"Bob G" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:58:29 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Bob G" wrote in message
.. .

So, enlighten me. What lies did he tell? To the American public.
Any stories he told while relating how big a fish he caught last time
he went fishing doesn't count.

Understand what I'm asking. I'm not asking for accusations. I'm
asking for facts.

Who gets to decide whether its a "fact" instead of merely an
"accusation"?

Jeff

Hmmm, Jeff, I thought you were a lawyer?

You should know the answer to that question very well.

The jury gets to decide who they wish to believe. And I do believe,
unless I am mistaken, that the jury plans to render their verdict in
November.

Now, as a sitting member of the jury, I am listening to the arguments
of both sides. Doing my best to be fair. And as instructed, keeping
it in my mind that I should do my best to set aside preconceptions,
biases, and stereotypes; personal likes and dislikes. And form my
opinion, as best I can, based on the evidence presented to me.

Not being God, nor possessed of psychic powers, and having not
actually been a witness to the events being laid out to me by the
defense and prosecution. I am well aware of the fact that I don't
KNOW the absolute truth. That, in fact, the only thing I KNOW ... is
what is being presented to me as evidence.

Further, I am well aware that both the defense and the prosecution are
in fact ... HIGHLY BIASED ... and fully intend to do everything in
their power to make me see things each of their ways. And that they
will elaborate, exaggerate, spin, cajole, coax, etc. And in fact both
will point to the very same facts ... and weave entirely different
stories and conclusions from them.

So much so, that while both are talking about the very same person,
facts, and incidences ... one could almost swear they were talking
about two completely separate people and events.

Not being an utter fool and idiot, I am wearing my mud waders because
I am well aware that for the next however long it takes for both sides
to present their cases, I'm gonna have to be wading thru a LOT of
utter BS, piled higher and deeper as things go along, and try to pluck
out those bits and pieces ... out of the mountains of BS presented by
the lawyers on each side ... which I find to be believeable ... TO ME.

Because this is what it boils down to. I already know the prosecution
and defense are biased as hell, each giving me their best song and
dance and one sided story.

So it's up to me to decide what _I_ believe. And I will attempt to
be as fair and open minded as possible, unlike the prosecution and the
defense.

Now, I will say this, Jeff.

That so far, as the prosecutor, you are somewhat failing to very
credible to me.

First off, while I do no watch TV much, I did turn it on to watch the
speech given by Bush where he outlined his reasons for going after the
Al Qaeda, and specifically his reasons for going into Iraq.

I do remember, and I can look up the exact words of that speech for
myself, that his point about the WMDs, was ONLY one of numerous
reasons he gave. And I do remember he stated, "We have reason to
believe ...".

I also listened as he gave examples of those reasons. CIA reports,
testimony by exiled Iraqis, reports from the UN, evidence and reports
from the previous administration, and the ABSOLUTE evidence and
knowledge that Saddam had in fact used such weapons in the past
against thousands of people.

(As a side note, Jeff, I can -personally- verify that he did in fact
use then against utterly helpless folks, to include innocent old men,
old women, children, etc. We had been watching this in the past I was
was present when recon aircraft returned and photoes of scenes were
developed. They were NOT scenes of chemicals weapons used against
soldiers. The scenes I looked at showed a village, with dead victims
of every age and gender, farmers, goat herders, etc.)

But I was paying attention, I did not miss the fact that his point was
we had reasons to "believe". And I'm quite aware of what "reasonable
belief" means. So that part, I do believe. That he was convinced he
had "reasonable belief". You remember that from your law studies,
correct? I hope so, as I do remember it from my law studies. My
teacher talked long about the subject.

I also remember, and all the rhetoric and one sided finger pointing
does not make me forget, that Bush gave a whole bunch of other reasons
for going into Iraq. All of which you, Mr Prosecutor, seem to sweep
aside and discount. But I have not forgotten them.

Next, a point that hurts your credibility with this juror. And I'm
only one of many, and have no idea what the others are thinking.

To bolster your arguments, you keep pointing to other 'witnesses' who
agree with the views you wish me to believe.

Trust me, I've been paying attention. And have been checking.

Strange, isn't it. Seemingly every time I check out one of your
witnesses and what he or she says. I can find another witness,
independent of yours, who relates a somewhat different story.

Hmmm. Who to believe, who to believe? This makes my head hurt. I
was not actually there, so how can I know the absolute truth of the
matter?

Well, fact is I can't. So I have to give some weight to the
credibility of said witnesses.

Which brings up a problem. So far, Mr Prosecutor, when I check on
your witnesses, I keep finding out that they're each and every one
RABID anti-Bush folks. Filled with vitriol and hate. Running
anti-Bush web sites, with ENDLESS postings and articles on the web
flinging accusation, hate filled speech, resorting to name calling at
every excuse, etc. Making it impossible to doubt one thing ... that
they hate Bush and everything and anything associated with him. They
find fault with him when he does those things with which they
disagree, and even find fault with him when he does those things that
the people concerns previously said they wanted a president to do. It
makes no difference what he does. Seemingly his mere existance is an
affront and offense to them. And no matter what he does, they name
call and take offense to it.

In case you wonder, Jeff, I looked up the reporter who was in charge
of that NYT article about the Miami-Dade incident. She has anti-Bush
spew littered all over the net. Which is her right. But which does
nothing to convince me that much of what she says can be taken at face
value or without a large dose of salt. In short, to me, she lacks
more than a little as a credible source of information. (The name is
Dana Canedy if you did not note it.)

When, Mr Prosecutor, are you gonna present before me, a simple juror,
witnesses with at least something that might pass for being at least
moderately unbiased opinion and testimony?

So, you see my problem?

I want meat ... substance. Hate filled, one sided vindictive by those
who obviously hate Bush as a person and every word he says and every
single thing he does and make no secret of it, I've had more than
enough of. Getting rather sick of it, as a matter of fact. It just
clouds and obfuscates the issues and is not at all helpful to me in
making up my mind.

If this were a real trial and court, and I were a juror, you'd be
losing me Mr Prosecutor.

I already know you think him guilty and hate and despise . Knew that
in the beginning. You need not keep beating me over the head with the
fact by trotting out witness after witness who also seem to feel the
same. I want MEAT, substance, fact ... preferrably from credible, at
least somewhat unbiased witnesses.

On the other side, I have some meat and substance. Meat and substance
not easily dismissed or disregarded.

1) I KNOW Saddam and his people have used WMD in the past.

2) I KNOW he showed a perfect willingness to invade other countries.

3) I KNOW the mass graves with 10s and hundreds of thousands of bodies
his folks killed have been found and uncovered.

4) I KNOW he refused to be completely open about whether or not he
had WMD.

5) I KNOW because he himself made no secret of it, that he gave money
to the families of those who'd do suicide bomb attacks against
innocent civilians in Israel. And possibly, tho I don't know this, to
those who attacked other civilians elsewhere. I can only draw the
conclusion that if he was willing, and even bragged about doing the
one, it's not hard for me to believe he might well do the other.

6) I KNOW he tortured and killed people who opposed him, even if they
were non-violent in their opposition. There is lots of testimony to
that effect, and evidence. And beyond that, I know an Iraqi family
who now live in Minnesota who fled Iraq for that very reason.

7) I KNOW that Saddam supporters seem to have no hesitation to
DELIBERATELY target and attack innocent civilians to further their
cause.

8) I KNOW that thousands of Kuwaiti people were killed by Saddams
troops when he invaded that country ... when they'd not been at war
with him or threatened to physically harm him.

9) I KNOW that Bush made the attempt, just like most folks asked him
to do, for something like a year to get the UN to TAKE ACTION, action
dictated by their own rules and resolutions, and they would not.

10) I KNOW that part of the argument against Bush and Blair were
reports and articles written by the BBC ... and I KNOW that they've
now confessed that they lied.

11) I KNOW that Bush's speech gave MANY more reasons for the invasion
other than simply the WMDs. That was only one argument, and in my
mind, not even a major one. I know the limitations of WMDs, being
ex-military and being one who was a teacher who trainned others in
those capabilities AND limitations and how to cope with them. And I
know that there are MANY other ways to kill folks. If you're a hate
filled dictator. Witness the fact of how many folks around the world
there are who over the years have been killed or injured by quite
ordinary bombs. Innocent civilians ... DELIBERATELY targeted by the
likes of Saddam.

12) I KNOW what it feels like to be targeted by those who hate you and
are willing to use whatever means, with utter disregard for the
collateral killing, maiming or injuring of innocents. I know about
people who are willing to use violence to further their ends and
beliefs with no regard for any innocents being hurt. I have
personally, Jeff, been involved in searching for bombs planted by such
folks. Not that I'm a bomb expert. But I was trained to spot the
possibles, and then call for those who did have the training. I'm
well aware of how one sweats as one does the search. And wonders how
it is, and what sort of mind it is that is willing to kill WHOMEVER,
it does not matter, to make their political point. I can only imagine
that hate must so fill a soul that the person responsible have
convinced self that the end justifies the means.

As a note, I killed such a perp once. I'm sure he had his reasons,
that in his mind he felt justified. Too bad. I won, he lost. And I
feel no regrets. He was in the act of trying to kill innocent people
who were sleeping to make his political point. I have no mercy to
spare for him.

Shall I go on, Mr Prosecutor?

Do not give me more hate filled speech because yah don't like Bush. I
already know that and have more than my fill of it. Give me meat, give
me substance to go on.

Something besides the fact that he had "reasonable belief" which
turned out to be wrong. That's not lying, Jeff. That's being
mistaken.

And a LOT of people were mistaken. Clinton believed he had em, the UN
believed. So on and so forth.

Last point. When THIS juror makes his decisions and casts his vote,
the Iraqi war will be only one part of the overall picture upon which
I make that decision. And not even that big of a part.

Personally, while mistakes were made, in the balance, I think the
invasion had more merit than otherwise.

What world opinion is ... I could care less. The "world" needs to get
their own house in order before finger pointing. In the meantime I'm
concerned that we get our house squared away.

1) I'm concerned with the issue of the illegals. I want the borders
SHUT DOWN. Except for LEGAL entry. I have no problem with Mexicans
coming here for work, as long as we can identify em, check criminal
history, etc. And there is the problem with the estimated 8,000,000
(or more) already here. What do we do about them. Realistically, I
don't see that it's feasible to hunt em all down. So what do we do.
I am looking at the proposals to see what proposal seems both workable
and realistic.

2) I am concerned about the economy. Which is showing signs of
picking up. And no, Jeff, I do not rely solely on the published
speeches by the White House to judge that. Actually I DO investigate
this sort of thing. Checking numerous sources. Including talking to
my customers. End result, I do believe it's picking up. Yesterday I
was talking to a customer of mine who happens to be an outfit who're
headhunters for IT folk. Head of that company said things were
picking up there. Etc. I will note, the recession was starting even
before Bush. No, I do not blame it on Clinton. There are a bunch of
factors involved.

3) I am concerned about taxes. Getting pretty damned tired of
government at every level asking for more and more money. And friggin
SQUANDERING it, wasting it. It makes no difference how much money yah
give em. They can always think of good excuses to say they need more.
Well, I operate on a budget, and I expect the governments to do the
same. They'd better learn how. And they'd better learn how to tell
special interest groups to go to hell. It's MY MONEY, and I'm getting
damned tired of funding everybodies' special little project. In
MInnesota, the latest, largest group of unemployed ... has been
government workers. And that, IMHO, is a GOOD thing. We need
government, but it's way too large, too intrusive, and too wasteful.

3) I am concerned about the costs of health care. And direct
government controls are NOT the answer. Not the right one anyway. We
already know by past experience that monopolies just cause prices to
go higher. And that bureaucrats do one thing best of all. Create
more bureaucrats. They also create more and more endless paperwork.
Which lawyers love, but ordinary folks don't. Lawyers love it because
the more rules, the more interpretations are needed. Thus, more
lawyers are needed. Lawyers are much the same as bureaucrats. What
lawyers do best ... is NOT the seeking of justice and fairness. At
that, they're iffy at best. But they do truly excel at figuring out
ways to generate and breed the need for more and more lawyers. If the
Bar had it's way, one would need to seek a lawyer to dig a hole
suitable to plant a tree in your own yard.

4) I am concerned about education. Because our schools ... suck. And
are monopolized by the self seeking, self interested Teachers
Associations and Unions. Which have NO interest, not really, in
better education. Their primary interest is in lining their own
pockets. I'm not talking about the regular teacher in the classroom.
Most of those I've met are honest, earnest folks doing the best they
can with a system gone haywire. And I personally, am against spending
one more dime until we have an honest, REAL ... not pencil whipped,
measure of teachers' individual performance, a school district's
performance, etc. If I am to give more money, I want MEASUREABLE
performance results. Til then, they can go to hell.

Etc.

Get my point, Jeff?

Give me meat, substance. Not rhetoric, not finger pointing, not blame
laying. Wanna convince me of something, gotta give me more than just
the stuff I've been getting.

It's like the fellow on the issure of Ft Gordon. What a bunch of BS.
No one was hiding numbers of wounded. Did what he claimed happen as
concerns military folks having to stay in substandard housing?
Probably. I don't know about Ft Gordon, do know of other incidences.
And the major problem was that the military system had been cut back
so much that we are short on proper, adequate facilities for dealing
with the number of folks we're dealing with now. I am a friggin
member of several Vet organizations and personally know several of the
folks in the VA system in the Twin Cities and in St Cloud. This has
been a problem for some time. And DID NOT originate with Bush. In
fact, his people as well as some of the highest staff officers in the
DOD have been scrambling to fix the problem. As best they can, within
budget restraints. A budget controlled by Congress, BTW, no the
President. i.e. At another Fort where at first it wasn't noticed by
those of high enough rank to actually do something about it, a bunch
of reservists, were in an extended wait status. But once the issue
was voiced and the right ear heard it, orders were passed down. And a
new building intended for other purposes in a matter of a couple weeks
was reoutfitted and redesignated into a clinic.

I will repeat ... the military cutbacks, and the demand to do them,
originated well before Bush came into office.

Enough. I am done. And quite tired of all this. You need not
respond, Jeff. Can if you wish. But I may not answer, may just let
you have the last word. I have a lot of other, more productive tasks
to take care of.

But know this, my decision in November is NOT gonna be single issue.
It's not gonna be based solely on story about WMDs. That's BS. It's
gonna be based on a whole number of issues.

And the folks I listen to better be listening up to me, and I think a
lot of Americans. We want meat and substance. Not the BS of Bush
haters. Give us something to work with here. Definite plans ... with
the numbers to support the idea that they may be workable. Facts, not
rhetoric and opinion. We're getting awful tired of the name calling
and accusations which don't even stand up under scrutiny or in a
court.

Gotta run, gotta teach a class in a couple hours, a sideline job.

Bob

As a trained lawyer you should know that there is a principle that the
law should be equally applied. (I am not a lawyer.) In other words
you cannot bring the full weight of the law against a person when the law
is not generally enforced just because you don't like him.

You gave a long list of things that you know and some of those things are
indeed crimes. Many are of your accusations are quite correct. Others
are
not crimes at all. Giving money to the families of people who died in
their
struggle against Israeli oppression is not a crime, it is admirable We
give
money to US soldier's families that have died. It is normal to help the
family of fallen soldiers.

All of the crimes and non-crimes that you list are commonly committed by
many
others around the world. There is little clamor from the accused (Bush) to
go
in and "fix" those problems. Indeed the noise about these crimes from the
accused
seems correlate with the friendliness of the criminal. This leads
to my suspicion of the unjust application of the law.

