it. Percentages aside, specifics are more
important.

What military? Seriously, everyone who's looked at gulf war 1 and
gulf war 2 says the same thing: the Iraq military had decayed. We faced
more opposition from the weather during the invasion. Even their piece
of **** SCUD missiles were a no-show during the invasion.

Do we know each other from a.g.d. by the way?

Yup. (:

Thought so. How's that madhouse these days?

Dunno--I left a while back when I got bored to tears with the game.
No longer even had the attention span to get on line and wait around for
people to chat with. That reminds me, I need to get on Yahoo and annoy
Orchid some more. She left AGD as well.

Where was that followup to 9/11/01 that OBL threatened us with again?
I keep not seeing it.

Ask Tony Blair.

I wasn't aware that he lives in this country.

I'm not restricting the conversation to the US alone. My complaint
is with Bush's war on terror, which is supposedly worldwide.

And yet, it's the US's money. The US is seeing benefits from it, I
feel.

Yeah, I know it's our money. Whoopie. the action is worldwide, so
the results need to take into account the entire world. Looking at the
entire world, it's a failure.

What I'm trying to get at is that you keep falling back on the "we
haven't been attacked again" defense of this war. First, correlation
isn't causation.

Of course not. I've never said it did. It's impossible to prove the
negative - prove to me there are no WMD in Iraq, for instance.

Good point. Part of the justification for the war was that Saddam
could not prove he had no WMD, so we invaded. You understand that we
made an impossible request, right?

Second, what defense will you use if we do get
attacked over here? If your only justification for this war is that we
haven't been attacked yet, then as soon as we do get attacked again your
entire justification is gone.

Um, no, I think the obvious would be "Wow, that sucked, just imagine
what would have happened if we hadn't knocked SH out of power and he'd
given AQ some nasties at that time".

What nasties? There ain't any. But what there is a lot of is
evidence that Saddam and OBL were enemies and even if Saddam did have
the nasties they were unlikely to get to OBL in a condition that could
be redeployed.

At that point I suppose you could
redefine it as "It isn't as bad this time" or "it took X years for it to
happen again,"

There ya go.

Whoopie. Hey, Clinton got us through a few years without any attacks
on US soil, but you don't call that a success. Why is it not success
for Clinton, but it would be success for Bush? I would juts love to
decipher this double standard.

but those are ****-poor results for $1.25billion a week,
plus thousands of casualties. So I would like to know if you've got any
other justification for this activity in Iraq?

It seems to be working so far, and the press isn't reporting the good
parts; just the newsworthy parts. Nobody gets ratings from showing the
new water processing plants, or power distribution network; the press
wants to show blood.

Complaining about the press is your other justification for this war?

Well, yeah, the reason they hate us does matter. They didn't just
jump off a spaceship one day--something here on Earth turned some people
into terrorists. Until we fix that something it's highly unlikely we'll
be able to kill enough terrorists to eliminate terrorism. A dripping
faucet can fill the biggest bucket, as one fortune cookie told me.

So, we should let the fire spread while we remove the fuel from around
it? That'd be OK if it was a contained fire. Gotta contain the fire
first before you start doing cleanup. And, I contend that rebuilding
the infrastructure in Iraq, similar to what we helped with in Japan,
might be able to turn an enemy into a trading partner and ally given
time.

Saddam was contained, along with whatever weapons he had. Now those
weapons are out and being used against the US military pretty
successfully.
Now the rebuilding of infrastructure thing is exactly what I was
trying to get at in the first place--be nice to the Middle East. No
hugging bull****--just straightforward diplomacy. The whole notion that
we'll charge in, kick ass, and tell 'em how it is is enormously
counterproductive and I honestly think this war is just that.

Cool, glad to hear it. But it seems the attacks and bombings in Iraq
are increasing instead of decreasing, which is not a positive trend.

Could be seen as a sign of "last-ditch" effort. Hard to know based on
what we're told.

This "last ditch" has been going on for two years now. I think at
some point it's safe to assume it's a

But now they have all-new intel that tells them that the old intel
was utter horse ****, but they don't change their plans one bit. How is
that acceptable?

Even Kerry admitted that now that we're in it, we're in it until we're
done and it's going to take many years.

Kerry is an idiot and I have never supported him. How is it
acceptable to "stay the course" when you know your map's backwards?

