On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 17:15:55 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Gus" wrote in message
roups.com...

Cliff wrote:

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.


Thank you Ramsey Clark.

How horrible of us to set up no fly zones to prevent the genocide of the
Kurds in the north and Shiites in south.

Tsk tsk....seems the Left loves genocides. (see previous post on the
subject)

http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm
http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=10952

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

http://www.arbeiterfotografie.com/ga...rn-halabja.jpg
http://www.kdp.pp.se/halh1.jpg
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm






"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:49:19 -0800, dan wrote:

Nicholas Anthony wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cliff wrote:

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.


Thank you Ramsey Clark.


How horrible of us to set up no fly zones to prevent the genocide of the
Kurds in the north and Shiites in south.

Exactly how did they do that?

(Don't strain yourself - they didn't)

Dan

Liar

http://www.newyorker.com/online/cont...n_onlineonly01
http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm
http://www.meforum.org/article/124





"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:22:21 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:48:41 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:38:33 +0000, Guido wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:19:14 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
om...

So the heros were in the Pentagon plane?

With the other exceptions you overlooked. IMO if you want to put it that
way
yes it was less of a cowardly target.



???

Was your dictionary written by the Ministry of Truth?

He probably needs to do some Google searching ....
What happened to the last batch of wingers? They seemed
just a bit brighter.


Must be a new group just out of HS. The result of 5 years of
conservative education.

That was an actual definition from American Heritage Dictionary I posted and
look at the flames I get. I really didnt know there were so many sick people
like yourself in this world. You get a high on putting others down, never
offer your own answers/ solutions just make sure everything is wrong nothing
is ever right.


http://www.bloggernews.net/2006/03/c...y-teacher.html

http://www.9news.com/includes/buildasx.aspx?fn=http://wm.gannett.speedera.net/wm.gannett/kusa/backup/1141263993253-03-01-06-overland-class-une.wmv&sp=http://wm.gannett.speedera.net/wm.gannett/kusa/pre-stream/bbe-att-feb06-384.wmv

Bennish: [tape begins with class already underway. Bennish completing
an unintelligble statement about Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.] Why
do we have troops in Colombia fighting in their civil war for over 30
years. Most Americans don't even know this. For over 30 years, America
has had soldiers fighting in Colombia in a civil war. Why are we
fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to
control other parts of the world. Who buys cocaine? Not Bolivians. Not
Peruvians. Americans! Ok. Why are we destroying the farmers' lives
when we're the ones that consume that good.

Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death
by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world?
Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and
tobacco? The United States!

What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what
states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright.
That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of
them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or
Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're
afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into
cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians
and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical
weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are
killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year
and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?

Make sure you get these definitions down.

Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism,
you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system
in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned
privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the
purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these
definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how
when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it
say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide
everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a
part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds
with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with
human rights.

Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when
profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to
become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc.

Why did we invade Iraq?! How do we know that the invasion of Iraq for
weapons of mass destruction-- even if weapons had been found, how
would you have known, how could you prove--that that was not a real
reason for us to go there.

There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass
destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that
are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they
have weapons of mass destruction and they could be potentially
threatening to America. We're not invading any of those countries!

0345.

[Pause.]

I'll give you guys another minute or two to get some of these
[definitions] down. I agree with Joey. Try to condense these a little
bit. I took these straight out of the dictionary.

Anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush's [State of the Union] speech
last night? I'm gonna talk a little about some of things he had to
say.

0452

....One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still
writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and
George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the
solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And
the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to
war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of
mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!

0530.

Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!

Unidentified brainwashed student interjects: We are.

The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.

Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world? The United
States.

Who's continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we
speak?!
The United States.

So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies
won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at
peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the
Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively
invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just
like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent
that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating
their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential
future--sorry--attack? [Unintelligible.]

0625.

Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being
attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might
be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi
Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe
- maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because
they're afraid we might invade them. I mean, where does this cycle of
violence end? You know?

This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing. That doesn't work. What
was so important about President Bush's speech last night--and it
doesn't matter if it was President Clinton still it would just as
important) is that it's not just a speech to America. But who? The
whole world! It's very obvious that if you listen to his language, if
you listen to his body language, and if you paid attention to what he
was saying, he wasn't always just talking to us. He was talking to the
whole planet. Addressing the whole planet!