So you see my problem, fellow juror. You feel that it is justified to
punish in the most extreme manor someone that is no worse than a
lot of other guys out there. Your long list of the crimes includes
things that are not crimes at all but rather things that you don't like.
They
have violated laws that are rarely enforced. Is your disdain for this guy
coloring
your judgement?

Pete.

In article ,
says...
snip

You know, it's fun sitting on the sidelines and watching this exchange,
but I need to make a couple of points he

How did Bush force the CIA to give Clinton the same info in 1998?


No, my point was that the CIA was not sure that Saddan had WMD's.
It was the Bush people that took the CIA's suspicions and made them
certainties. That is Bush's lie.

Then, it is also the Senate and House Intelligence subcommittee's lie,
and the lie of all elected officials who backed the President when they
saw the same information he saw. Including John F Kerry.

How did Bush force all the intelligence agencies in the world to
believe the same things?


The British are undergoing the same thing. They had their doubts
and Tony Blair made them into certainties. Thus his "WMD's can
be used in 45 minutes" speech. The process of shifting the blame to
the intelligence service is going on in Britain as well.

No country was certain about Saddam's WMD's but only the US
and the UK lied about it.

Really. Prove it. You keep neglecting to include the fact that
numerous UN resolutions stated that Hussein had WMDs, that there was no
definitive proof that they were destroyed, and that ongoing intelligence
showed they were still there. You wanna indict Bush for acting? Then,
you better damned well be prepared to indict Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry,
and the rest who believed the same intelligence reports.

I give your Bash Bush conspiracy theory a 2 of 5. Original, but
completely lacking in depth. Details, man, Details! If you are going
to spin a whopper then it wont work without details.

Strider

Hope that makes my point more clear,
Pete.

Hardly, but nice try.
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

"Rick Chamberlain" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
snip

You know, it's fun sitting on the sidelines and watching this exchange,
but I need to make a couple of points he

How did Bush force the CIA to give Clinton the same info in 1998?


No, my point was that the CIA was not sure that Saddan had WMD's.
It was the Bush people that took the CIA's suspicions and made them
certainties. That is Bush's lie.

Then, it is also the Senate and House Intelligence subcommittee's lie,
and the lie of all elected officials who backed the President when they
saw the same information he saw. Including John F Kerry.


What was happening was a lynching. Everyone got all fired up
and rational voices and doubts were drowned out. Kerry is guilty too.

How did Bush force all the intelligence agencies in the world to
believe the same things?


The British are undergoing the same thing. They had their doubts
and Tony Blair made them into certainties. Thus his "WMD's can
be used in 45 minutes" speech. The process of shifting the blame to
the intelligence service is going on in Britain as well.

No country was certain about Saddam's WMD's but only the US
and the UK lied about it.

Really. Prove it. You keep neglecting to include the fact that
numerous UN resolutions stated that Hussein had WMDs, that there was no
definitive proof that they were destroyed, and that ongoing intelligence
showed they were still there. You wanna indict Bush for acting? Then,
you better damned well be prepared to indict Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry,
and the rest who believed the same intelligence reports.


There can be no definitive proof that something was destroyed when it
did not exist. Do you want to prove to me that you destroyed that nuke
in your basement?

Clinton did not believe the reports enough to go to war. We now
know that Clinton was right and Bush was wrong. They both
read the same reports and one president did the right thing and the
other did not.

I give your Bash Bush conspiracy theory a 2 of 5. Original, but
completely lacking in depth. Details, man, Details! If you are going
to spin a whopper then it wont work without details.

Strider

Hope that makes my point more clear,
Pete.

Hardly, but nice try.
--
Regards,

Rick

Did that clear it up?
Pete.

Jim...you know little about the time, the protests or the encouragement
such gave North Vietnam. Do some research, before ****ting in your
messkit.

Gunner

Gotta go along with you here Gunner. I interrogated NVA & VC prisoners and
invariably asked them why they continued to fight with no support, food, ammo
etc and they nearly always pointed out that even American movie stars came over
and supported them and told them their cause was "just". They were encouraged
and emboldened by the Fondas & Kerrys. We still could have kicked their butts
if the politicians would have let us. IMO Kerry & the rest are collaborators
at best. Those who went overseas and aided the enemy in wartime, (Jane) should
be tried for treason just as Tokyo Rose or Axis Sally.
Greg Sefton

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:38:15 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:



There can be no definitive proof that something was destroyed when it
did not exist.

Uh, yes, there can be. BTW, the stuff did exist. The US gave it
to him before the '91 Gulf War to be used on Iranian troops.
(Iran/Iraq War) He had stuff left over. THAT was the stuff he
used on the Kurds after the US pulled out after the '91 War.
Saddam claims he destroyed the stuff after that.
Fine.
Show us where.
Show us the leftover destroyed parts.

Do you want to prove to me that you destroyed that nuke
in your basement?

I would show you the bomb casing, the materials, the fuel/fuel
residue.

Bob G wrote:


What world opinion is ... I could care less.

Just like the president and his cronies. not that previous administrations or
Americans in general were/are any different.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:38:39 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Strider" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:42:35 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Bob G" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:39:38 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

You have a real problem here, the likely Democratic candidate, Kerry,
Dean, or Clark, might be liars. The Republican candidate is a liar.
Lieberman is just the "Bush" on the Democratic ballot. Who are you
going to vote for?

Pete.

Okay, you could very well be right. Truthfully I don't follow
politics that closely. Infrequently watch TV, maybe catch 3 hours
total a week.

Soooo ... you could very well be correct that Bush is a liar.

I've heard folks assert as much.

So, enlighten me. What lies did he tell? To the American public.
Any stories he told while relating how big a fish he caught last time
he went fishing doesn't count.

Understand what I'm asking. I'm not asking for accusations. I'm
asking for facts.

Bob

The big one that is killing people now is; Saddam had WMD's.


Are you following the process where blame for Bush's lies is being
shifted to the CIA. The CIA expressed reservations before the war but
Bush did not listen.

The Bush people "outed" a CIA agent to get back at her husband.

These two things have probably done more damage to the CIA
than anything in a long time. Will the CIA risk giving the president
any meaningful intelligence in the future? Not likely.

Will CIA agents risk their lives overseas when they may be exposed by
their government for political gain? Not likely.

If anyone had any hope that the CIA would be of any use in this
stupid "war against terrorism" those hopes are now dashed.
The terrorists are going to win because we are stabbing ourselves
in the back. They must be enjoying the show.

Pete.

How did Bush force the CIA to give Clinton the same info in 1998?


No, my point was that the CIA was not sure that Saddan had WMD's.
It was the Bush people that took the CIA's suspicions and made them
certainties. That is Bush's lie.

So you are ****ed because the CIA wasn't 100% certain. So, what is
your threshold of certainty. 80%, 90%, 95%, 98%?

You must live a very sheltered life if you can only act on 100%
certainty.

How did Bush force all the intelligence agencies in the world to
believe the same things?


The British are undergoing the same thing. They had their doubts
and Tony Blair made them into certainties. Thus his "WMD's can
be used in 45 minutes" speech. The process of shifting the blame to
the intelligence service is going on in Britain as well.

See above.


No country was certain about Saddam's WMD's but only the US
and the UK lied about it.

I give your Bash Bush conspiracy theory a 2 of 5. Original, but
completely lacking in depth. Details, man, Details! If you are going
to spin a whopper then it wont work without details.

Strider

Hope that makes my point more clear,
Pete.


Nope. Still not enough detail. Conspiracy kooks such as yourself
typically crank out far more detailed bull**** that this. You are
simply must try harder.

Strider

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:39:38 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
brought forth from the murky depths:

You have a real problem here, the likely Democratic candidate, Kerry,
Dean, or Clark, might be liars. The Republican candidate is a liar.
Lieberman is just the "Bush" on the Democratic ballot. Who are you
going to vote for?

That's a damned good question. Should it be Mary Carey, Donald
Duck, Dave Barry, Satan, Papoon, Pat Paulson, or NOTA?

http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/ might not be worse
than the existing or potential rep/dem officeholders.


----------------------------------------------
CAUTION: Driver Legally B l o n d (e)
http://www.diversify.com Web Database Development
================================================== =====

On 29 Jan 2004 05:29:45 -0800, jim rozen
brought forth from the murky depths:

In article , Gunner says...

financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to
more American deaths,

Blaming anti-war protesters for deaths of soldiers in that
war is nonsensical.

Indirectly, they were. Just as they told me they didn't
need me (lottery #53 during the draft for Nam), I watched
the government and military gear down the fight poorly. As
Congress snipped funding, the military stopped supporting
troops already in nastyass situations, many of the troops
died. Those who survived didn't survive intact. Most of the
friends I had in high school came back either in body bags
or as basket cases. If you think protestors don't have any
cause and effect you're -entirely- wrong, Jim. The protestors
got to the pols who screwed the troops already in action.


----------------------------------------------
CAUTION: Driver Legally B l o n d (e)
http://www.diversify.com Web Database Development
================================================== =====

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:05:15 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Bob G wrote:


What world opinion is ... I could care less.

Just like the president and his cronies. not that previous administrations or
Americans in general were/are any different.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Tell me something, Abrasha. While I would not wish anything bad on
anyone else in the world. In fact, wish them well.

Why SHOULD I care about their opinion?

When my wife had her accident, which almost killed her. Did "the
world" care? Did they offer help? Sympathy?

When northwestern Minnesota, and parts of North Dakota flooded, and
thousands were homeless. Hmmmm, I was there, lending aid and help.
And I saw literally thousands of folks from all over Minnesota and the
Dakotas there. Even saw some folks from other states, not involved in
the flooding, show up and help.

But, yah know something? I didn't see even ONE van marked "The World,
because we care." show up.

I could go on at lenght, but it'd be senseless. I think you get my
meaning.

This "world" of which you speak, seems to ask a lot, and offer nothing
but snarls and insults in return. I personally wouldn't care for such
as a neighbor. Fortunately, my neighbor is a decent fellow. If I
help him, he says thanks. And when he sees that he can help me, he
does.

Tell me more about this wonderful "world" of yours. Where leaders in
France, and German, and Russia take bribes to turn their backs on a
man who killed ... 300,000 as of the last count I heard ... of his own
people and buried them in mass graves. And where was this caring
'world' when Camodians were being slughtered in mass by the Khmer
Rouge? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Why is it I always seem to see folks blame America for everything? If
we take action we're blamed. If we do nothing, we are blamed.

Hmmm. Are we supposed to feel worthy to live ONLY when we obey every
whim and notion of whomever feels that we should do something, bow,
kiss their feet, and say "Why, thank you for demanding I slave for you
and then spitting in my face when I'm done."?

Tell me about this, Abrasha, I'd really like to hear your answer.

I'd like to know when I get to come to you and demand you do something
whether you want to do it or not, whether you and yours bleeds or not.
And then be able to act like this 'world' of which you speak. And that
is once you are done doing the sweat, the labor, the bleeding, and
have paid dearly out of your very own pocket, I want to be able to
express righteoous indignation that you did not do even more, and then
spit in your face as my "Thank You" to you.

After all, that is what YOU, the world, have been doing to us. Or at
least seem to expect.

Bob

Abrasha wrote:
Bob G wrote:


What world opinion is ... I could care less.


Just like the president and his cronies. not that previous administrations or
Americans in general were/are any different.

"World opinion" being against the US is nothing new. It's been against
the US ever since the American Revolution because we dumped the King.
We "set a bad example", and there's been several revolutions blamed on
our example.

Anyone in the US concerned about "World Opinion" can kiss my ass. We
are as wealthy and free as we are IN SPITE OF 'world opinion'.

Bob G wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:05:15 GMT, Abrasha wrote:


Bob G wrote:


What world opinion is ... I could care less.

Just like the president and his cronies. not that previous administrations or
Americans in general were/are any different.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com


Tell me something, Abrasha. While I would not wish anything bad on
anyone else in the world. In fact, wish them well.

Why SHOULD I care about their opinion?

When my wife had her accident, which almost killed her. Did "the
world" care? Did they offer help? Sympathy?

When northwestern Minnesota, and parts of North Dakota flooded, and
thousands were homeless. Hmmmm, I was there, lending aid and help.
And I saw literally thousands of folks from all over Minnesota and the
Dakotas there. Even saw some folks from other states, not involved in
the flooding, show up and help.

But, yah know something? I didn't see even ONE van marked "The World,
because we care." show up.

I could go on at lenght, but it'd be senseless. I think you get my
meaning.

This "world" of which you speak, seems to ask a lot, and offer nothing
but snarls and insults in return. I personally wouldn't care for such
as a neighbor. Fortunately, my neighbor is a decent fellow. If I
help him, he says thanks. And when he sees that he can help me, he
does.

Tell me more about this wonderful "world" of yours. Where leaders in
France, and German, and Russia take bribes to turn their backs on a
man who killed ... 300,000 as of the last count I heard ... of his own
people and buried them in mass graves. And where was this caring
'world' when Camodians were being slughtered in mass by the Khmer
Rouge? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Why is it I always seem to see folks blame America for everything? If
we take action we're blamed. If we do nothing, we are blamed.

Hmmm. Are we supposed to feel worthy to live ONLY when we obey every
whim and notion of whomever feels that we should do something, bow,
kiss their feet, and say "Why, thank you for demanding I slave for you
and then spitting in my face when I'm done."?

Tell me about this, Abrasha, I'd really like to hear your answer.

I'd like to know when I get to come to you and demand you do something
whether you want to do it or not, whether you and yours bleeds or not.
And then be able to act like this 'world' of which you speak. And that
is once you are done doing the sweat, the labor, the bleeding, and
have paid dearly out of your very own pocket, I want to be able to
express righteoous indignation that you did not do even more, and then
spit in your face as my "Thank You" to you.

After all, that is what YOU, the world, have been doing to us. Or at
least seem to expect.

Bob




--
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece.
One should rather skid in broadside, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- "WOW! WHAT A RIDE!"

Bob G wrote:


I'd like to know when I get to come to you and demand you do something
whether you want to do it or not, whether you and yours bleeds or not.
And then be able to act like this 'world' of which you speak. And that
is once you are done doing the sweat, the labor, the bleeding, and
have paid dearly out of your very own pocket, I want to be able to
express righteoous indignation that you did not do even more, and then
spit in your face as my "Thank You" to you.

After all, that is what YOU, the world, have been doing to us. Or at
least seem to expect.

Bob



Amen!

But, Bob, _WE_ are the rich folks that're supposed to give everything
to those who haven't tried to earn their own. Have you no compassion? If
US gives a million, it should've been 10 million: If US gives 10
million, why wasn't it a billion? Huh? Huh?

Do anything, it's not enough: Do nothing, it's just like those ugly,
filthy, trailer-trash, Merkins to let "the world" starve, suffer, and
bleed. Do something right and we're uppity: Nake a mistake and we're
uncaring.

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

--
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece.
One should rather skid in broadside, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- "WOW! WHAT A RIDE!"

Peter Reilley wrote:

The big one that is killing people now is; Saddam had WMD's.

He certainly acted as though he did. The US has inspected a small
percentage of the ammo dumps, who knows what they will find?

Are you following the process where blame for Bush's lies is being
shifted to the CIA. The CIA expressed reservations before the war but
Bush did not listen.