Ah, so here's a link:
http://www.thiefsden.net/archives/000073.html

Oh yeah, I've seen pretty much the same thing many times. The
version I've seen is just a little shorter.

Anyway, the vote itself does not predate the W administration. That
vote would be the point at which "my people" consented.

Well, check the names and dates. Claiming that this was strictly a
republican claim is disingenuous and cheapens your argument.

Oh, I don't think this is strictly a republican claim. I think only
that the republicans have the authority to fix things or keep them
broken. I'll quite happily bash away at the democrats in congress for
paying lip service to this bull****, but regardless of how much I
influence them they are powerless to change policy. So it's a whole lot
more productive to bash the republicans.

So, yeah,
I'll keep on blaming "your people" until they either fix what they broke
or lose power--whichever comes first.

Both sides voted for it, but you blame the other side. Got it.

Yeah, because one side gives orders to the military. Orders that I
think are completely counterproductive and stupid. The other side only
gets to bitch about it.

Read the quotes.

The quotes put them in charge of the military? Explain to me how
this amazing process works.

OK, evasion noted. What about those quotes, specifically?

Ya know, I'll bet that Gunner's list you referred to is almost a
carbon copy of the lists I've been accosted with at work.

Dunno, this one looks pretty well researched.

It's quite thorough and quite accurate (as far as I can tell) and
quite unrelated to me or what I'm saying.

And what is this evasion you speak of.

That your people said he had 'em, my people said he had 'em, both sides
voted to go to war, and you're only blaming my people.

You have the executive who made the decision to start shooting. He's
one of yours. My people caved, sure enough, and I'm extremely
displeased with that, but attacking democrats gets nothing done.
Attacking the republicans might.
However, I do believe that some of the democrats in congress are
being honest when they say that they only voted for the war after being
shown the cooked arguments from the WH. But with the rest I know they
just voted for it so they wouldn't have to fight over that issue next
election cycle.
Both sides are full of sellouts, but one side has sellouts in charge,
which are far more dangerous.

Take it up with your congresscritters then.

They're not the ones replying to me--you are. It seems odd that you
would butt into a conversation and then suggest that I leave.

Butt into? Bite me. What have your congresscritters responded to you
with? You _have_ contacted them, right? Mine are pretty damn
responsive, even though I disagree with 1.5 of the 3 of them.

Amazing. It must be the bane of being a liberal in Texas. I only
get the standard: "Thank you for your comments. The representative's
views on this issue a bla bla bla. Please send a check."

Yeah, that'd be our Herb Kohl. Useless even as compost. Feingold, even
though I disagree with his reasons, votes the way I would about half the
time. Sensenbrenner seems like a reasonable person and I almost always
agree with his voting record.

I just moved to Kenny Marchant's district and honestly don't know
much about him yet. But what I do know is that he had a hand in that
redistricting bull****, might have had a little involvement with the
TRMPAC investigation that's following DeLay around, and he waves George
Bush's name around like gospel. I find none of that appealing. OTOH,
he does seem to be quite good about cutting government expenses and
streamlining government paperwork. At this point he's a wash.

This is
the same state, after all, that gave us the chicken **** president who
screens his audiences because he fears hecklers.

Oh, come on. You think Clinton and every other president didn't do the
same thing?

I went to one Clinton Speech in Ft Worth (or near there anyway--it
was a long time ago and I didn't drive) where he was heckled and
protested. He poked fun at the hecklers and want and talked to the
protesters after he finished with his speech and obligatory handshaking.
But maybe that was a one-time thing.

You're being intentionally dense. If someone threatens you, the best
way to deal with that threat is to provide an effective defense, not as
you'd suggest, to try to reason with them.

So who would you say is being the bully in Iraq?

SH. He's out now, so once we get things stabilized there, we'll get
out. Personally, I'd prefer we get out sooner, give 'em notice to keep
the new guy in line or we'll come back again.

If he's out then he is no longer being the bully. So who would you
say is being the bully in Iraq now?

By showing weakness. Do pay attention.

So what would be the next level of "bold" after throwing grenades at
an oncoming tank?

Attacking our country.

Bull****.

Yeah, they're being less bold by attacking hardened military targets
in the middle of a ****ing war zone. 'Cause if I had the option: fight
with trained, armed, and ****ed-off marines vs. evade mall security,
it's the marines every time!