He started off his speech talking about how America should be the
country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed
essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best
system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go
out into the world and make the whole world like us.

0759.

Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.

We're the only ones who are right. Everyone else is backwards. And
it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we
want them to.

Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same.
Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to
the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right.
You're all wrong.

I just keep waiting. You know, at some point I think America and
Mexico might go to war again. You know. Anytime Mexico plays the USA
in a soccer match. What can be heard chanting all game long?

0841

Do all Mexicans dislike the United States? No. Do all Americans
dislike Mexico? No. But there's a lot of resentment--not just in
Mexico, but across the whole world--towards America right now.

We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to
lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to
eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that
you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time.
You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be
for both.

What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we
say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says.
We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making
war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the
Palestinians be for peace and for war?!

0950.

*Student Sean Allen, who is taping Bennish's rant, speaks up:*

Allen: Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we
wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we
want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a
difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're
going to attack people who are not innocent?

1007

Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's
doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?

Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually
attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives,
whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up
Palestine...

Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into
existence in the first place?

Allen: We gave it to them.

Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted
what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in
Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment.
Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how
the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and
terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not
because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw
a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.

If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them
dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can
control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the
Middle East that will be indebted to us.

Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to
attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?

Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The
Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States
government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill
a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you
shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist,
and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as
far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on
their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.

1215

Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people.
We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.

Bennish: Do you know that?

Allen: So, you're saying the United States has intentions to kill
innocent people?

Bennish: I don't know the answer to that question.

Allen: But what gain do we get from killing innocent people in the
Middle East? What gain does that pose to us?

Bennish: Let me ask you this. During the 1980s, Iran and Iraq were
involved in an 8-year-long war. The United States sold missiles,
tanks, guns, planes, to which side?

Unidentified student: Iraq?

Bennish: Both. The answer is both. Why would we send armaments to two
sides that are fighting each other. That seems to be self-defeating.
Don't we want one side to win? Not always! Sometimes you just want
there to be conflict!

The British -- this is one of the grand strategies of the British
imperial system--was to play local animosities off each other. To
prevent them is to divide and conquer.

Do we really want the Middle East to unite as one cohesive political
and cultural body?

No! Because then they could what? Threaten our supremacy.

We want to keep the world divided. Do we really want to kill innocent
people? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.

I know there are some Americans who do. People who work in the CIA.
People who have to think like that. Those kind of dirty minds, dirty
tricks. That's how the intelligence world works. Sometimes you do want
to kill people just for the sake of killing them. Right?

Listen, between the years 1960 and 1962, the United States through the
CIA conducted over 7,000 terrorist sabotage attacks against the small
island nation of Cuba. Over 7,000 terrorist attacks were waged against
just one little country called Cuba in a two year period,
intentionally, let me rephrase that, intentionally blowing up medical
supplies, intentionally burning down crops that feed their country,
thereby creating starvation, right? Intentionally trying to make that
system collapse. And we're willing to expend however many thousands of
people died because we just want to get rid of Castro. And the sad
reality is that there are some policy planners who are willing to let
people die in order to achieve their objectives.

1506

Now, do I think President Bush says 'I'd like to go kill some innocent
Palestianians?' I don't think he thinks like that. But I also know
that he's not the only one making decisions. I also know that after
September 11, President Bush got on TV and he said, 'You will feel our
wrath. You will feel the full force of the United States military.
There will be paybacks.' He said it again last night. He said, 'We've
killed a lot of top-ranking al Qaeda members. And for those who aren't
killed yet, you're day will come!' Right? That kind of language to me
is very obvious.

1547

And when you go trying to kill one particular type of person, you know
that you're gonna kill other people, too. And let me ask you this...

Allen: Later in that, he stated that he's [Osama bin Laden] trying to
kill innocents...

Bennish: I understand that, but hold on, you have to understand
something, that when al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, in
their view, they're not attacking innocent people. Ok. The CIA has an
office at the World Trade Center. The Pentagon is a military target.
The White House was a military target. Congress is a military target.
The World Trade Center is the economic center of our entire economy.