The Bush people "outed" a CIA agent to get back at her husband.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=10694

THE PARTISAN CONTROVERSY over the outing of Valerie Plame, the
once-covert CIA analyst and wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, seems
destined to go unresolved. Although the actions of two senior
administration officials may be felonious, a city that lives on leaked
information seems unlikely to produce the identity of either official
involved in the leak. However, the real story in this affair is the
media’s overblown coverage and the Left’s hypocritical outrage.

The media regularly presents the two “senior administration officials”
who exposed Plame’s CIA employment to Robert Novak in July as felons.
However, as Jack Shafer has pointed out on Slate, it’s not clear any
law has been broken. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
of 1982, the person disclosing the covert agent’s identity must have
“authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert
agent” and must “intentionally” disclose it. Whether this official had
authorized or unauthorized knowledge of Ms. Plame’s status is not
clear. If the official’s knowledge was “unauthorized,” he/she
apparently could not be prosecuted.

To complicate matters, Plame may not fall under the technical legal
definition of a “covert” officer.
snip
Allegations have since surfaced that the same, nameless “senior
administration officials” had tried to plant Plame’s name and
occupation with a half-dozen other reporters without success, before
unloading the story on Novak. Novak denies the charge. Perhaps more
tellingly, since this story surfaced – citing a third nameless “senior
administration official” as its source – no reporter has come forward
to corroborate this charge. Does it seem plausible that the average
glory-seeking, leftist reporter approached by top White House brass
would remain silent, refusing to 1) accept the attendant publicity
that would go with making a breakthrough story; and 2) indict the Bush
Administration as a gang of liars? Much less that six reporters would
remain silent for nearly four months? The thought strains credulity.


The Plame controversy actually had its genesis with the “16 words
controversy.” In early 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney had heard
questions raised about reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to
purchase yellowcake uranium in Niger. He asked the CIA to look into
the matter, and the Agency dispatched former Ambassador Joe Wilson to
look into matters. Wilson carried out his tough interrogation over
“eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people”
– at poolside, on occasion – before inexplicably finding nothing. In
July, the story broke that a fact-finding investigation on Niger’s
yellowcake had been undertaken and concluded that Saddam never tried
to purchase uranium there. Wilson promptly confessed he was the
diplomat who undertook this “investigation.” Thus was President Bush’s
State of the Union Address derided as “lies” by the Left – on the
basis of Wilson’s African vacation!



Wilson was an odd choice, indeed. He has keynoted before the Education
for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC), which opposed the Iraqi liberation,
the sanctions against Saddam and even the no-fly zones protecting
Saddam’s former victims. Wilson is also an “adjunct fellow” at the
Saudi-funded Middle East Institute. His flaming leftist shilling has
graced the pages of Nation, where he wrote, “The new imperialists will
not rest until governments that ape our worldview are implanted
throughout the region.” Finally, he gave the maximum campaign
contribution allowed by law to Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign.
(Plame gave $1,000 herself.) Indeed, Wilson worked for Gore in the
1980s. In recent years, he has supported (and formally endorsed) Sen.
John Kerry.



Bob Novak asked the predictable question: Why was Wilson, a career
diplomat with no CIA background, no investigative experience and a
political axe to grind against George W. Bush, sent on such a
sensitive mission? (Perhaps Novak should have also asked why
authorities accepted Wilson’s incompetent trip as the final word,
particularly when British intelligence still claims the story is
accurate.)



These two things have probably done more damage to the CIA
than anything in a long time. Will the CIA risk giving the president
any meaningful intelligence in the future? Not likely.

Are they now? Why did they send Wilson, a political hack, to Nigeria?

Will CIA agents risk their lives overseas when they may be exposed by
their government for political gain? Not likely.

That's part of the risk. Getting wasted by the politicians.

If anyone had any hope that the CIA would be of any use in this
stupid "war against terrorism" those hopes are now dashed.
The terrorists are going to win because we are stabbing ourselves
in the back. They must be enjoying the show.

You finally got something right.

The Moslems and other third worlders get their main impression of the
US from CNN and the sleazy films out of Hollywood.

Gunner:

Thanks you made my point for me.

You should look up the meaning of the word "condescending" because it's
something you practice a lot.

Jimbo
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:54:44 -0500, "Jimbo" . wrote:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that debating anything with
Gunner
not metalworking related is a mugs game? He is obviously an
intelligent
person but he only sees things in black and white. It seems to me that
anyone not in lock step with his view of the world is in his mind just a
whining weak kneed Liberal/socialist sympathiser.

Jimbo

Sigh..is that all you get out of my posts? Interesting.

So, analyses is not your forte I take it?

Btw..which political party do you belong to? And how would you rate
yourself on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being very liberal, and 10 being
very conservative?

Gunner




"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , andy asberry
says...

I was one of those Americans who had to fight his way back into his
own country.

You got screwed by your own country's politicians. That's
a shame and I'm sorry it happened to you. But that war
would have gone on till doomsday if the general public
did not make it a point to say "enough."

Jim

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




"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability,
accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose
and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee,
imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any
particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or
responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect
to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by
any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it
into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts
that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other
agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within
five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or
by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron
who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece
of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a
bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'

"Bob G" wrote in message

snip a lot of stuff

Bob

Well said Bob, we are the most carring and compassionate nation that has
ever existed on the planet, I appreciate your comments and agree in whole.

JTMcC.

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

financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to
more American deaths,

Blaming anti-war protesters for deaths of soldiers in that
war is nonsensical.

No, it isn't. If Americans, on a seemingly large scale, at least a very
famous and public scale, rallied in support of Osama and his crew, and/or
against the brave American servicemen fighting OBL and his ilk, you would
see an emboldenment of the enemy that is certainly not evident today.
Do you think the U.S. would have defeated Hitler and the Japanese in WW2 if
the Air Force and Pattons 3rd Army had had to send LBJ a list of air strike
targets begging for permission to kill the enemy, only to have LBJ and his
incompetent croonies go thru 3 or 4 pages of the list before authorizing a
strike, due only too "candy ass political reasons" ? Nope, nope and nope.
FDR had a whole truckload (probably many truckloads) of faults, but at least
he let those trained to kill the enemy decide who, when and where to do so
for the most part. And they did so in an very effective manner.

JTMcC.



That's like blaming the ambulance driver for the car
crash he responds to.

Many americans at the time felt that war was both illegal
and immoral, and felt it their civic duty to protest US
presence. My personal feeling is that the politicians
of both flavor did not care about public opinion, and
the broad spectrum of anti-war feeling encouraged them
to end the war. Thereby preventing any more deaths from
it.

Jim

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

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:42:35 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

SNIP

So, enlighten me. What lies did he tell? To the American public.
Any stories he told while relating how big a fish he caught last time
he went fishing doesn't count.

Understand what I'm asking. I'm not asking for accusations. I'm
asking for facts.

Bob

The big one that is killing people now is; Saddam had WMD's.

SNIP

Pete.

Hell, even Saddam thought he had more WMD's than he did. His
scientists were so terrified of failing to deliver the weapons he
demanded that they told him they had developed them.

They fled the country when it was obvious Saddam would discover the
lies. I don't recall the title but one of his top nuclear boys wrote a
book about the scam.

"John Husvar" wrote in message
...
Bob G wrote:


Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

As little as I know about politics and world affairs, I can't help but
agree! I'm damned tired of seeing our country being the heavy.

Harold

"Strider" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:38:39 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Strider" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:42:35 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Bob G" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:39:38 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

You have a real problem here, the likely Democratic candidate,
Kerry,
Dean, or Clark, might be liars. The Republican candidate is a
liar.
Lieberman is just the "Bush" on the Democratic ballot. Who are
you
going to vote for?

Pete.

Okay, you could very well be right. Truthfully I don't follow
politics that closely. Infrequently watch TV, maybe catch 3 hours
total a week.

Soooo ... you could very well be correct that Bush is a liar.

I've heard folks assert as much.

So, enlighten me. What lies did he tell? To the American public.
Any stories he told while relating how big a fish he caught last
time
he went fishing doesn't count.

Understand what I'm asking. I'm not asking for accusations. I'm
asking for facts.

Bob

The big one that is killing people now is; Saddam had WMD's.


Are you following the process where blame for Bush's lies is being
shifted to the CIA. The CIA expressed reservations before the war
but
Bush did not listen.

The Bush people "outed" a CIA agent to get back at her husband.

These two things have probably done more damage to the CIA
than anything in a long time. Will the CIA risk giving the president
any meaningful intelligence in the future? Not likely.

Will CIA agents risk their lives overseas when they may be exposed by
their government for political gain? Not likely.

If anyone had any hope that the CIA would be of any use in this
stupid "war against terrorism" those hopes are now dashed.
The terrorists are going to win because we are stabbing ourselves
in the back. They must be enjoying the show.

Pete.

How did Bush force the CIA to give Clinton the same info in 1998?


No, my point was that the CIA was not sure that Saddan had WMD's.
It was the Bush people that took the CIA's suspicions and made them
certainties. That is Bush's lie.

So you are ****ed because the CIA wasn't 100% certain. So, what is
your threshold of certainty. 80%, 90%, 95%, 98%?


That is an easy answer, it does not matter. We should not have invaded
even if he had WMD's. Why is it OK for our friends to have WMD's even when
our friends are just as bad as our enemies. I am speaking of Israel here.

You must live a very sheltered life if you can only act on 100%
certainty.

We should not have invaded even if we were sure. We should not
have invaded even if he did have them. It virtually guarantees that
every country than might be in our "invade next" list will develop
WMD's of their own. Why was Iraq invaded and North Korea not
invaded. One has WMD's and the other did not. Those countries
on our bad list will be able to figure that out. Even one nuke
is a guarantee against invasion. What country would not go for that.

Another thing that this mess has taught all those bad countries is
how to hide their programs. They know what works and what
does not.


How did Bush force all the intelligence agencies in the world to
believe the same things?


The British are undergoing the same thing. They had their doubts
and Tony Blair made them into certainties. Thus his "WMD's can
be used in 45 minutes" speech. The process of shifting the blame to
the intelligence service is going on in Britain as well.

See above.


No country was certain about Saddam's WMD's but only the US
and the UK lied about it.

I give your Bash Bush conspiracy theory a 2 of 5. Original, but
completely lacking in depth. Details, man, Details! If you are going
to spin a whopper then it wont work without details.

Strider

Hope that makes my point more clear,
Pete.


Nope. Still not enough detail. Conspiracy kooks such as yourself
typically crank out far more detailed bull**** that this. You are
simply must try harder.

Strider

There you have it, you will have to figure it out for your self.

Pete.

In article , JTMcC says...

Blaming anti-war protesters for deaths of soldiers in that
war is nonsensical.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. If you send soldiers to fight a war, some
of them will get killed. If you bring them home, no
more will be.

This is what my grandmother used to call "if you don't
want to get hit by a train, don't play on the RR tracks."

True then, true now.

Jim

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

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:15:20 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Bob G" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:58:29 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Bob G" wrote in message
.. .

So, enlighten me. What lies did he tell? To the American public.
Any stories he told while relating how big a fish he caught last time
he went fishing doesn't count.

Understand what I'm asking. I'm not asking for accusations. I'm
asking for facts.

Who gets to decide whether its a "fact" instead of merely an
"accusation"?

Jeff

Hmmm, Jeff, I thought you were a lawyer?

You should know the answer to that question very well.

The jury gets to decide who they wish to believe. And I do believe,
unless I am mistaken, that the jury plans to render their verdict in
November.

Now, as a sitting member of the jury, I am listening to the arguments
of both sides. Doing my best to be fair. And as instructed, keeping
it in my mind that I should do my best to set aside preconceptions,
biases, and stereotypes; personal likes and dislikes. And form my
opinion, as best I can, based on the evidence presented to me.

Not being God, nor possessed of psychic powers, and having not
actually been a witness to the events being laid out to me by the
defense and prosecution. I am well aware of the fact that I don't
KNOW the absolute truth. That, in fact, the only thing I KNOW ... is
what is being presented to me as evidence.

Further, I am well aware that both the defense and the prosecution are
in fact ... HIGHLY BIASED ... and fully intend to do everything in
their power to make me see things each of their ways. And that they
will elaborate, exaggerate, spin, cajole, coax, etc. And in fact both
will point to the very same facts ... and weave entirely different
stories and conclusions from them.

So much so, that while both are talking about the very same person,
facts, and incidences ... one could almost swear they were talking
about two completely separate people and events.

Not being an utter fool and idiot, I am wearing my mud waders because
I am well aware that for the next however long it takes for both sides
to present their cases, I'm gonna have to be wading thru a LOT of
utter BS, piled higher and deeper as things go along, and try to pluck
out those bits and pieces ... out of the mountains of BS presented by
the lawyers on each side ... which I find to be believeable ... TO ME.

Because this is what it boils down to. I already know the prosecution
and defense are biased as hell, each giving me their best song and
dance and one sided story.

So it's up to me to decide what _I_ believe. And I will attempt to
be as fair and open minded as possible, unlike the prosecution and the
defense.

Now, I will say this, Jeff.

That so far, as the prosecutor, you are somewhat failing to very
credible to me.

First off, while I do no watch TV much, I did turn it on to watch the
speech given by Bush where he outlined his reasons for going after the
Al Qaeda, and specifically his reasons for going into Iraq.

I do remember, and I can look up the exact words of that speech for
myself, that his point about the WMDs, was ONLY one of numerous
reasons he gave. And I do remember he stated, "We have reason to
believe ...".

I also listened as he gave examples of those reasons. CIA reports,
testimony by exiled Iraqis, reports from the UN, evidence and reports
from the previous administration, and the ABSOLUTE evidence and
knowledge that Saddam had in fact used such weapons in the past
against thousands of people.

(As a side note, Jeff, I can -personally- verify that he did in fact
use then against utterly helpless folks, to include innocent old men,
old women, children, etc. We had been watching this in the past I was
was present when recon aircraft returned and photoes of scenes were
developed. They were NOT scenes of chemicals weapons used against
soldiers. The scenes I looked at showed a village, with dead victims
of every age and gender, farmers, goat herders, etc.)

But I was paying attention, I did not miss the fact that his point was
we had reasons to "believe". And I'm quite aware of what "reasonable
belief" means. So that part, I do believe. That he was convinced he
had "reasonable belief". You remember that from your law studies,
correct? I hope so, as I do remember it from my law studies. My
teacher talked long about the subject.

I also remember, and all the rhetoric and one sided finger pointing
does not make me forget, that Bush gave a whole bunch of other reasons
for going into Iraq. All of which you, Mr Prosecutor, seem to sweep
aside and discount. But I have not forgotten them.

Next, a point that hurts your credibility with this juror. And I'm
only one of many, and have no idea what the others are thinking.

To bolster your arguments, you keep pointing to other 'witnesses' who
agree with the views you wish me to believe.

Trust me, I've been paying attention. And have been checking.

Strange, isn't it. Seemingly every time I check out one of your
witnesses and what he or she says. I can find another witness,
independent of yours, who relates a somewhat different story.

Hmmm. Who to believe, who to believe? This makes my head hurt. I
was not actually there, so how can I know the absolute truth of the
matter?

Well, fact is I can't. So I have to give some weight to the
credibility of said witnesses.