They're busy over there. Better that than them being busy over here.

Not too busy for a quick little jaunt to Britain. Weren't too busy
for Spain either.

Far as I'm concerned, we should tell 'em "Look. We helped SH, he got
out of hand, and we came in and took him out. We gave you a reasonably
good guy this time. Keep his ass in line, or we'll wander through
_again_ with our forces, take _him_ out, and repeat as needed. Get your
**** together and we won't have to keep doing this, but if the next guy
makes noises like this last guy, we're taking him out. Now behave."

Hopefully that makes my point of view clear. Given that it's not
going to happen any time soon, the next best thing is to whack the
troublemakers hard and repeatedly until they either change (ha!) or die.
The alternative is to not take them out, and they'll take us out.

Umm, I'm really not at all convinced Saddam was any danger to us in
any realistic way. Maybe a pain in the ass, but certainly no danger.

Well, we knew he didn't like us. We knew he _had_ WMD. We also knew
that AQ didn't like us, and _wanted_ WMD. Keeping the two from getting
together is, in my opinion, a valid goal.

We also knew that they didn't like each other. Like going to war to
keep two north pole magnets apart.

OTOH, the guys who have been successfully killing our soldiers are
extremely dangerous, and they weren't around before this war. As far as
I'm concerned none of this should have happened at all.

They weren't around?

They were alive, but they weren't figuring out how to kill our
military.

Now that it has happened, maybe your idea would be best, but what
Bush is doing right now is a mistake. And we all get to pay for it.

I'm not saying I agree with all (or even much) of what has happened, but
now that we're in the soup, we have to finish it out right or it'll be
even worse.

I'm saying it shouldn't have happened, the guys to caused it are
****ups, and I have no faith that they'll turn this from a ****up into
anything measurably better than a complete failure.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/

On 14 Jul 2005 16:23:45 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

We know he had WMD,
because, well, we sold it to him,

Ah...no..we didnt.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 14 Jul 2005 11:55:55 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

But then..thats the Left. They are good at that. The politics of
personal destruction outweighs the good of the nation every time, with
the Left.

Hmm, interesting though. The Left tried to personally destroy
Plame's husband, eh? It really wasn't Rove after all. Hmm.

Jim

Destroy Plames husband? How? Please be specific.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...


I dunno, has SA used WMD on their own people, and stonewalled the
weapons inspectors for years?


So what, if they came right out and said "hey we've got
WMDs" like n. korea does, we'd leave them alone - like
we leave korea alone?

In grade school we learned to choose our battles in terms of whether
they are winnable. Part of that decision included thoughts like "Does
he have a big brother that might kick my ass?"
Just because you don't wade into little Bobby and his big brother,
doesn't mean you can't pour some well-deserved whupass on Billy that's
been shooting paperclips at you from across the room all morning. And
who knows, little Bobby might adjust his behaviour after seeing what
happens to Billy.

Are you suggesting we should attack Korea?

In article , Rex B says...

Are you suggesting we should attack Korea?

No. I'm suggesting the reasons that have been advanced that
made it *imperative* that we invade Iraq are equally valid,
if not more so, for N. Korea.

Aside from the 'which kid do you want to beat up on'
theory, there's also the 'what are you really getting for
your money' aspect of this war.

Jim


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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:17:36 GMT, J. R. Carroll wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 14 Jul 2005 14:00:42 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

So what, if they came right out and said "hey we've got
WMDs" like n. korea does, we'd leave them alone - like
we leave kore alone?

Hard to say, Jim. So what about those quotes from Clinton, Kerry,
Pelosi, and all those folks? Need the link again?

Haven't you heard Dave - Bush won!

Yes, I know. But Jim keeps not replying about those quotes, which
counter his assertion that Iraqi WMDs were only a GOP talking point.

This is what his hand has wrought, and please keep in mind that Iran is on
the State Departments State Sponsored Terrorist list:

Maybe you should read those quotes too. If you find one that's not
true, please let me know. Looks like the guy who compiled it did his
homework.

In article , Gunner says...

But honestly I will revisit that very reasonable question when
the cost for the local peekskill cops reaches 5 billion dollars
per month. Pack a lunch my friend.

Please do.

And in the meantime please meditate on what you and yours
could could do with a few spare billion dollars.