1625

The FBI, who tracks down terrorists and so on and so forth around the
world, has offices in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies
that work in the World Trade Center are these huge multinational
corporations that are directly involved in the military-industrial
complex in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

And so in the minds of al Qaeda, they're not attacking innocent
people. They're attacking legitimate targets. People who have blood on
their hands as far as they're concerned!

We portray them as innocent because they're our friends and neighbors,
family, loved ones. One of my best friends from high school,
elementary school, and birth, lives in lower Manhattan. You know, he
was right there, he was four blocks away from it. So, anytime it comes
close to home, you begin to see things differently.

1711

In no way am I implying, I don't know, you got to figure this stuff
out for yourself, but I want you to think about these things--you
know, think about this right here. [Apparently pointing to American
flag.] Here's the real homeland security. Fighting terrorism since
1492! Ok. I mean, to many Native Americans, that flag is no different
than the Nazi flag or the Confederate flag. It represents the people
that came and stole their land, lied, brought disease, rape, pillage,
destruction, etc. So it all depends upon varying people's perspectives
varying. And of course, we're going to see ourselves as being in the
right , at least the majority of us, because that's us.

Allen: But we were the ones that were attacked first. On September 11,
2001,
we were the ones that were attacked. We were not attacking anybody
until that point. Then we said ok, we're going into Afghanistan. Then
we said ok, the Iraqi government has ties with al Qaeda. We're going
to go into Iraq. We were the ones that were attacked.

Bennish: In actuality, if you remember back to my first day, the Sept.
11 attacks were, according to bin Laden, a direct response to our 1)
support of the nation of Israel, which they consider to be a terrorist
regime that does not have the right to control the land that the
Palestinians lived on for over 1,500 years, and they also did it
because of what George Clinton did--Bill Clinton, not George Clinton,
they had a little documentary on him on PBS last night I was
watching--Bill Clinton, when he launched the missile attacks into
Afghanistan and Sudan and killed thousands of innocent Africans and
Afghanistan people - Afghanis - that had nothing to do with al Qaeda
or anything. In fact, in sudan, he blew up the country's largest
pharmaceutical plant, which was producing medicines, alright, um, you
know, that's as far as, in their eyes, that was retaliation for those
attacks.

And so this whole idea of who attacked who first, how far back in time
do you wanna go!? This is the whole thing with the Arab-Israeli
conflict. Well, who was there first? Well, if you believe the Bible,
you say, well, God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites. But who
was in that land when they got there? The Canaanites, who some
archeologists would argue are the ancient descendants of the
Palestinians. You know.

Other archeologists say the Hebrews didn't really come from Egypt.
They were actually a group of Canaanites who decided they didn't like
the other Canaanites and developed this story afterward to justify how
they killed all their neighbors
and took over the land.

2002


"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:07:08 GMT, Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:49:19 -0800, dan wrote:

Nicholas Anthony wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cliff wrote:

The "no fly zones" were illegal & violated many laws.
Iraq had every right to defend it's airspace.


Thank you Ramsey Clark.


How horrible of us to set up no fly zones to prevent the genocide of the
Kurds in the north and Shiites in south.

Exactly how did they do that?

(Don't strain yourself - they didn't)

Dan

Liar

http://www.newyorker.com/online/cont...n_onlineonly01

[
The Halabja poison gas attack was an incident on 15 March-19 March 1988 during a
major battle in the Iran-Iraq war when chemical weapons were used, allegedly by
Iraqi government forces, to kill a number of people in the Iraqi Kurdish town of
Halabja (population 80,000). Estimates of casualties range from several hundred
to at least 7,000 people. Halabja is located about 150 miles northeast of
Baghdad and 8-10 miles from the Iranian border.


Photo said to have been taken in the aftermath of the attack.Almost all current
accounts of the incident regard Iraq as the party responsible for the gas
attack, which occurred during the Iran-Iraq War. The war between Iran and Iraq
was in its eighth year when, on March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq dropped poison gas
on the Kurdish city of Halabja, then held by Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish
guerrillas allied with Tehran; throughout the war, Iran had supplied the Iraqi
Kurdish rebels with safe haven and other military support.
]

"Friendly" fire on an occupied town, mostly allied with the enemy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

But only suspected that the weapons used were from Iraq.

http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm

"The Bush administration's frustration ... 1988" .. sure thing,
oh comprehension impaired one.