Which brings up a problem. So far, Mr Prosecutor, when I check on
your witnesses, I keep finding out that they're each and every one
RABID anti-Bush folks. Filled with vitriol and hate. Running
anti-Bush web sites, with ENDLESS postings and articles on the web
flinging accusation, hate filled speech, resorting to name calling at
every excuse, etc. Making it impossible to doubt one thing ... that
they hate Bush and everything and anything associated with him. They
find fault with him when he does those things with which they
disagree, and even find fault with him when he does those things that
the people concerns previously said they wanted a president to do. It
makes no difference what he does. Seemingly his mere existance is an
affront and offense to them. And no matter what he does, they name
call and take offense to it.

In case you wonder, Jeff, I looked up the reporter who was in charge
of that NYT article about the Miami-Dade incident. She has anti-Bush
spew littered all over the net. Which is her right. But which does
nothing to convince me that much of what she says can be taken at face
value or without a large dose of salt. In short, to me, she lacks
more than a little as a credible source of information. (The name is
Dana Canedy if you did not note it.)

When, Mr Prosecutor, are you gonna present before me, a simple juror,
witnesses with at least something that might pass for being at least
moderately unbiased opinion and testimony?

So, you see my problem?

I want meat ... substance. Hate filled, one sided vindictive by those
who obviously hate Bush as a person and every word he says and every
single thing he does and make no secret of it, I've had more than
enough of. Getting rather sick of it, as a matter of fact. It just
clouds and obfuscates the issues and is not at all helpful to me in
making up my mind.

If this were a real trial and court, and I were a juror, you'd be
losing me Mr Prosecutor.

I already know you think him guilty and hate and despise . Knew that
in the beginning. You need not keep beating me over the head with the
fact by trotting out witness after witness who also seem to feel the
same. I want MEAT, substance, fact ... preferrably from credible, at
least somewhat unbiased witnesses.

On the other side, I have some meat and substance. Meat and substance
not easily dismissed or disregarded.

1) I KNOW Saddam and his people have used WMD in the past.

2) I KNOW he showed a perfect willingness to invade other countries.

3) I KNOW the mass graves with 10s and hundreds of thousands of bodies
his folks killed have been found and uncovered.

4) I KNOW he refused to be completely open about whether or not he
had WMD.

5) I KNOW because he himself made no secret of it, that he gave money
to the families of those who'd do suicide bomb attacks against
innocent civilians in Israel. And possibly, tho I don't know this, to
those who attacked other civilians elsewhere. I can only draw the
conclusion that if he was willing, and even bragged about doing the
one, it's not hard for me to believe he might well do the other.

6) I KNOW he tortured and killed people who opposed him, even if they
were non-violent in their opposition. There is lots of testimony to
that effect, and evidence. And beyond that, I know an Iraqi family
who now live in Minnesota who fled Iraq for that very reason.

7) I KNOW that Saddam supporters seem to have no hesitation to
DELIBERATELY target and attack innocent civilians to further their
cause.

8) I KNOW that thousands of Kuwaiti people were killed by Saddams
troops when he invaded that country ... when they'd not been at war
with him or threatened to physically harm him.

9) I KNOW that Bush made the attempt, just like most folks asked him
to do, for something like a year to get the UN to TAKE ACTION, action
dictated by their own rules and resolutions, and they would not.

10) I KNOW that part of the argument against Bush and Blair were
reports and articles written by the BBC ... and I KNOW that they've
now confessed that they lied.

11) I KNOW that Bush's speech gave MANY more reasons for the invasion
other than simply the WMDs. That was only one argument, and in my
mind, not even a major one. I know the limitations of WMDs, being
ex-military and being one who was a teacher who trainned others in
those capabilities AND limitations and how to cope with them. And I
know that there are MANY other ways to kill folks. If you're a hate
filled dictator. Witness the fact of how many folks around the world
there are who over the years have been killed or injured by quite
ordinary bombs. Innocent civilians ... DELIBERATELY targeted by the
likes of Saddam.

12) I KNOW what it feels like to be targeted by those who hate you and
are willing to use whatever means, with utter disregard for the
collateral killing, maiming or injuring of innocents. I know about
people who are willing to use violence to further their ends and
beliefs with no regard for any innocents being hurt. I have
personally, Jeff, been involved in searching for bombs planted by such
folks. Not that I'm a bomb expert. But I was trained to spot the
possibles, and then call for those who did have the training. I'm
well aware of how one sweats as one does the search. And wonders how
it is, and what sort of mind it is that is willing to kill WHOMEVER,
it does not matter, to make their political point. I can only imagine
that hate must so fill a soul that the person responsible have
convinced self that the end justifies the means.

As a note, I killed such a perp once. I'm sure he had his reasons,
that in his mind he felt justified. Too bad. I won, he lost. And I
feel no regrets. He was in the act of trying to kill innocent people
who were sleeping to make his political point. I have no mercy to
spare for him.

Shall I go on, Mr Prosecutor?

Do not give me more hate filled speech because yah don't like Bush. I
already know that and have more than my fill of it. Give me meat, give
me substance to go on.

Something besides the fact that he had "reasonable belief" which
turned out to be wrong. That's not lying, Jeff. That's being
mistaken.

And a LOT of people were mistaken. Clinton believed he had em, the UN
believed. So on and so forth.

Last point. When THIS juror makes his decisions and casts his vote,
the Iraqi war will be only one part of the overall picture upon which
I make that decision. And not even that big of a part.

Personally, while mistakes were made, in the balance, I think the
invasion had more merit than otherwise.

What world opinion is ... I could care less. The "world" needs to get
their own house in order before finger pointing. In the meantime I'm
concerned that we get our house squared away.

1) I'm concerned with the issue of the illegals. I want the borders
SHUT DOWN. Except for LEGAL entry. I have no problem with Mexicans
coming here for work, as long as we can identify em, check criminal
history, etc. And there is the problem with the estimated 8,000,000
(or more) already here. What do we do about them. Realistically, I
don't see that it's feasible to hunt em all down. So what do we do.
I am looking at the proposals to see what proposal seems both workable
and realistic.

2) I am concerned about the economy. Which is showing signs of
picking up. And no, Jeff, I do not rely solely on the published
speeches by the White House to judge that. Actually I DO investigate
this sort of thing. Checking numerous sources. Including talking to
my customers. End result, I do believe it's picking up. Yesterday I
was talking to a customer of mine who happens to be an outfit who're
headhunters for IT folk. Head of that company said things were
picking up there. Etc. I will note, the recession was starting even
before Bush. No, I do not blame it on Clinton. There are a bunch of
factors involved.

3) I am concerned about taxes. Getting pretty damned tired of
government at every level asking for more and more money. And friggin
SQUANDERING it, wasting it. It makes no difference how much money yah
give em. They can always think of good excuses to say they need more.
Well, I operate on a budget, and I expect the governments to do the
same. They'd better learn how. And they'd better learn how to tell
special interest groups to go to hell. It's MY MONEY, and I'm getting
damned tired of funding everybodies' special little project. In
MInnesota, the latest, largest group of unemployed ... has been
government workers. And that, IMHO, is a GOOD thing. We need
government, but it's way too large, too intrusive, and too wasteful.

3) I am concerned about the costs of health care. And direct
government controls are NOT the answer. Not the right one anyway. We
already know by past experience that monopolies just cause prices to
go higher. And that bureaucrats do one thing best of all. Create
more bureaucrats. They also create more and more endless paperwork.
Which lawyers love, but ordinary folks don't. Lawyers love it because
the more rules, the more interpretations are needed. Thus, more
lawyers are needed. Lawyers are much the same as bureaucrats. What
lawyers do best ... is NOT the seeking of justice and fairness. At
that, they're iffy at best. But they do truly excel at figuring out
ways to generate and breed the need for more and more lawyers. If the
Bar had it's way, one would need to seek a lawyer to dig a hole
suitable to plant a tree in your own yard.

4) I am concerned about education. Because our schools ... suck. And
are monopolized by the self seeking, self interested Teachers
Associations and Unions. Which have NO interest, not really, in
better education. Their primary interest is in lining their own
pockets. I'm not talking about the regular teacher in the classroom.
Most of those I've met are honest, earnest folks doing the best they
can with a system gone haywire. And I personally, am against spending
one more dime until we have an honest, REAL ... not pencil whipped,
measure of teachers' individual performance, a school district's
performance, etc. If I am to give more money, I want MEASUREABLE
performance results. Til then, they can go to hell.

Etc.

Get my point, Jeff?

Give me meat, substance. Not rhetoric, not finger pointing, not blame
laying. Wanna convince me of something, gotta give me more than just
the stuff I've been getting.

It's like the fellow on the issure of Ft Gordon. What a bunch of BS.
No one was hiding numbers of wounded. Did what he claimed happen as
concerns military folks having to stay in substandard housing?
Probably. I don't know about Ft Gordon, do know of other incidences.
And the major problem was that the military system had been cut back
so much that we are short on proper, adequate facilities for dealing
with the number of folks we're dealing with now. I am a friggin
member of several Vet organizations and personally know several of the
folks in the VA system in the Twin Cities and in St Cloud. This has
been a problem for some time. And DID NOT originate with Bush. In
fact, his people as well as some of the highest staff officers in the
DOD have been scrambling to fix the problem. As best they can, within
budget restraints. A budget controlled by Congress, BTW, no the
President. i.e. At another Fort where at first it wasn't noticed by
those of high enough rank to actually do something about it, a bunch
of reservists, were in an extended wait status. But once the issue
was voiced and the right ear heard it, orders were passed down. And a
new building intended for other purposes in a matter of a couple weeks
was reoutfitted and redesignated into a clinic.

I will repeat ... the military cutbacks, and the demand to do them,
originated well before Bush came into office.

Enough. I am done. And quite tired of all this. You need not
respond, Jeff. Can if you wish. But I may not answer, may just let
you have the last word. I have a lot of other, more productive tasks
to take care of.

But know this, my decision in November is NOT gonna be single issue.
It's not gonna be based solely on story about WMDs. That's BS. It's
gonna be based on a whole number of issues.

And the folks I listen to better be listening up to me, and I think a
lot of Americans. We want meat and substance. Not the BS of Bush
haters. Give us something to work with here. Definite plans ... with
the numbers to support the idea that they may be workable. Facts, not
rhetoric and opinion. We're getting awful tired of the name calling
and accusations which don't even stand up under scrutiny or in a
court.

Gotta run, gotta teach a class in a couple hours, a sideline job.

Bob



As a trained lawyer you should know that there is a principle that the
law should be equally applied. (I am not a lawyer.)

Well, to start with, I am not a lawyer. The fellow to whom I was
replying is.

I do have more than the average person's understanding of the law, tho
I am far from a lawyer. Simply because events in life lead me to
studying _some_ law. At one time, I thought I might want to be a
cop. I'm Navy, but the Navy had sent me thru the Air Force's law
enforcement academy. As part of my duties in the Navy involved law
enforcement and security. So I got out of the service at one point
and went through a police academy in a major city. And was a cop for
just short of 3 years. I wasn't cut out to be a cop. Acknowledged
that fact to myself, and went back into the Navy.

Later, starting while still in the Navy, and continuing for a while
after I got out, I took other college level law courses. In
international law, business law, and property law. Had a realtors
license, and at one time even considered going back to school and
becoming a business/property lawyer. As an engineer, working for a
major corp with part of my duties involving negotiating and making
contracts for services we hired, property we owned and others we
leased or rented (I did get legal assistance from one of our corporate
lawyers when I needed it) I got interested in contract law and the
like. But in the end decided to not attempt the switch. While I
found it interresting, and handy to know, it was not something I
wished to do full time. Basically, at heart, I'm a tools and gadgets
and technology guy who is happiest when designing something, making
something, or fixing something. Such, I can get passionate about, and
really enjoy.

Anyway, I've also had the opportunity to sit in court more than a few
times. As a witness, an accuser, a defendent, and 3 times so far, as
a juror. I say so far as I just got notice a couple weeks ago I'm
being put on the "prospective juror" list, again. This time should be
different tho, if I'm actually called. I'm going into the pool for a
federal court.

In other words
you cannot bring the full weight of the law against a person when the law
is not generally enforced just because you don't like him.

Incorrect, happens all the time. Incorrect only in the first part.
Not in the last part. You are correct about the "just because you
don't like him". Generally speaking, and there are exceptions,
neither judges nor juries are gonna look at your case favorably if
they believe you've prosecuting someone simply due to personal
dislike. You can lose a case fast that way. Sometimes, even if the
guy is guilty. Juries just DON'T LIKE it when a case appears to be
one focused on personal dislike, hatred, etc.

In any event, we have all sorts of laws, and all sorts of situations
where those laws are not enforced in one case, but enforced in
another. Many reasons for this. Not all of them "conspiracies of the
priviledged." More often, it's simply because when the perp is
finally called upon his acts and confronted, he stops doing whatever.
Many a cop on the street has settled a problem simply by confronting
an offender, giving him or her a verbal dressing down and a warning,
then let the person go. And the person corrected his or her behavior.
End of problem. No formal charges, no court, no judge required.
Works more often than you might think.

In other cases, sometimes folks simply don't report the offender, for
any one of a number of reasons. They tolerate the offense.

Could be that the ones who know, are reliant on the offender for
income and support. In other cases it's fear of the offender. In
still other cases, the ones who know about the offense, don't agree
with the law. So never report the offense. It goes on and on as
concerns reasons.

Other laws are ones where violations tend to be generally ignored
UNLESS the violation is of such magnitude, or so outlandish in nature,
that it stands out as a situation where reasonable people would not
ignore it.

i.e. Speeding in a motor vehicle. Ignored all the time everywhere.
Cops see it all the time and let it go. BUT ... have the violator not
only speeding, but compounding the fact by driving in a careless and
dangerous fashion, and you may well have a cop ... quite rightly ...
ignoring a dozen other speeders doing the same speed, and singling out
the moron who's engaging in excessive lane changing, tail gating, and
cutting too close in front of others.

There are many other examples.

You gave a long list of things that you know and some of those things are
indeed crimes. Many are of your accusations are quite correct. Others
are not crimes at all. Giving money to the families of people who died in
their struggle against Israeli oppression is not a crime, it is admirable We
give money to US soldier's families that have died. It is normal to help the
family of fallen soldiers.

Bull****. Good thing you're not a lawyer. You'd be real embarassed
standing in front of a jury who recognizes common sense as versus BS.

We, in the US, provide life insurance for our servicemen and women,
just as my employer has a life insurance policy on me. In case I
should die in the line of my work. My wife gets the money. FWIW, I'm
retired active duty military. And I've got news for you. That life
insurance policy for servicemembers who die in the line of duty is a
PALTRY, small amount. Most of the civilians I know have larger
policies than that, by far.

Second. We do not pay off just because one of our soldiers killed
someone, performed a suicide attack, etc. If he or she dies on active
duty, even if he or she is a clerk typist, the life insurance policy
is paid. Same as with any life insurance policy held by any civilian.

Third. If we find that a member of our military has DELIBERATELY
targeted innocent civilians when it could be avoided ... we don't pay
on his life insurance. Trust me. We'll put him on trial and try our
best to put him in prison.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. But long history, and
international legal agreements, every since we've had such things,
acknowledges that there is a difference between a soldier accidentally
killing a civilian in battle ... or having no choice but to take the
chances of killing some innocent civilians if the enemy is hiding
behind such and NOT killing the enemy despite the chances of civilian
casualties means the likelihood of even higher casualties later ... as
versus deliberately targeting innocent civilians with the express
purpose of targeting civilians.