Jim


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

On 14 Jul 2005 21:30:54 -0400, Greg Menke wrote:
Dave Hinz writes:

HE NEVER SAID THERE WAS!!! He said "AQ doesn't like us. SH doesn't
like us. Since Iraq is the easier of the two to locate, being a country
and all, I'm going to stop the two of them from getting together by
stopping the potential flow of WMDs there."

Dude, Iraq was #2 on the Axis Of Evil right after Afganistan- WMD's
ready to launch at the US in 45 minutes!

Cite, please?

BUT THERE WERE NO WMD'S!

Cite, please? We know there were WMDs, we sold them to him FFS. He
stonewalled the inspectors for _years_. It's a big place, and WMDs are
portable.

And where the h3ll was he going to get them?

Do you know about the whole Kurdish thing?

He could barely operate his Scuds!

Relavance being?!??!???

You supporters of Dubya get 2 choices; either he's a liar or he's the
biggest fool to walk the face of the Earth. Choose one- or both.

or 3, he was working on the best available evidence at the time. Just
like Nancy Pelosi (you know who she is, right?), when she said:

"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

Was she lying, Greg? Is she an idiot, Greg, or was she working on the
best available intellgence at the time, Greg?

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

So, is Gore an idiot, or a liar? Or, is he working with the best
available intelligence available at the time? And how about this:

"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

Or, how about the rest of 'em, he
http://www.thiefsden.net/archives/000073.html


If there are any factual problems with these, let me know. It's not my
list, but I haven't found any flaws and it's well referenced.

SH wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people- and hasn't been since
Gulf War 1.

Tell that to his own people.

Absence of response noted.

There was a far greater link between AQ and Saudi Arabia-
shouldn't we have invaded them instead?

I dunno, has SA used WMD on their own people, and stonewalled the
weapons inspectors for years?

WTFC?

Acronym, I get the first 3, but what's the fourth please?

A contained psychopath is one thats not causing trouble to
everyone else beyond his limited reach. His luck was due to run out
sooner or later. Intervention in his eventual downfall leads to exactly
what we have now; a bloody mess.

Ah, I see, "who cares". Well, you see, as Bush explained his thinking,
it was to keep SH from giving weapons to AQ. One guy had resources,
other guy had delivery system. Bad combination, must stop from
happening. Unfortunatly, people like you gave SH many years to hide his
stashes, so we didn't get to take it away from him, but he's away from
it. I'm sure the WMD will turn up, and we may not like it when it does,
but at least the immediate threat was removed.

The cultural and philosophical basis of AQ is in large part funded and
developed in Saudi Arabia. I'd say thats the place to pursue the roots
of global terrorism, not in unrelated countries like Iraq- though we've
created and bought that kettle of fish at this point. No doubt once
we're out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria will still be there to deal
with.

Yes. So, let's get going on biofuels so we give our money to USA'n
farmers, instead of to people who want to kill us. But, in the
meantime, I feel that taking SH out of power and minimizing the
effectiveness of OBL (if he's not a dried bloody smudge in a cave
somewhere, that is) are positive developments.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:17:36 GMT, J. R. Carroll
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 14 Jul 2005 14:00:42 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

So what, if they came right out and said "hey we've got
WMDs" like n. korea does, we'd leave them alone - like
we leave kore alone?

Hard to say, Jim. So what about those quotes from Clinton, Kerry,
Pelosi, and all those folks? Need the link again?

Haven't you heard Dave - Bush won!

Yes, I know. But Jim keeps not replying about those quotes, which
counter his assertion that Iraqi WMDs were only a GOP talking point.

This is what his hand has wrought, and please keep in mind that Iran is
on
the State Departments State Sponsored Terrorist list:

Maybe you should read those quotes too. If you find one that's not
true, please let me know. Looks like the guy who compiled it did his
homework.


Dave,
He did and from what I know they are all the result of Hussein throwing out
the UN inspection team. What everybody at the time, on both sides of the
fence, was saying was that SH ought not think that the US would stand by and
idly watch him get back into the WMD business in a way that would threaten
the US or it's interests in the region. That message was received and
Hussein never did.
None of those statements are related to the Bush administrations rationales
for invasion. Zero. They are, in fact, taken out of context and are being
used to obscure the now proven fact that the pretext for invasion was
completely false and couldn't be supported from the current set of facts or
intelligence information.
Bush and Co. concluded in 1992 that Saddam would end up posing a threat and
that it was a mistake not to have taken him out in GW I. They didn't think
it through in 2003 because they had made up their mind years back. The
conditions that existed at that time were no linger operant. That is why his
neighbors, and many others of our allies, didn't join in. They wondered what
the heck we were thinking and the answer clearly is that we weren't.
The thinking part had stopped years ago. Bush was just cleaning up what he
saw as daddy's mess.