That last part can be done, the deliberate targeting of civilians,
only in specific circumstances. i.e. It is commonly recognized that
the governing group of an enemy, who do the organizing, give direction
to the soldiers, etc ... aren't, really, "innocent" civilians. Thus a
military force is not tried for attacking, for instance, the
equivalent of our Congress, or a governor, etc. Also, exception is
normally made in the case of a necessity to attack factories making
bombs or other war machinery.

The above, are FAR different than such things as targeting random
buses of ordinary innocent civilians going about their daily business,
setting off bombs in a school, blowing up a cafe, so on and so forth.


All of the crimes and non-crimes that you list are commonly committed by
many others around the world. There is little clamor from the accused (Bush) to
go in and "fix" those problems. Indeed the noise about these crimes from the
accused seems correlate with the friendliness of the criminal. This leads
to my suspicion of the unjust application of the law.

You've already indicated both a misunderstanding of the law, and a
definite bias to your thinking.

First off, while we may well dislike and disagree with what many
people in the world do. Fact is, we don't have the resources, the
will, nor an interest in attacking everyone with whom we disagree.

If YOU don't like what country X is doing to their people, And ... if
.... you want something done to stop it. YOU get off your ass, go
there, and volunteer to fight against the oppressors. Or shut the
hell up, because you're just all mouth and don't even believe what
you're saying or you are a coward. Take your pick.

We, as a country, can not reform the world, alone. And have no
intentions of doing so. We try to offer encouragement, a nudge in
what we think is the right direction. Etc. But we don't plan now or
ever to try to control the whole planet. Whatever for? The vast
majority of US citizens know next to nothing about what things are
really like in other countries. And frankly don't care. Not because
they're evil. Simply because they have their own lives, interests,
persuits, families, and so forth. And if there is something somewhere
else they really want, they go check out the stores to find one where
they can buy whatever it is. They don't plan invasions to get it.
Why the HELL do yah want to go invade a place, when in almost every
case if you offer them a reasonable amount for whatever, they'll sell
it to you? Remember? We ARE supposedly rich as a nation.
Relatively, I suppose that's true enough. It's true enough so that
you'd have to hunt really hard, except in some newsgroup where the
whackos hang out, to find an American who has ever had any thought in
his or her life about wanting the US to control the world. They don't
want it. They want left alone, that's what they want.

I'm 55 years old, and have literally been around the world. And have
been all over the US. Wanna know something? Before we invaded
Afghanistan, most Americans if asked couldn't have found Afghanistan
on a map. Knew nothing about it. Didn't particularly wish to know
anything about it either. Average Minnesotan I know has plenty to do
to keep himself or herself busy. Got a job, or is going to school.
Or both. Got a family. Got a home to take care of. Friends to
visit, TV to watch. A wife or hubby to try to seduce into bed.
Wanna egt em excited about something? It isn't politics or what's
occuring over in some place they've never been and will likely never
see, that hasn't got anything that they know about they might want.
Wanna get em riled up? Have the tree huggers and PITA talk about
restricting or stopping their fishing and hunting rights. That's when
Minnesotans went to the polls and passed a State constitutional
amendment to guarantee and protect such rights. That's something they
listened up to and paid attention to. Prior to the invasion of
Afghanistan, the average Minnesotan would not only have not been able
to say where the place was, he or she would've not known anything
about the place, much less that there were atrocious human rights
violations being committed there. Or in Cambodia. Or in Africa.
Etc.

Of the few who did know, every one I heard speak of it was saddened
and wished it'd stop. But wasn't inclined to want to send OUR people
to go die for strangers.

Now, whether you realize it or not, there was a fundamental change
when those folks saw the Twin Towers come falling down.

Whereas before only a VERY few meddling busy bodies, and some VERY few
well intended but possibly misguided people ever wanted us to get
involved and interfere in what is really other people's business. And
that's the way most Americans I know thought of these things. MOST
sortta figured it was the UN's problem. And if the UN wasn't doing
anything, must mean they thought no one else ought to interfere.

However, with the fall of those Twin Towers, things changed. One of
the things that changed was folks started wondering ... just what the
HELL is the UN doing? The answer was fairly obvious.

Talking, lining their pockets, talking, lining their pockets, talking
lining their pockets, and talking and lining their pockets.

If you don't know, most US people aren't exactly what you'd call real
patient.

Before, if they even thought about it, just assumed the UN was
actually some sort of effective organization, with real rules that
were enforced. Probably a bunch of lying politicians like all other
lying politicians, almost certainly skimming more money off the top
than they were passing on the countries they bragged they helped. But
what else do yah expect of professional politicians, diplomats,
statesmen, and lawyers? That's normal.

But when Americans saw Americans dying like that, and not even
soldiers ... who voluntarily accept their risks and duties ... they
weren't in a patient mood any more.

Bush, whether or not he may or may not have been inclined to dislike
Saddam personally, does have a duty to the country.

Fact was, if he'd not taken some sort of definite, REAL action ... the
vast majority of the American public would have been inclined to fry
him. And if anyone else other than Bush had been in office, the
public would have felt just the same. Any President would have felt
very real pressure to take action.

Not UN action. REAL action. Make something happen to change things.

Congress felt the same pressure. Or are you one of those suckers who
believe the political rhetoric and outright lies told by several of
them now, that elections are coming up? Originally, Congress passed
the resolutions to allow Bush to take the upper hand and do what he
felt he must. And they KNEW ... every last one of them that he might
well invade. He never, not once, was reticent about that fact. He
proclaimed from the first moment, that if that's what he felt he
needed to do, he'd do it. End of subject.

And when Congress passed that resolution, those that voted 'for'
clamored to immediately get in front of cameras and mikes and let the
public know that, "Yeah, damn right ! I voted for it. We'll do what
we need to do to clamp down on terrorists ... and those who aid them."
Even some of those who now claim ... being the outright, bold liars
they are ... that ... ummm ... well, I didn't really mean what I said
before. I thought we were just talking. I didn't think we'd really do
something like we did.

Those guys are either utter LIARS, or utter IDIOTS ... and in either
case will never get a vote from me.

So Bush did the UN thing trying to gain their cooperation. They did
nothing. As usual. It's what they do best. That, and running if
anything gets too tough or dangerous. We as a country only have a few
friends and allies with the fortitude, conviction, and courage to
stand fast with us when things get tough ... and it isn't the UN.
Hell, the UN won't even go in to deliver medical supplies and food if
they think it's too dangerous. Wanna know who does do such things in
such circumstances? Tends to be the very same folk who stand by us in
war.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I've no use for the UN. Not only
are they useless, thieves, and liars. You'd have to hunt far and wide
to find so many personal cowards in one place. I'm talking about the
heads of the UN. Not the earnest field worker trying to help people.

Anyway Bush tried, the UN lied and said they'd try to do something
that'd work. Even while key members had no such intention since they
were on Saddam's paroll. People like good old Jacques, Shroeder, and
the Ruskie. Who claimed "good intentions" when in reality they were
accepting the pay-off to turn a blind eye to what Saddam was doing and
to interfere with us getting what we wanted, which was UN _action_,
not more talk.

So for how long did Bush try to do the UN thing? A year? And got
nothing.

Okay, there is NOT any real legal restriction against our taking
action ourselves if we feel it's a case of self protection. That's
already established. I'd said that on this newsgroup months ago.
Folks told me I was full of it. Just a few days ago Koki, the head of
the UN if you don't know, was on TV and he admitted the same thing I'd
said. UN rules allow any member nation to do what they feel they must
in self defense. UN rules are also "voluntary compliance" agreements.
Not LAW as we know that term in the U.S.

Now I'm no lover of Koki. I've criticized him before. He's
ineffective as a leader who can get things done. But, he's not stupid
or anything. Probably a very bright, well educated fellow. He damn
well knows that there is NO SUCH THING AS LAW UNLESS YOU HAVE THE
FORCE WITH WHICH TO ENFORCE IT.

It's impossible. A law is not a law unless someone has the force to
exert, and the will to use it, to enforce the law. This was true 5000
years ago. It's still true. And will never change. It can't. Not
possible. Just because yah write something on a piece of paper, that
does not in and of itself make sure one and all actually follows
whatever rule you just wrote down. Some will. The folks who agree
with you. The rest are gonna tell yah to stick it up your ass and go
and do what they wanna do regardless of what you think of it. And you
can yell "But you're violating the law !" until you're blue in the
face, or until one of those you're yelling at turns around and smacks
you upside the head to shut you up ... but just saying the words, just
writing down on paper ... doesn't make it law. ONLY ... the ability
and willingness to enforce the law, by physical force if necessary,
makes something law.

Without the willingness and ability to use force to enforce the rule,
it not law.

In any event, I'm not sure I'd have done things the same way Bush did.
Take out Saddam or try to? Yep, you betcha. But I think I'd have
first done some air strikes that'd have been the mother of all air
strikes. I'd have been inclined to do something besides direct
invasion first. Such as target and blow the holy crap out of
everything that even looked like an Iraqi soldier, tank, missle
launcher, barracks, base, the friggin officers' clubs, sank every
military ship or canoe. Then I'd have concentrated EVERY palace he
owned and would have reduced it to dust.

THEN, I'd have placed a phone call to the fellow or one of his
representatives and I'd have asked, "Want to talk with us real
reasonable now? Do we get to send in people and see if you're lying
to us or not about the WMDs and the terrorist training camps, etc? Or
do we have to get serious here and really start trying to hurt you?"

Chuckle, probably good reason I'll never be a commander in chief or a
general or admiral. The above was my first inclination. But even as
I typed it I realized it would not have worked. Saddam and many of
those who supported him the most, probable aren't even sane. They
were living in a friggin La-La land of fantasy, Witness the fact his
own folks didn't think he was sane any more and hid things from him,
routinely told him what he wanted to hear rather than reality, and so
forth. Undoubtedly Saddam would have challenged us to come on in,
just like he did to the very end, thinking his Army was gonna stand up
and die for a friggin crazy man. Most of em had sense enough to know
he was perfectly willing for THEM to die, so he could be a more
glorious figure in history. Most of them had it figured out that he
didn't give a rip about them or their familes. The only thing Saddam
really cared about was ... Saddam. Hell, he once expressed the
opinion that he thought it was perfectly acceptable for 20 million of
his folks to die, if needed, to bolster his power, image, and
prominence in the world.

So you see my problem, fellow juror. You feel that it is justified to
punish in the most extreme manor someone that is no worse than a
lot of other guys out there.

Wrong.

By your reasoning, if the cops come across 5 guys who just murdered a
bunch of folks, but only have the manpower and resources at hand to
catch one, for now. That since the others are gonna get away with it,
they should let the one they got go, so he can go kill some more.

Am I safe to assume that under your reasoning, that since somebody in
the Congo is now killing someone else. And we're not tracking him
down. Then if someone else comes to your home and kills your loved
ones ... we should let him go?

We have not the power, nor the resources, nor the inclination to
police the world, sir. For that matter, it's not even our
responsibility. And if we tried, same folks would curse as for doing
so as those who curse us for not doing so,

So our only alternative. Is to ignore those who hate us, as they'll
hate us no matter what we do. Hate is hate. It is not logical nor
reasonable.

In the case of Saddam, for a whole host of reasons, we as a country,
and it's WE ... not Bush ... remember that all those Congressmen gave
him their support, at first until they figured out the could make
political gain by reversing themselves and trying to backstab him ...
we as a country decided he did pose a danger to US. We decided that
as he was so willing to kill off his own folks in horrid fashion. And
since it was known that he'd take war to other countries any time he
felt he could get away with it. (remember Kuwaitt?) Since he was
KNOWN to have possessed .... and MORE importantly .... he was known to
USE WMDs. And since we had some evidence, evidence so good that even
the UN and Clinton believed it, that he might have more but was hiding
it. And since he'd not allow unrestricted searches to take place to
verify whether he did or did not have em. Since we knew he publically
called, many times, for folks to kill the evil US people. Since we
knew he supported some terrorists, thus it was not unlikely he might
support others, and we had intelligence info saying that in fact he
did, or at least key officials in his government did. And since we
knew from past experience, it's all history if you read it, that
Saddam would attack others quickly, violently, and without mercy any
time he felt like he might get away with it. We warned, "Do this, to
show us your good intentions and that you mean us no harm.", and when
he refused, we ACTED.

Now, you might disagree with this. That's your right ... to disagree.
Simply disagreement doesn't mean you are in fact correct. Many of us
think you are not.

As it turns out, some of our intelligence was faulty. Some of it was
accurate.

It would seem that he either did not have the large stock piles of
WMDs, or managed to get them shipped off elsewhere. Shrug So what?
We NOW know he's not got them. And know that he was trying to keep an
active WMD development program in action. Hiding a lab here, a lab
there, small samples of this and that here and there. His own
scientists say that he was still trying to develop the knowledge to
make the stuff ... for later. Why did we worry about Saddam's WMDs
more than someone else's? Who else has a recent history of being so
friggin willing to use em that he tested a batch out on a whole town
of folks in his own country? Who else has them that seemed like such
a crazy, wild assed, loved to do it mass murderer? Hell, even his own
neighbors and fellow Muslims were scared of him.

Your long list of the crimes includes
things that are not crimes at all but rather things that you don't like.
They
have violated laws that are rarely enforced. Is your disdain for this guy
coloring
your judgement?

Pete.

Nope.

I don't worry about the person who have a history of being a decent,
law abiding citizen who has a gun, either. Or a whole basement full
of guns.

I do worry about the known murders who have guns, however.

Bob

"Bob G" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:15:20 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:




As a trained lawyer you should know that there is a principle that the
law should be equally applied. (I am not a lawyer.)

Well, to start with, I am not a lawyer. The fellow to whom I was
replying is.

I do have more than the average person's understanding of the law, tho
I am far from a lawyer. Simply because events in life lead me to
studying _some_ law. At one time, I thought I might want to be a
cop. I'm Navy, but the Navy had sent me thru the Air Force's law
enforcement academy. As part of my duties in the Navy involved law
enforcement and security. So I got out of the service at one point
and went through a police academy in a major city. And was a cop for
just short of 3 years. I wasn't cut out to be a cop. Acknowledged
that fact to myself, and went back into the Navy.

Later, starting while still in the Navy, and continuing for a while
after I got out, I took other college level law courses. In
international law, business law, and property law. Had a realtors
license, and at one time even considered going back to school and
becoming a business/property lawyer. As an engineer, working for a
major corp with part of my duties involving negotiating and making
contracts for services we hired, property we owned and others we
leased or rented (I did get legal assistance from one of our corporate
lawyers when I needed it) I got interested in contract law and the
like. But in the end decided to not attempt the switch. While I
found it interresting, and handy to know, it was not something I
wished to do full time. Basically, at heart, I'm a tools and gadgets
and technology guy who is happiest when designing something, making
something, or fixing something. Such, I can get passionate about, and
really enjoy.

Anyway, I've also had the opportunity to sit in court more than a few
times. As a witness, an accuser, a defendent, and 3 times so far, as
a juror. I say so far as I just got notice a couple weeks ago I'm
being put on the "prospective juror" list, again. This time should be
different tho, if I'm actually called. I'm going into the pool for a
federal court.

In other words
you cannot bring the full weight of the law against a person when the law
is not generally enforced just because you don't like him.