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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:48:18 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

And yet, the US hasn't been attacked again, certainly not with AQ and
SH's WMDs, so that which was a real risk has been prevented.

Perhaps. Nobody can really show that the lack of an attack on the US
is the result of this war.

It's certainly debatable, yes. But the stated goal and the result are
the same.

Not even close. The time we left SH alone, he used to build back up his
military. Leave 'em alone doesn't work when they keep building up
during the time we're doing it. Percentages aside, specifics are more
important.

What military? Seriously, everyone who's looked at gulf war 1 and
gulf war 2 says the same thing: the Iraq military had decayed. We faced
more opposition from the weather during the invasion. Even their piece
of **** SCUD missiles were a no-show during the invasion.

What military? Um, news flash: the guys who ran away during the major
combat operations, just might be the same ones bombing trucks giving out
candy to Iraqi children today.

Do we know each other from a.g.d. by the way?

Yup. (:

Thought so. How's that madhouse these days?

Dunno--I left a while back when I got bored to tears with the game.

Same here; I abandoned a 70-something barb and a 60's druid with nice
gear. Ah well. PNF long, long ago I'm sure. Been playing civ3 lately,
oddly enough, waiting for the Harry Potter release tomorrow morning.

No longer even had the attention span to get on line and wait around for
people to chat with. That reminds me, I need to get on Yahoo and annoy
Orchid some more. She left AGD as well.

Well, she came and went from time to time, didn't she? Seemed like a
pretty level-headed person, good moderating influence for the kiddies in
the group.

Where was that followup to 9/11/01 that OBL threatened us with again?
I keep not seeing it.

Ask Tony Blair.

I wasn't aware that he lives in this country.

I'm not restricting the conversation to the US alone. My complaint
is with Bush's war on terror, which is supposedly worldwide.

And yet, it's the US's money. The US is seeing benefits from it, I
feel.

Yeah, I know it's our money. Whoopie. the action is worldwide, so
the results need to take into account the entire world. Looking at the
entire world, it's a failure.

Well, OK, show me a followup on the scale of 9/11/01 anywhere in the
world, then. I think it's getting better.

What I'm trying to get at is that you keep falling back on the "we
haven't been attacked again" defense of this war. First, correlation
isn't causation.

Of course not. I've never said it did. It's impossible to prove the
negative - prove to me there are no WMD in Iraq, for instance.

Good point. Part of the justification for the war was that Saddam
could not prove he had no WMD, so we invaded. You understand that we
made an impossible request, right?

Well, it's not like he didn't agree to the terms originally, at the end
of the first little party over there, that he'd get rid of 'em and
record those activities, and let the inspectors and observers in. He
failed on all those points. Maybe if nothing else, the lesson is "If
you've got the nasties, and don't prove that you really destroyed 'em,
be prepared to face a hell of an audit committee". I don't believe for
a second that he didn't hide or export them, though.

Second, what defense will you use if we do get
attacked over here? If your only justification for this war is that we
haven't been attacked yet, then as soon as we do get attacked again your
entire justification is gone.

Um, no, I think the obvious would be "Wow, that sucked, just imagine
what would have happened if we hadn't knocked SH out of power and he'd
given AQ some nasties at that time".

What nasties? There ain't any.

Then where did they go, exactly? You don't know; I don't know; but they
didn't just evaporate. And the Sarin shell(s) that injured some of our
guys weren't supposed to exist, but I'm thinking there are a few troops
who have direct personal experience indicating that they do.

But what there is a lot of is
evidence that Saddam and OBL were enemies and even if Saddam did have
the nasties they were unlikely to get to OBL in a condition that could
be redeployed.

Well, there's enemies, and then there's enemies. Iran and Iraq have
been enemies, but if we threatened them, they'd probably be (uneasy?)
allies. Germany and the US are nominally, allegedly allies but I
wouldn't bet that during my lifetime, or that of my kids, that won't
change. If they saw a common enemy and a way to join resources to
attack more effectively, I don't think their differences would stop
them. AQ's presence in Iraq seems to back this theory up.

At that point I suppose you could
redefine it as "It isn't as bad this time" or "it took X years for it to
happen again,"

There ya go.

Whoopie. Hey, Clinton got us through a few years without any attacks
on US soil, but you don't call that a success. Why is it not success
for Clinton, but it would be success for Bush?

Well, during Clinton things kept getting worse, and he went from
objecting, to objecting strongly, to objecting very strongly, to blowing
up a tent and two camels. This weak response is, I feel, what made the
escalation happen.

I would juts love to
decipher this double standard.

Well, it's based on my feeling that things are getting better now, while
they continued to get worse during Clinton's years. Perception-driven,
perhaps, on both of our parts. Hey, this is actually a pretty good
argument we're having.

but those are ****-poor results for $1.25billion a week,
plus thousands of casualties. So I would like to know if you've got any
other justification for this activity in Iraq?

It seems to be working so far, and the press isn't reporting the good
parts; just the newsworthy parts. Nobody gets ratings from showing the
new water processing plants, or power distribution network; the press
wants to show blood.

Complaining about the press is your other justification for this war?

No, I'm saying that the press doesn't show us the good stuff that's
going on there, because it's not attention-getting enough to warrant
their time. Nothing impressive about a new power station, and it
doesn't fit their adgenda to show real progress.

Well, yeah, the reason they hate us does matter. They didn't just
jump off a spaceship one day--something here on Earth turned some people
into terrorists. Until we fix that something it's highly unlikely we'll
be able to kill enough terrorists to eliminate terrorism. A dripping
faucet can fill the biggest bucket, as one fortune cookie told me.

So, we should let the fire spread while we remove the fuel from around
it? That'd be OK if it was a contained fire. Gotta contain the fire
first before you start doing cleanup. And, I contend that rebuilding
the infrastructure in Iraq, similar to what we helped with in Japan,
might be able to turn an enemy into a trading partner and ally given
time.

Saddam was contained, along with whatever weapons he had. Now those
weapons are out and being used against the US military pretty
successfully.

And the WMD that we could have contained have probably been mothballed
or exported, because we didn't go in soon enough.

Now the rebuilding of infrastructure thing is exactly what I was
trying to get at in the first place--be nice to the Middle East. No
hugging bull****--just straightforward diplomacy. The whole notion that
we'll charge in, kick ass, and tell 'em how it is is enormously
counterproductive and I honestly think this war is just that.

I think it's valid to say "now behave or we'll be back to do it again."
We're dealing with a relatively immature civilization, organizationally.
The tribal mentality still exists, I think.

Cool, glad to hear it. But it seems the attacks and bombings in Iraq
are increasing instead of decreasing, which is not a positive trend.

Could be seen as a sign of "last-ditch" effort. Hard to know based on
what we're told.

This "last ditch" has been going on for two years now. I think at
some point it's safe to assume it's a

I'm sure it's the military which "ran away". And I'm not sure either of
us know if it's getting better, or worse, really.

But now they have all-new intel that tells them that the old intel
was utter horse ****, but they don't change their plans one bit. How is
that acceptable?

Even Kerry admitted that now that we're in it, we're in it until we're
done and it's going to take many years.

Kerry is an idiot and I have never supported him. How is it
acceptable to "stay the course" when you know your map's backwards?

Like I said, I'd rather say "There ya go, don't **** up again." But,
given the choices we had last election, both of 'em acknowledged that
now that we're in the soup, we've got to get to a certain point before
bailing.

Ah, so here's a link:
http://www.thiefsden.net/archives/000073.html

Oh yeah, I've seen pretty much the same thing many times. The
version I've seen is just a little shorter.

Well, this one is very well sourced and referenced, so think they're
all legit. It certainly shoots holes in some of the frequent whines
(not saying you use them all) about "This was all W's idea" or wahtever.

Anyway, the vote itself does not predate the W administration. That
vote would be the point at which "my people" consented.

Well, check the names and dates. Claiming that this was strictly a
republican claim is disingenuous and cheapens your argument.