Incorrect, happens all the time. Incorrect only in the first part.
Not in the last part. You are correct about the "just because you
don't like him". Generally speaking, and there are exceptions,
neither judges nor juries are gonna look at your case favorably if
they believe you've prosecuting someone simply due to personal
dislike. You can lose a case fast that way. Sometimes, even if the
guy is guilty. Juries just DON'T LIKE it when a case appears to be
one focused on personal dislike, hatred, etc.


This juror feels that this case is selective enforcement. You feel
differently. You have expressed special disdain for the guy.
I don't like Saddam either but he is in the same class as Sharon.
One gets invaded and the other gets showered with money and arms.
The special treatment seems more than random.

In any event, we have all sorts of laws, and all sorts of situations
where those laws are not enforced in one case, but enforced in
another. Many reasons for this. Not all of them "conspiracies of the
priviledged." More often, it's simply because when the perp is
finally called upon his acts and confronted, he stops doing whatever.
Many a cop on the street has settled a problem simply by confronting
an offender, giving him or her a verbal dressing down and a warning,
then let the person go. And the person corrected his or her behavior.
End of problem. No formal charges, no court, no judge required.
Works more often than you might think.

In other cases, sometimes folks simply don't report the offender, for
any one of a number of reasons. They tolerate the offense.

Could be that the ones who know, are reliant on the offender for
income and support. In other cases it's fear of the offender. In
still other cases, the ones who know about the offense, don't agree
with the law. So never report the offense. It goes on and on as
concerns reasons.

Other laws are ones where violations tend to be generally ignored
UNLESS the violation is of such magnitude, or so outlandish in nature,
that it stands out as a situation where reasonable people would not
ignore it.

i.e. Speeding in a motor vehicle. Ignored all the time everywhere.
Cops see it all the time and let it go. BUT ... have the violator not
only speeding, but compounding the fact by driving in a careless and
dangerous fashion, and you may well have a cop ... quite rightly ...
ignoring a dozen other speeders doing the same speed, and singling out
the moron who's engaging in excessive lane changing, tail gating, and
cutting too close in front of others.

There are many other examples.

You gave a long list of things that you know and some of those things are
indeed crimes. Many are of your accusations are quite correct.
Others
are not crimes at all. Giving money to the families of people who died
in
their struggle against Israeli oppression is not a crime, it is admirable
We
give money to US soldier's families that have died. It is normal to
help the
family of fallen soldiers.

Bull****. Good thing you're not a lawyer. You'd be real embarassed
standing in front of a jury who recognizes common sense as versus BS.

We, in the US, provide life insurance for our servicemen and women,
just as my employer has a life insurance policy on me. In case I
should die in the line of my work. My wife gets the money. FWIW, I'm
retired active duty military. And I've got news for you. That life
insurance policy for servicemembers who die in the line of duty is a
PALTRY, small amount. Most of the civilians I know have larger
policies than that, by far.

Second. We do not pay off just because one of our soldiers killed
someone, performed a suicide attack, etc. If he or she dies on active
duty, even if he or she is a clerk typist, the life insurance policy
is paid. Same as with any life insurance policy held by any civilian.

Third. If we find that a member of our military has DELIBERATELY
targeted innocent civilians when it could be avoided ... we don't pay
on his life insurance. Trust me. We'll put him on trial and try our
best to put him in prison.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. But long history, and
international legal agreements, every since we've had such things,
acknowledges that there is a difference between a soldier accidentally
killing a civilian in battle ... or having no choice but to take the
chances of killing some innocent civilians if the enemy is hiding
behind such and NOT killing the enemy despite the chances of civilian
casualties means the likelihood of even higher casualties later ... as
versus deliberately targeting innocent civilians with the express
purpose of targeting civilians.

That last part can be done, the deliberate targeting of civilians,
only in specific circumstances. i.e. It is commonly recognized that
the governing group of an enemy, who do the organizing, give direction
to the soldiers, etc ... aren't, really, "innocent" civilians. Thus a
military force is not tried for attacking, for instance, the
equivalent of our Congress, or a governor, etc. Also, exception is
normally made in the case of a necessity to attack factories making
bombs or other war machinery.

The above, are FAR different than such things as targeting random
buses of ordinary innocent civilians going about their daily business,
setting off bombs in a school, blowing up a cafe, so on and so forth.


The Palestinian fighters were killed in the line of duty. Their families
deserve to be supported.

As to innocent Israelis; when Israeli children are killed it is a tragedy
and I condemn such attacks. Israeli adults are not innocent. Israel is
a democracy for them. They cannot claim innocence of their government's
crimes. They vote for the same criminals time and time again.
There is not a single Israeli political party, left or right, that advocates
giving the Palestinians their rights. It is truly a broken system, it must
be reformed or replaced. Apartheid South Africa found peace by way
of equal rights and Israel can too.

How do you overthrow such a system? I cannot think of any other way
given the resources that the Palestinians have and the nature of the enemy
that they face.


All of the crimes and non-crimes that you list are commonly committed by
many others around the world. There is little clamor from the accused
(Bush) to
go in and "fix" those problems. Indeed the noise about these crimes
from the
accused seems correlate with the friendliness of the criminal. This
leads
to my suspicion of the unjust application of the law.

You've already indicated both a misunderstanding of the law, and a
definite bias to your thinking.

First off, while we may well dislike and disagree with what many
people in the world do. Fact is, we don't have the resources, the
will, nor an interest in attacking everyone with whom we disagree.

If YOU don't like what country X is doing to their people, And ... if
... you want something done to stop it. YOU get off your ass, go
there, and volunteer to fight against the oppressors. Or shut the
hell up, because you're just all mouth and don't even believe what
you're saying or you are a coward. Take your pick.

We, as a country, can not reform the world, alone. And have no
intentions of doing so. We try to offer encouragement, a nudge in
what we think is the right direction. Etc. But we don't plan now or
ever to try to control the whole planet. Whatever for? The vast
majority of US citizens know next to nothing about what things are
really like in other countries. And frankly don't care. Not because
they're evil. Simply because they have their own lives, interests,
persuits, families, and so forth. And if there is something somewhere
else they really want, they go check out the stores to find one where
they can buy whatever it is. They don't plan invasions to get it.
Why the HELL do yah want to go invade a place, when in almost every
case if you offer them a reasonable amount for whatever, they'll sell
it to you? Remember? We ARE supposedly rich as a nation.
Relatively, I suppose that's true enough. It's true enough so that
you'd have to hunt really hard, except in some newsgroup where the
whackos hang out, to find an American who has ever had any thought in
his or her life about wanting the US to control the world. They don't
want it. They want left alone, that's what they want.

I'm 55 years old, and have literally been around the world. And have
been all over the US. Wanna know something? Before we invaded
Afghanistan, most Americans if asked couldn't have found Afghanistan
on a map. Knew nothing about it. Didn't particularly wish to know
anything about it either. Average Minnesotan I know has plenty to do
to keep himself or herself busy. Got a job, or is going to school.
Or both. Got a family. Got a home to take care of. Friends to
visit, TV to watch. A wife or hubby to try to seduce into bed.
Wanna egt em excited about something? It isn't politics or what's
occuring over in some place they've never been and will likely never
see, that hasn't got anything that they know about they might want.
Wanna get em riled up? Have the tree huggers and PITA talk about
restricting or stopping their fishing and hunting rights. That's when
Minnesotans went to the polls and passed a State constitutional
amendment to guarantee and protect such rights. That's something they
listened up to and paid attention to. Prior to the invasion of
Afghanistan, the average Minnesotan would not only have not been able
to say where the place was, he or she would've not known anything
about the place, much less that there were atrocious human rights
violations being committed there. Or in Cambodia. Or in Africa.
Etc.

Of the few who did know, every one I heard speak of it was saddened
and wished it'd stop. But wasn't inclined to want to send OUR people
to go die for strangers.

Now, whether you realize it or not, there was a fundamental change
when those folks saw the Twin Towers come falling down.

Whereas before only a VERY few meddling busy bodies, and some VERY few
well intended but possibly misguided people ever wanted us to get
involved and interfere in what is really other people's business. And
that's the way most Americans I know thought of these things. MOST
sortta figured it was the UN's problem. And if the UN wasn't doing
anything, must mean they thought no one else ought to interfere.

However, with the fall of those Twin Towers, things changed. One of
the things that changed was folks started wondering ... just what the
HELL is the UN doing? The answer was fairly obvious.

Talking, lining their pockets, talking, lining their pockets, talking
lining their pockets, and talking and lining their pockets.

If you don't know, most US people aren't exactly what you'd call real
patient.

Before, if they even thought about it, just assumed the UN was
actually some sort of effective organization, with real rules that
were enforced. Probably a bunch of lying politicians like all other
lying politicians, almost certainly skimming more money off the top
than they were passing on the countries they bragged they helped. But
what else do yah expect of professional politicians, diplomats,
statesmen, and lawyers? That's normal.

But when Americans saw Americans dying like that, and not even
soldiers ... who voluntarily accept their risks and duties ... they
weren't in a patient mood any more.

Bush, whether or not he may or may not have been inclined to dislike
Saddam personally, does have a duty to the country.

Fact was, if he'd not taken some sort of definite, REAL action ... the
vast majority of the American public would have been inclined to fry
him. And if anyone else other than Bush had been in office, the
public would have felt just the same. Any President would have felt
very real pressure to take action.

Not UN action. REAL action. Make something happen to change things.

Congress felt the same pressure. Or are you one of those suckers who
believe the political rhetoric and outright lies told by several of
them now, that elections are coming up? Originally, Congress passed
the resolutions to allow Bush to take the upper hand and do what he
felt he must. And they KNEW ... every last one of them that he might
well invade. He never, not once, was reticent about that fact. He
proclaimed from the first moment, that if that's what he felt he
needed to do, he'd do it. End of subject.

And when Congress passed that resolution, those that voted 'for'
clamored to immediately get in front of cameras and mikes and let the
public know that, "Yeah, damn right ! I voted for it. We'll do what
we need to do to clamp down on terrorists ... and those who aid them."
Even some of those who now claim ... being the outright, bold liars
they are ... that ... ummm ... well, I didn't really mean what I said
before. I thought we were just talking. I didn't think we'd really do
something like we did.

Those guys are either utter LIARS, or utter IDIOTS ... and in either
case will never get a vote from me.

So Bush did the UN thing trying to gain their cooperation. They did
nothing. As usual. It's what they do best. That, and running if
anything gets too tough or dangerous. We as a country only have a few
friends and allies with the fortitude, conviction, and courage to
stand fast with us when things get tough ... and it isn't the UN.
Hell, the UN won't even go in to deliver medical supplies and food if
they think it's too dangerous. Wanna know who does do such things in
such circumstances? Tends to be the very same folk who stand by us in
war.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I've no use for the UN. Not only
are they useless, thieves, and liars. You'd have to hunt far and wide
to find so many personal cowards in one place. I'm talking about the
heads of the UN. Not the earnest field worker trying to help people.

Anyway Bush tried, the UN lied and said they'd try to do something
that'd work. Even while key members had no such intention since they
were on Saddam's paroll. People like good old Jacques, Shroeder, and
the Ruskie. Who claimed "good intentions" when in reality they were
accepting the pay-off to turn a blind eye to what Saddam was doing and
to interfere with us getting what we wanted, which was UN _action_,
not more talk.

So for how long did Bush try to do the UN thing? A year? And got
nothing.

Okay, there is NOT any real legal restriction against our taking
action ourselves if we feel it's a case of self protection. That's
already established. I'd said that on this newsgroup months ago.
Folks told me I was full of it. Just a few days ago Koki, the head of
the UN if you don't know, was on TV and he admitted the same thing I'd
said. UN rules allow any member nation to do what they feel they must
in self defense. UN rules are also "voluntary compliance" agreements.
Not LAW as we know that term in the U.S.

Now I'm no lover of Koki. I've criticized him before. He's
ineffective as a leader who can get things done. But, he's not stupid
or anything. Probably a very bright, well educated fellow. He damn
well knows that there is NO SUCH THING AS LAW UNLESS YOU HAVE THE
FORCE WITH WHICH TO ENFORCE IT.

It's impossible. A law is not a law unless someone has the force to
exert, and the will to use it, to enforce the law. This was true 5000
years ago. It's still true. And will never change. It can't. Not
possible. Just because yah write something on a piece of paper, that
does not in and of itself make sure one and all actually follows
whatever rule you just wrote down. Some will. The folks who agree
with you. The rest are gonna tell yah to stick it up your ass and go
and do what they wanna do regardless of what you think of it. And you
can yell "But you're violating the law !" until you're blue in the
face, or until one of those you're yelling at turns around and smacks
you upside the head to shut you up ... but just saying the words, just
writing down on paper ... doesn't make it law. ONLY ... the ability
and willingness to enforce the law, by physical force if necessary,
makes something law.

Without the willingness and ability to use force to enforce the rule,
it not law.

In any event, I'm not sure I'd have done things the same way Bush did.
Take out Saddam or try to? Yep, you betcha. But I think I'd have
first done some air strikes that'd have been the mother of all air
strikes. I'd have been inclined to do something besides direct
invasion first. Such as target and blow the holy crap out of
everything that even looked like an Iraqi soldier, tank, missle
launcher, barracks, base, the friggin officers' clubs, sank every
military ship or canoe. Then I'd have concentrated EVERY palace he
owned and would have reduced it to dust.

THEN, I'd have placed a phone call to the fellow or one of his
representatives and I'd have asked, "Want to talk with us real
reasonable now? Do we get to send in people and see if you're lying
to us or not about the WMDs and the terrorist training camps, etc? Or
do we have to get serious here and really start trying to hurt you?"

Chuckle, probably good reason I'll never be a commander in chief or a
general or admiral. The above was my first inclination. But even as
I typed it I realized it would not have worked. Saddam and many of
those who supported him the most, probable aren't even sane. They
were living in a friggin La-La land of fantasy, Witness the fact his
own folks didn't think he was sane any more and hid things from him,
routinely told him what he wanted to hear rather than reality, and so
forth. Undoubtedly Saddam would have challenged us to come on in,
just like he did to the very end, thinking his Army was gonna stand up
and die for a friggin crazy man. Most of em had sense enough to know
he was perfectly willing for THEM to die, so he could be a more
glorious figure in history. Most of them had it figured out that he
didn't give a rip about them or their familes. The only thing Saddam
really cared about was ... Saddam. Hell, he once expressed the
opinion that he thought it was perfectly acceptable for 20 million of
his folks to die, if needed, to bolster his power, image, and
prominence in the world.


After 9/11 the US went into a blind rage and invaded Afghanistan.
First to get Al Quaida because they were the people responsible
for 9/11. We had no fight with the Taiban as we were first told.
That soon changed and the Tailbone became our target. We killed
a lot of people but gained little satisfaction. The targets that
we wanted, bin Laden and Omar escaped. We began looking
for another target.

So you see my problem, fellow juror. You feel that it is justified to
punish in the most extreme manor someone that is no worse than a
lot of other guys out there.

Wrong.

By your reasoning, if the cops come across 5 guys who just murdered a
bunch of folks, but only have the manpower and resources at hand to
catch one, for now. That since the others are gonna get away with it,
they should let the one they got go, so he can go kill some more.

Am I safe to assume that under your reasoning, that since somebody in
the Congo is now killing someone else. And we're not tracking him
down. Then if someone else comes to your home and kills your loved
ones ... we should let him go?