Oh, I don't think this is strictly a republican claim. I think only
that the republicans have the authority to fix things or keep them
broken. I'll quite happily bash away at the democrats in congress for
paying lip service to this bull****, but regardless of how much I
influence them they are powerless to change policy. So it's a whole lot
more productive to bash the republicans.

Is it?

Yeah, because one side gives orders to the military. Orders that I
think are completely counterproductive and stupid. The other side only
gets to bitch about it.

Read the quotes.

The quotes put them in charge of the military? Explain to me how
this amazing process works.

Both sides said he had WMD, and both sides voted to authorize the
military. That's my point. The quotes show this.

Dunno, this one looks pretty well researched.

It's quite thorough and quite accurate (as far as I can tell) and
quite unrelated to me or what I'm saying.

Not if you're just blaming the republicans. It was a shared decision.

That your people said he had 'em, my people said he had 'em, both sides
voted to go to war, and you're only blaming my people.

You have the executive who made the decision to start shooting. He's
one of yours. My people caved, sure enough, and I'm extremely
displeased with that, but attacking democrats gets nothing done.
Attacking the republicans might.

I doubt it.

However, I do believe that some of the democrats in congress are
being honest when they say that they only voted for the war after being
shown the cooked arguments from the WH.

Check the dates. When did this cooked data arrive from the WH, please?

But with the rest I know they
just voted for it so they wouldn't have to fight over that issue next
election cycle.
Both sides are full of sellouts, but one side has sellouts in charge,
which are far more dangerous.

Meh. If they all agreed, then they're all equally responsible.

Amazing. It must be the bane of being a liberal in Texas. I only
get the standard: "Thank you for your comments. The representative's
views on this issue a bla bla bla. Please send a check."

Yeah, that'd be our Herb Kohl. Useless even as compost. Feingold, even
though I disagree with his reasons, votes the way I would about half the
time. Sensenbrenner seems like a reasonable person and I almost always
agree with his voting record.

I just moved to Kenny Marchant's district and honestly don't know
much about him yet. But what I do know is that he had a hand in that
redistricting bull****,

That was a lovely little party, yes.

might have had a little involvement with the
TRMPAC investigation that's following DeLay around, and he waves George
Bush's name around like gospel. I find none of that appealing. OTOH,
he does seem to be quite good about cutting government expenses and
streamlining government paperwork. At this point he's a wash.

Sometimes that's all you can hope for. About how I feel about Feingold.
He votes the way I would fairly often, but always for reasons that I
feel are wrong.

This is
the same state, after all, that gave us the chicken **** president who
screens his audiences because he fears hecklers.

Oh, come on. You think Clinton and every other president didn't do the
same thing?

I went to one Clinton Speech in Ft Worth (or near there anyway--it
was a long time ago and I didn't drive) where he was heckled and
protested. He poked fun at the hecklers and want and talked to the
protesters after he finished with his speech and obligatory handshaking.
But maybe that was a one-time thing.

Hard to say, but I do know that non-party-members don't get invited to,
for instance, campaign stops.

You're being intentionally dense. If someone threatens you, the best
way to deal with that threat is to provide an effective defense, not as
you'd suggest, to try to reason with them.

So who would you say is being the bully in Iraq?

SH. He's out now, so once we get things stabilized there, we'll get
out. Personally, I'd prefer we get out sooner, give 'em notice to keep
the new guy in line or we'll come back again.

If he's out then he is no longer being the bully. So who would you
say is being the bully in Iraq now?

Nobody at the moment. If another one comes up, then we should take that
one out too. Eventually they'll catch on that they have to control
their own leadership.

By showing weakness. Do pay attention.

So what would be the next level of "bold" after throwing grenades at
an oncoming tank?

Attacking our country.

Bull****.

Well, attacking us there, is one thing. Attacking us here, is the next
higher thing, I think.

Yeah, they're being less bold by attacking hardened military targets
in the middle of a ****ing war zone. 'Cause if I had the option: fight
with trained, armed, and ****ed-off marines vs. evade mall security,
it's the marines every time!

They're busy over there. Better that than them being busy over here.

Not too busy for a quick little jaunt to Britain. Weren't too busy
for Spain either.

Have we actually found out that London was AQ?

Umm, I'm really not at all convinced Saddam was any danger to us in
any realistic way. Maybe a pain in the ass, but certainly no danger.