We have not the power, nor the resources, nor the inclination to
police the world, sir. For that matter, it's not even our
responsibility. And if we tried, same folks would curse as for doing
so as those who curse us for not doing so,

So our only alternative. Is to ignore those who hate us, as they'll
hate us no matter what we do. Hate is hate. It is not logical nor
reasonable.

In the case of Saddam, for a whole host of reasons, we as a country,
and it's WE ... not Bush ... remember that all those Congressmen gave
him their support, at first until they figured out the could make
political gain by reversing themselves and trying to backstab him ...
we as a country decided he did pose a danger to US. We decided that
as he was so willing to kill off his own folks in horrid fashion. And
since it was known that he'd take war to other countries any time he
felt he could get away with it. (remember Kuwaitt?) Since he was
KNOWN to have possessed .... and MORE importantly .... he was known to
USE WMDs. And since we had some evidence, evidence so good that even
the UN and Clinton believed it, that he might have more but was hiding
it. And since he'd not allow unrestricted searches to take place to
verify whether he did or did not have em. Since we knew he publically
called, many times, for folks to kill the evil US people. Since we
knew he supported some terrorists, thus it was not unlikely he might
support others, and we had intelligence info saying that in fact he
did, or at least key officials in his government did. And since we
knew from past experience, it's all history if you read it, that
Saddam would attack others quickly, violently, and without mercy any
time he felt like he might get away with it. We warned, "Do this, to
show us your good intentions and that you mean us no harm.", and when
he refused, we ACTED.

Now, you might disagree with this. That's your right ... to disagree.
Simply disagreement doesn't mean you are in fact correct. Many of us
think you are not.

As it turns out, some of our intelligence was faulty. Some of it was
accurate.

It would seem that he either did not have the large stock piles of
WMDs, or managed to get them shipped off elsewhere. Shrug So what?
We NOW know he's not got them. And know that he was trying to keep an
active WMD development program in action. Hiding a lab here, a lab
there, small samples of this and that here and there. His own
scientists say that he was still trying to develop the knowledge to
make the stuff ... for later. Why did we worry about Saddam's WMDs
more than someone else's? Who else has a recent history of being so
friggin willing to use em that he tested a batch out on a whole town
of folks in his own country? Who else has them that seemed like such
a crazy, wild assed, loved to do it mass murderer? Hell, even his own
neighbors and fellow Muslims were scared of him.


Saddam was a bad guy, we agree, but was he going to invade any
neighbor after what happened with the first gulf war? Even if he was
truly insane, was he making preparations to invade a neighbor again?

Your long list of the crimes includes
things that are not crimes at all but rather things that you don't like.
They
have violated laws that are rarely enforced. Is your disdain for this
guy
coloring
your judgement?

Pete.

Nope.

I don't worry about the person who have a history of being a decent,
law abiding citizen who has a gun, either. Or a whole basement full
of guns.

I do worry about the known murders who have guns, however.

Bob


You seem to be making the case of going after anyone that might commit
a crime. You take the accusation that he might have weapons as sufficient
evidence that we need to act. Your line of reasoning will lead to many
such preemptive strikes.

You may argue that preemptive strikes make us safer but the opposite is
true.
Once preemptive strikes become the normal method of diplomatic discourse
we will be the worse off. The notion of preemptive strikes will be used
by everyone. We will be the likely target. We can hardly complain as
we legitimized that reasoning.

While we may be the last standing world power, we do not have the power
to invade everyone. We do not even have the power to invade everyone
in the Middle East even though that is where our government seems to be
taking us.

Live and let live seems to be a better policy.

Pete.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:49:06 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

We should not have invaded even if we were sure. We should not
have invaded even if he did have them. It virtually guarantees that
every country than might be in our "invade next" list will develop
WMD's of their own.

Like Libya?

Chuckle

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:47:00 -0500, "Jimbo" . wrote:

Gunner:

Thanks you made my point for me.

Your welcome.

You should look up the meaning of the word "condescending" because it's
something you practice a lot.

Jimbo

Does that mean you are not going to answer the question, by which we can
determine which way you are biased?


Ive noted recently a decided spin that some folks tend to perform when
finally, they get their own ox gored.

You really need to put a bandaid on that booboo before it gets infected.

Gunner


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:54:44 -0500, "Jimbo" . wrote:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that debating anything with
Gunner
not metalworking related is a mugs game? He is obviously an
intelligent
person but he only sees things in black and white. It seems to me that
anyone not in lock step with his view of the world is in his mind just a
whining weak kneed Liberal/socialist sympathiser.

Jimbo

Sigh..is that all you get out of my posts? Interesting.

So, analyses is not your forte I take it?

Btw..which political party do you belong to? And how would you rate
yourself on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being very liberal, and 10 being
very conservative?

Gunner




"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , andy asberry
says...

I was one of those Americans who had to fight his way back into his
own country.

You got screwed by your own country's politicians. That's
a shame and I'm sorry it happened to you. But that war
would have gone on till doomsday if the general public
did not make it a point to say "enough."

Jim

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




"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability,
accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose
and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee,
imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any
particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or
responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect
to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by
any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it
into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts
that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other
agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within
five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or
by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron
who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece
of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a
bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'


Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history. It's still there,
waiting for some politician with integrity and intelligence
to restore it to its proper place as our guiding principle.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

On 30 Jan 2004 17:11:25 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , JTMcC says...

Blaming anti-war protesters for deaths of soldiers in that
war is nonsensical.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. If you send soldiers to fight a war, some
of them will get killed. If you bring them home, no
more will be.

This is what my grandmother used to call "if you don't
want to get hit by a train, don't play on the RR tracks."

True then, true now.

Jim


Jim...you have a curious blind spot. Others besides myself have given
you very good and reliable examples of how the protestors caused the
deaths of our troops. Examples I too can back up.

Other than JFK, perhaps the only real president to fight the war in RVN
was Nixon..and he inherited a bag of bloodworms that even he couldnt
handle, once all the damage had been done.

LBJ claimed not an outhouse in vietnam would get bombed without his
sayso. He micromanaged the war based on the polls and protests that
week. He setup ROE that were impossible to live with without costing
American lives, just to name a few.

As Greg (?) said..indeed I also encountered NVA and Cong prisoners who
fought harder because of the support from Hollywood. etc. Most of those
poor *******s came south pushing a bicycle covered with supplies, 2000
miles, and without encouragement from the protesters (and the AK47s of
their Political Officer), would simply have quit and gone home.

Gunner


Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:54:44 -0500, "Jimbo" . wrote:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that debating anything with Gunner
not metalworking related is a mugs game? He is obviously an intelligent
person but he only sees things in black and white. It seems to me that
anyone not in lock step with his view of the world is in his mind just a
whining weak kneed Liberal/socialist sympathiser.

Jimbo

Sigh..is that all you get out of my posts? Interesting.

He's not the only one. Not by a long shot.


So, analyses is not your forte I take it?


Neither is it yours. Most of what you have is opinions; very little else.



Btw..which political party do you belong to? And how would you rate
yourself on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being very liberal, and 10 being
very conservative?


That scale would put you at about 312.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:26:48 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:54:44 -0500, "Jimbo" . wrote:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that debating anything with Gunner
not metalworking related is a mugs game? He is obviously an intelligent
person but he only sees things in black and white. It seems to me that
anyone not in lock step with his view of the world is in his mind just a
whining weak kneed Liberal/socialist sympathiser.

Jimbo

Sigh..is that all you get out of my posts? Interesting.

He's not the only one. Not by a long shot.


So, analyses is not your forte I take it?


Neither is it yours. Most of what you have is opinions; very little else.



Btw..which political party do you belong to? And how would you rate
yourself on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being very liberal, and 10 being
very conservative?


That scale would put you at about 312.

And you at -312?

G

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)


Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.


"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history. It's still there,
waiting for some politician with integrity and intelligence
to restore it to its proper place as our guiding principle.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

Yes, more reading indicates you're correct about that.

US somehow gets bashed whether it acts or not. If it does, it's too
little too late or completely unjustifiable: If it doesn't, it's a
nation of uncaring *******s.

Can't win either way, might as well act and conquer? What's an
occasional carthago delenda est to such a filthy bunch of imperialists?

--
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece.
One should rather skid in broadside, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- "WOW! WHAT A RIDE!"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:49:06 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

We should not have invaded even if we were sure. We should not
have invaded even if he did have them. It virtually guarantees that
every country than might be in our "invade next" list will develop
WMD's of their own.

Like Libya?

Chuckle

Gunner

Absolutely. They gave up a program that was not working. Chemical
or even more frighteningly biological programs are much easier to hide.
There are no different than chemical plants or drug plants.

Do you think that Libya is our friend now? Have we made them see the
light? Do they now believe that we have the right to invade whoever
we like? Do they now believe Israel has a right to be a racist state?

Pete.

In article , Gunner says...

This is what my grandmother used to call "if you don't
want to get hit by a train, don't play on the RR tracks."

As Greg (?) said..indeed I also encountered NVA and Cong prisoners who
fought harder because of the support from Hollywood. etc. Most of those
poor *******s came south pushing a bicycle covered with supplies, 2000
miles, and without encouragement from the protesters (and the AK47s of
their Political Officer), would simply have quit and gone home.

We were invading their country. Of course they were dedicated.
Of course the ARVN had to be prodded out of helicopters, they
didn't care what was going on.

Your blind spot is the definition of original causation. There
was no causation from anti-war protesters. The real driving force
behind US soldiers getting killed was the govenmentt taxing
it's citizens to get money, to raise an army and send them overseas.

That's the root cause and until that is interrupted the entire
CF will keep on happening.

Jim

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

In article , Robert Sturgeon says...

... By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history.

America First party?

Jim

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

"Bob G" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:58:29 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Bob G" wrote in message
.. .

So, enlighten me. What lies did he tell? To the American public.
Any stories he told while relating how big a fish he caught last
time
he went fishing doesn't count.

Understand what I'm asking. I'm not asking for accusations. I'm
asking for facts.

Who gets to decide whether its a "fact" instead of merely an
"accusation"?

Jeff

Hmmm, Jeff, I thought you were a lawyer?

You should know the answer to that question very well.

The jury gets to decide who they wish to believe. And I do believe,
unless I am mistaken, that the jury plans to render their verdict in
November.

Yep.

Now, as a sitting member of the jury, I am listening to the arguments
of both sides. Doing my best to be fair. And as instructed, keeping
it in my mind that I should do my best to set aside preconceptions,
biases, and stereotypes; personal likes and dislikes. And form my
opinion, as best I can, based on the evidence presented to me.

Not being God, nor possessed of psychic powers, and having not
actually been a witness to the events being laid out to me by the
defense and prosecution. I am well aware of the fact that I don't
KNOW the absolute truth. That, in fact, the only thing I KNOW ... is
what is being presented to me as evidence.

Further, I am well aware that both the defense and the prosecution are
in fact ... HIGHLY BIASED ... and fully intend to do everything in
their power to make me see things each of their ways. And that they
will elaborate, exaggerate, spin, cajole, coax, etc. And in fact both
will point to the very same facts ... and weave entirely different
stories and conclusions from them.

So much so, that while both are talking about the very same person,
facts, and incidences ... one could almost swear they were talking
about two completely separate people and events.

Not being an utter fool and idiot, I am wearing my mud waders because
I am well aware that for the next however long it takes for both sides
to present their cases, I'm gonna have to be wading thru a LOT of
utter BS, piled higher and deeper as things go along, and try to pluck
out those bits and pieces ... out of the mountains of BS presented by
the lawyers on each side ... which I find to be believeable ... TO ME.

Because this is what it boils down to. I already know the prosecution
and defense are biased as hell, each giving me their best song and
dance and one sided story.

So it's up to me to decide what _I_ believe. And I will attempt to
be as fair and open minded as possible, unlike the prosecution and the
defense.

Ah, the Last Honest Man? Can you really free yourself from bias in
making your judgments? It's pretty tough to do.

Now, I will say this, Jeff.

That so far, as the prosecutor, you are somewhat failing to very
credible to me.

I'm not the prosecutor. It's not my job to present the evidence. I'm
only commenting on, or merely repeating, supposed "evidence" that has
already been presented to the court of public opinion. I never attested
to its accuracy, and I always made clear that the source wasn't me.

First off, while I do no watch TV much, I did turn it on to watch the
speech given by Bush where he outlined his reasons for going after the
Al Qaeda, and specifically his reasons for going into Iraq.

I do remember, and I can look up the exact words of that speech for
myself, that his point about the WMDs, was ONLY one of numerous
reasons he gave. And I do remember he stated, "We have reason to
believe ...".

I also listened as he gave examples of those reasons. CIA reports,
testimony by exiled Iraqis, reports from the UN, evidence and reports
from the previous administration, and the ABSOLUTE evidence and
knowledge that Saddam had in fact used such weapons in the past
against thousands of people.

No one disputes that

(As a side note, Jeff, I can -personally- verify that he did in fact
use then against utterly helpless folks, to include innocent old men,
old women, children, etc. We had been watching this in the past I was
was present when recon aircraft returned and photoes of scenes were
developed. They were NOT scenes of chemicals weapons used against
soldiers. The scenes I looked at showed a village, with dead victims
of every age and gender, farmers, goat herders, etc.)

But I was paying attention, I did not miss the fact that his point was
we had reasons to "believe". And I'm quite aware of what "reasonable
belief" means. So that part, I do believe. That he was convinced he
had "reasonable belief". You remember that from your law studies,
correct? I hope so, as I do remember it from my law studies. My
teacher talked long about the subject.

I also remember, and all the rhetoric and one sided finger pointing
does not make me forget, that Bush gave a whole bunch of other reasons
for going into Iraq. All of which you, Mr Prosecutor, seem to sweep
aside and discount. But I have not forgotten them.

Next, a point that hurts your credibility with this juror. And I'm
only one of many, and have no idea what the others are thinking.

To bolster your arguments, you keep pointing to other 'witnesses' who
agree with the views you wish me to believe.

Trust me, I've been paying attention. And have been checking.

Strange, isn't it. Seemingly every time I check out one of your
witnesses and what he or she says. I can find another witness,
independent of yours, who relates a somewhat different story.

Almost always the case in factual disputes.

Hmmm. Who to believe, who to believe? This makes my head hurt. I
was not actually there, so how can I know the absolute truth of the
matter?

Well, fact is I can't. So I have to give some weight to the
credibility of said witnesses.

Which brings up a problem. So far, Mr Prosecutor, when I check on
your witnesses, I keep finding out that they're each and every one
RABID anti-Bush folks. Filled with vitriol and hate. Running
anti-Bush web sites, with ENDLESS postings and articles on the web
flinging accusation, hate filled speech, resorting to name calling at
every excuse, etc. Making it impossible to doubt one thing ... that
they hate Bush and everything and anything associated with him. They
find fault with him when he does those things with which they
disagree, and even find fault with him when he does those things that
the people concerns previously said they wanted a president to do. It
makes no difference what he does. Seemingly his mere existance is an
affront and offense to them. And no matter what he does, they name
call and take offense to it.

Anyone who calls Bush on some of the things he has done is subject to
being labeled as engaging in "hate speech." The Bush administration has
a historically low tolerance for dissent, reflexive secrecy, and the
usual penchant for attacking its detractors. Remember Ashcroft's
comment about Bush's critics? So move past it, look at the actual
content, and judge for yourself.