Well, we knew he didn't like us. We knew he _had_ WMD. We also knew
that AQ didn't like us, and _wanted_ WMD. Keeping the two from getting
together is, in my opinion, a valid goal.

We also knew that they didn't like each other. Like going to war to
keep two north pole magnets apart.

Then why is AQ such a presence in Iraq? I contend that a common enemy
(us) united them against us, and that any activity against either would
have had the same result.

OTOH, the guys who have been successfully killing our soldiers are
extremely dangerous, and they weren't around before this war. As far as
I'm concerned none of this should have happened at all.

They weren't around?

They were alive, but they weren't figuring out how to kill our
military.

I'm not so sure of that.

Now that it has happened, maybe your idea would be best, but what
Bush is doing right now is a mistake. And we all get to pay for it.

I'm not saying I agree with all (or even much) of what has happened, but
now that we're in the soup, we have to finish it out right or it'll be
even worse.

I'm saying it shouldn't have happened, the guys to caused it are
****ups, and I have no faith that they'll turn this from a ****up into
anything measurably better than a complete failure.

Well, the US hasn't been attacked again, and no further attacks on the
scale of 9/11 have happened, so I think we're making progress.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:26:46 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 16:23:45 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

We know he had WMD,
because, well, we sold it to him,

Ah...no..we didnt.

OK, I thought we did. So, who did?

Dave Hinz wrote:



Has it? Where is the followup attack to 9/11 in the US?


Madrid 3/11, London 7/7, Baghdad ... every day.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...


I can see that it doesn't seem to slow down terrorists at
all. The terrorists weren't *in* Iraq.


Prove it's not slowed down the tangos.


You're smarter than that gunner.


No, he is most definitely not.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:17:52 GMT, J. R. Carroll wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Maybe you should read those quotes too. If you find one that's not
true, please let me know. Looks like the guy who compiled it did his
homework.

He did and from what I know they are all the result of Hussein throwing out
the UN inspection team. What everybody at the time, on both sides of the
fence, was saying was that SH ought not think that the US would stand by and
idly watch him get back into the WMD business in a way that would threaten
the US or it's interests in the region. That message was received and
Hussein never did.

You're a trusting soul...

None of those statements are related to the Bush administrations rationales
for invasion. Zero. They are, in fact, taken out of context and are being
used to obscure the now proven fact that the pretext for invasion was
completely false and couldn't be supported from the current set of facts or
intelligence information.

Wow. That's _amazing_ that you can say that with an apparently straight
face. "Yes, my people agree with W, but he's still wrong and we're
still right"? Wow.

Bush and Co. concluded in 1992 that Saddam would end up posing a threat and
that it was a mistake not to have taken him out in GW I. They didn't think
it through in 2003 because they had made up their mind years back. The
conditions that existed at that time were no linger operant. That is why his
neighbors, and many others of our allies, didn't join in. They wondered what
the heck we were thinking and the answer clearly is that we weren't.

So, where did these WMD go between 1998 and 2002, exactly? Where are
the observers and inspectors' reports when they witnessed the alleged
destruction? Oh wait, there aren't any, because he kicked 'em out.
Yeah, that's it, I'm going to kick out the people who can verify I'm
disarming, while I disarm. Nope, I'm not actually hiding and/or
exporting stuff, no not me, I'm destroying it I just don't want anyone
watching.

Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

The thinking part had stopped years ago. Bush was just cleaning up what he
saw as daddy's mess.

Funny, I seem to recall something about preventing nasties that weren't
known to be destroyed from getting into the hands of other people who
hate us who had already attacked.

Just a few thoughts:

You speak as if you are if your taxes alone are supporting the government.
If indeed the case, it's doubtful you'd be spending your time on this
newsgroup.

So, is it even credible to ask what you and yours could do with a few spare
billion dollars?

Another thought is how many of these billions would be spent whether our
troops are in Iraq, or at their respective home bases?


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

But honestly I will revisit that very reasonable question when
the cost for the local peekskill cops reaches 5 billion dollars
per month. Pack a lunch my friend.

Please do.

And in the meantime please meditate on what you and yours
could could do with a few spare billion dollars.

Jim


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

In article , Dave Hinz says...

So, where did these WMD go between 1998 and 2002, exactly?

Into Osama's back pocket. They're as safe from us as they
could ever be. Our government would never look in saudi
arabia.

Jim


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