In case you wonder, Jeff, I looked up the reporter who was in charge
of that NYT article about the Miami-Dade incident. She has anti-Bush
spew littered all over the net. Which is her right. But which does
nothing to convince me that much of what she says can be taken at face
value or without a large dose of salt. In short, to me, she lacks
more than a little as a credible source of information. (The name is
Dana Canedy if you did not note it.)

Sorry. "Hating" Bush is common in America today. There are many good
reasons for doing so, if you ask them. That fact alone hardly
discredits the factual accuracy of what is reported. Logical fallacy.
If one listens only to Bush Leaguers, on gets a different story, of
course. Use your own judgment to evaluate what you see.

When, Mr Prosecutor, are you gonna present before me, a simple juror,
witnesses with at least something that might pass for being at least
moderately unbiased opinion and testimony?

So, you see my problem?

I want meat ... substance. Hate filled, one sided vindictive by those
who obviously hate Bush as a person and every word he says and every
single thing he does and make no secret of it, I've had more than
enough of. Getting rather sick of it, as a matter of fact. It just
clouds and obfuscates the issues and is not at all helpful to me in
making up my mind.

If this were a real trial and court, and I were a juror, you'd be
losing me Mr Prosecutor.

I already know you think him guilty and hate and despise . Knew that
in the beginning. You need not keep beating me over the head with the
fact by trotting out witness after witness who also seem to feel the
same. I want MEAT, substance, fact ... preferrably from credible, at
least somewhat unbiased witnesses.

On the other side, I have some meat and substance. Meat and substance
not easily dismissed or disregarded.

1) I KNOW Saddam and his people have used WMD in the past.

2) I KNOW he showed a perfect willingness to invade other countries.

3) I KNOW the mass graves with 10s and hundreds of thousands of bodies
his folks killed have been found and uncovered.

4) I KNOW he refused to be completely open about whether or not he
had WMD.

5) I KNOW because he himself made no secret of it, that he gave money
to the families of those who'd do suicide bomb attacks against
innocent civilians in Israel. And possibly, tho I don't know this, to
those who attacked other civilians elsewhere. I can only draw the
conclusion that if he was willing, and even bragged about doing the
one, it's not hard for me to believe he might well do the other.

6) I KNOW he tortured and killed people who opposed him, even if they
were non-violent in their opposition. There is lots of testimony to
that effect, and evidence. And beyond that, I know an Iraqi family
who now live in Minnesota who fled Iraq for that very reason.

7) I KNOW that Saddam supporters seem to have no hesitation to
DELIBERATELY target and attack innocent civilians to further their
cause.

8) I KNOW that thousands of Kuwaiti people were killed by Saddams
troops when he invaded that country ... when they'd not been at war
with him or threatened to physically harm him.

9) I KNOW that Bush made the attempt, just like most folks asked him
to do, for something like a year to get the UN to TAKE ACTION, action
dictated by their own rules and resolutions, and they would not.

10) I KNOW that part of the argument against Bush and Blair were
reports and articles written by the BBC ... and I KNOW that they've
now confessed that they lied.

11) I KNOW that Bush's speech gave MANY more reasons for the invasion
other than simply the WMDs. That was only one argument, and in my
mind, not even a major one. I know the limitations of WMDs, being
ex-military and being one who was a teacher who trainned others in
those capabilities AND limitations and how to cope with them. And I
know that there are MANY other ways to kill folks. If you're a hate
filled dictator. Witness the fact of how many folks around the world
there are who over the years have been killed or injured by quite
ordinary bombs. Innocent civilians ... DELIBERATELY targeted by the
likes of Saddam.

12) I KNOW what it feels like to be targeted by those who hate you and
are willing to use whatever means, with utter disregard for the
collateral killing, maiming or injuring of innocents. I know about
people who are willing to use violence to further their ends and
beliefs with no regard for any innocents being hurt. I have
personally, Jeff, been involved in searching for bombs planted by such
folks. Not that I'm a bomb expert. But I was trained to spot the
possibles, and then call for those who did have the training. I'm
well aware of how one sweats as one does the search. And wonders how
it is, and what sort of mind it is that is willing to kill WHOMEVER,
it does not matter, to make their political point. I can only imagine
that hate must so fill a soul that the person responsible have
convinced self that the end justifies the means.

As a note, I killed such a perp once. I'm sure he had his reasons,
that in his mind he felt justified. Too bad. I won, he lost. And I
feel no regrets. He was in the act of trying to kill innocent people
who were sleeping to make his political point. I have no mercy to
spare for him.

Shall I go on, Mr Prosecutor?

Do not give me more hate filled speech because yah don't like Bush. I
already know that and have more than my fill of it. Give me meat, give
me substance to go on.

Something besides the fact that he had "reasonable belief" which
turned out to be wrong. That's not lying, Jeff. That's being
mistaken.

And a LOT of people were mistaken. Clinton believed he had em, the UN
believed. So on and so forth.

Last point. When THIS juror makes his decisions and casts his vote,
the Iraqi war will be only one part of the overall picture upon which
I make that decision. And not even that big of a part.

Yeah. Me too. I ain't spilling any tears for Saddam's demise, and I
think the Iraqi people have a far better chance at a decent future than
ever before. How we got there is another matter, but also water under
the bridge at this point.

Personally, while mistakes were made, in the balance, I think the
invasion had more merit than otherwise.

What world opinion is ... I could care less. The "world" needs to get
their own house in order before finger pointing. In the meantime I'm
concerned that we get our house squared away.

1) I'm concerned with the issue of the illegals. I want the borders
SHUT DOWN. Except for LEGAL entry. I have no problem with Mexicans
coming here for work, as long as we can identify em, check criminal
history, etc. And there is the problem with the estimated 8,000,000
(or more) already here. What do we do about them. Realistically, I
don't see that it's feasible to hunt em all down. So what do we do.
I am looking at the proposals to see what proposal seems both workable
and realistic.

Not gonna happen. Too many special interests want that illegal
immigration.

2) I am concerned about the economy. Which is showing signs of
picking up. And no, Jeff, I do not rely solely on the published
speeches by the White House to judge that. Actually I DO investigate
this sort of thing. Checking numerous sources. Including talking to
my customers. End result, I do believe it's picking up. Yesterday I
was talking to a customer of mine who happens to be an outfit who're
headhunters for IT folk. Head of that company said things were
picking up there. Etc. I will note, the recession was starting even
before Bush. No, I do not blame it on Clinton. There are a bunch of
factors involved.

One wonders how much influence ANY presidential action can really have
on something as large, complex, and ill-understood as the economy.

3) I am concerned about taxes. Getting pretty damned tired of
government at every level asking for more and more money. And friggin
SQUANDERING it, wasting it. It makes no difference how much money yah
give em. They can always think of good excuses to say they need more.
Well, I operate on a budget, and I expect the governments to do the
same. They'd better learn how. And they'd better learn how to tell
special interest groups to go to hell. It's MY MONEY, and I'm getting
damned tired of funding everybodies' special little project. In
MInnesota, the latest, largest group of unemployed ... has been
government workers. And that, IMHO, is a GOOD thing. We need
government, but it's way too large, too intrusive, and too wasteful.

Well, Congress is un an unprecedented spending spree, totally out of
control. Bush has also recently tossed out ideas that involve massive
spending, with no suggestion of how to actually pay for them. "Tax and
Spend" is bad enough; but "Cut Tax and Spend More" is far worse.

3) I am concerned about the costs of health care. And direct
government controls are NOT the answer. Not the right one anyway. We
already know by past experience that monopolies just cause prices to
go higher. And that bureaucrats do one thing best of all. Create
more bureaucrats. They also create more and more endless paperwork.

I have studied this issue exhaustively, and so far no "magic bullet" fix
has appeared on the horizon.

Which lawyers love, but ordinary folks don't. Lawyers love it because
the more rules, the more interpretations are needed. Thus, more
lawyers are needed. Lawyers are much the same as bureaucrats. What
lawyers do best ... is NOT the seeking of justice and fairness. At
that, they're iffy at best. But they do truly excel at figuring out
ways to generate and breed the need for more and more lawyers. If the
Bar had it's way, one would need to seek a lawyer to dig a hole
suitable to plant a tree in your own yard.

Total BS of the "first thing we do is hang all the lawyers" variety.
But par for the course.

4) I am concerned about education. Because our schools ... suck. And
are monopolized by the self seeking, self interested Teachers
Associations and Unions. Which have NO interest, not really, in
better education. Their primary interest is in lining their own
pockets. I'm not talking about the regular teacher in the classroom.
Most of those I've met are honest, earnest folks doing the best they
can with a system gone haywire.

Then who do you suppose makes up the "self seeking, self interested
Teachers Associations and Unions"?

And I personally, am against spending
one more dime until we have an honest, REAL ... not pencil whipped,
measure of teachers' individual performance, a school district's
performance, etc. If I am to give more money, I want MEASUREABLE
performance results. Til then, they can go to hell.

Agreed. One thing we need to do is require teachers to get a degree in
a real subject, not "education." Educational theory and methodology can
be sufficiently taught as a minor.

Etc.

Get my point, Jeff?

Give me meat, substance. Not rhetoric, not finger pointing, not blame
laying. Wanna convince me of something, gotta give me more than just
the stuff I've been getting.

No Bob, I don't wanna try to convince you of anything. Tilting at
windmills and all that. ;-)

It's like the fellow on the issure of Ft Gordon. What a bunch of BS.
No one was hiding numbers of wounded. Did what he claimed happen as
concerns military folks having to stay in substandard housing?
Probably. I don't know about Ft Gordon,

I do. I've actually stayed in the "condemned barracks." Ugh. i could
comment A LOT more on military and VA medicine, but you may not believe
me and I'm unwilling to reveal sources.

do know of other incidences.
And the major problem was that the military system had been cut back
so much that we are short on proper, adequate facilities for dealing
with the number of folks we're dealing with now. I am a friggin
member of several Vet organizations and personally know several of the
folks in the VA system in the Twin Cities and in St Cloud. This has
been a problem for some time. And DID NOT originate with Bush. In
fact, his people as well as some of the highest staff officers in the
DOD have been scrambling to fix the problem. As best they can, within
budget restraints. A budget controlled by Congress, BTW, no the
President. i.e. At another Fort where at first it wasn't noticed by
those of high enough rank to actually do something about it, a bunch
of reservists, were in an extended wait status. But once the issue
was voiced and the right ear heard it, orders were passed down. And a
new building intended for other purposes in a matter of a couple weeks
was reoutfitted and redesignated into a clinic.

I will repeat ... the military cutbacks, and the demand to do them,
originated well before Bush came into office.

Basically true. But the hard numbers are out there. Bush is using the
same military Clinton left him. Look to see exactly what Bush has or
has not done to restore funding in these areas.

Enough. I am done. And quite tired of all this. You need not
respond, Jeff. Can if you wish. But I may not answer, may just let
you have the last word. I have a lot of other, more productive tasks
to take care of.

But know this, my decision in November is NOT gonna be single issue.
It's not gonna be based solely on story about WMDs. That's BS. It's
gonna be based on a whole number of issues.

Absolutely.

And the folks I listen to better be listening up to me, and I think a
lot of Americans. We want meat and substance. Not the BS of Bush
haters. Give us something to work with here. Definite plans ... with
the numbers to support the idea that they may be workable.

A major problem is that the media is covering the Dems like a horse
race, who's pulling ahead, etc. They almost never report any details of
their future plans and past records, unless it's something inflammatory.

Facts, not
rhetoric and opinion. We're getting awful tired of the name calling
and accusations which don't even stand up under scrutiny or in a
court.

C'mon, Bob. You LOVE Bush, admit it! You think he's the best thing
since pre-sliced bread. I saw that Bush in 2004 bumper sticker on your
truck! ;-)

Bob

Remember, I'm not the prosecutor, I'm just another juror like you. I've
presented no evidence here, I've only commented on, or repeated, the
evidence I've seen. Make up your own mind. I never undertook the
prosecutorial function to convict. As I wrote, you gotta separate the
wheat from the chaff.

Jeff

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history.

As usual, factually correct.

Jeff

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:14:58 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)


Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.


"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history. It's still there,
waiting for some politician with integrity and intelligence
to restore it to its proper place as our guiding principle.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

Yes, more reading indicates you're correct about that.

US somehow gets bashed whether it acts or not. If it does, it's too
little too late or completely unjustifiable: If it doesn't, it's a
nation of uncaring *******s.

Can't win either way, might as well act and conquer? What's an
occasional carthago delenda est to such a filthy bunch of imperialists?

Even better - stop being imperialists. It's expensive in
both blood and money, and we're not vicious enough to make
it pay. We'd do better by sticking to trade.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:20:57 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history.

As usual, factually correct.

Thanks. I try to stick to facts instead of going off on a
rant, as is the usual usenet procedure. I don't always
succeed.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

Gunner:

Thanks again you have done my work for me.

I'm an open minded person who really enjoys a good debate with anyone
willing to seriously listen to another persons point of view.
Condescention and smart assed remarks are your stock and trade so why would
I want to waste my time and band width answer your question?

Would I be wrong in assuming you have already labelled me a weak kneed
Liberal/ Socialist?

Jimbo

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:47:00 -0500, "Jimbo" . wrote:

Gunner:

Thanks you made my point for me.

Your welcome.

You should look up the meaning of the word "condescending" because it's
something you practice a lot.

Jimbo

Does that mean you are not going to answer the question, by which we can
determine which way you are biased?


Ive noted recently a decided spin that some folks tend to perform when
finally, they get their own ox gored.

You really need to put a bandaid on that booboo before it gets infected.

Gunner


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:54:44 -0500, "Jimbo" .
wrote:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that debating anything with
Gunner
not metalworking related is a mugs game? He is obviously an
intelligent
person but he only sees things in black and white. It seems to me
that
anyone not in lock step with his view of the world is in his mind just
a
whining weak kneed Liberal/socialist sympathiser.

Jimbo

Sigh..is that all you get out of my posts? Interesting.

So, analyses is not your forte I take it?

Btw..which political party do you belong to? And how would you rate
yourself on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being very liberal, and 10 being
very conservative?

Gunner




"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , andy
asberry
says...

I was one of those Americans who had to fight his way back into his
own country.

You got screwed by your own country's politicians. That's
a shame and I'm sorry it happened to you. But that war
would have gone on till doomsday if the general public
did not make it a point to say "enough."

Jim

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




"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to
reliability,
accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose
and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee,
imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any
particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or
responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect
to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by
any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping
it
into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts
that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other
agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within
five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or
by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron
who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece
of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a
bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'


Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:20:57 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history.

As usual, factually correct.

Thanks. I try to stick to facts instead of going off on a
rant, as is the usual usenet procedure. I don't always
succeed.

Just curious, so please forgive my nosiness. It is obvious that you are
well educated. What is the extent of your "formal" education?

Jeff

Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:
"John Husvar" wrote in message
...

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

As little as I know about politics and world affairs, I can't help but
agree! I'm damned tired of seeing our country being the heavy.

It will be called the heavy, whether it is acting one or not, so long
as the image is useful to any political group. In this case, the
"liberals" infesting the Democrat party, the many corrupt third world
governments, and the corrupt UN officials.

The main complaint is that we do not give them *enough* money. The
second complaint is that we "meddle" in other countries, usually by
trying for some accountability regarding where that money went.

As for the UN, look up the Oil for Food program. Did you know that the
UN refuses to allow an audit of that program? Any idea of how many
MILLIONS of dollars went through it?

We will be called the heavy so long as the US exists. The hell with
what they think.