[
Unfortunately, governmental cowardice and opportunism have stymied past attempts
to indict Saddam, as Human Rights Watch learned during its intensive efforts to
bring him to justice in the 1990s.
]

Oops .. those nasty dang "spit liberals" you are always whining about
again .....

[
Human Rights Watch thus turned to the only available remedy -- a civil suit
before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, commonly known as the
World Court. The relevant U.N. treaty -- the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide -- assigned the World Court the task of
adjudicating disputes under the treaty. We hoped for a declaratory judgment that
the Iraqi government had committed genocide, damages for the survivors, and an
order that the perpetrators be prosecuted.

The problem was that only governments can bring suit before the World Court.
Washington was a logical first choice, and ultimately the Clinton administration
endorsed the case. But restrictions in the U.S. ratification of the Genocide
Convention stood in the way of a successful suit.
]

Guess what? THE US HAS REFUSED TO RATIFY THE TREATY.
NOR ACCEPT RULINGS BY THE WORLD COURT.

http://www.dcwatch.com/lwvdc/lwv9811b.htm
[
Human Rights — The US Ratification Record: For about forty years, from about
1948 when the General Assembly adopted the Declaration through the 1980s, the US
record of ratifying human rights treaties was quite dismal. The U.S. had signed
but not ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on
Economic and Social Rights which, together with the Declaration comprise the
International Bill of Rights. It had signed but not ratified the Genocide
Convention. The U.S. also signed but did not ratify the conventions on
eliminating racial discrimination and discrimination against women and the
torture convention. A major reason for this failure to ratify was the influence
of the conservative view that such treaties might infringe upon US cherished
rights by enabling a foreign power or international organization to tell the US
Government what to do about the human rights of its citizens. This attitude was
articulated by Ohio conservative Republican Senator Bricker whose constitutional
amendment on the subject was narrowly defeated in the 1950s. It is also
reflected in US actions, beginning in the late 1980s, to ratify major human
rights treaties on civil and political rights, genocide, torture and racial
discrimination with reservations, understandings and declarations, so called
RUDs. These RUDs qualify US adherence and have evoked wide criticism from abroad
as well as at home.
]

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19033
[
At the insistence of several right-wing senators, ratification moved forward
only with the additions of various “reservations,” “understandings,” and
“declarations.” The inclusion of these reservations in effect “defanged” the
Genocide Convention, as Sen. Helms boasted during the ratification debate:
“[T]his Genocide Convention upon which we are about to vote is purely symbolic.
We might as well be voting on a simple resolution to condemn genocide.” The
Sovereignty Package also stipulated that the U.S. would not officially become a
party until the Senate enacted domestic legislation implementing the convention
and almost another three years passed before that legislation, known as the
Proxmire Act, was enacted.

Helms’ view that ratification of the Genocide Convention was “purely symbolic”
appears to be shared by members of the current administration. In September
2004, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in testimony before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, declared the situation in Darfur, Sudan to be
“genocide.” In ratifying the Genocide Convention, all parties pledge to
“undertake to prevent and to punish” genocide, but in his testimony Secretary
Powell essentially dismissed the notion that a genocide declaration carried any
legal obligation by stating that “no new action is dictated by this
determination” and that the administration is “not trying to punish … the
Sudanese government.”
]

http://www.meforum.org/article/124

"Promoting American Interests".

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

You do a pretty good job of portraying a winger .....
--
Cliff

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 08:43:30 GMT, Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:55:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


In the most basic terms, compared to a full-scale invasion, atomic
attack was a *very* good deal for the Japanese population -- it cost
only two smallish cities and 200,000 dead.

Wasn't that a fine thing for us to do, then? We only killed 200,000
civilians, including women and children.


Tojo

http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/...tory/rape.html


http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/...t77/rape19.jpg
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/...t77/rape23.jpg
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/...t77/rape25.jpg
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/...st77/rape6.jpg

Hitler

http://www.mengele.dk/DACHAU/index.htm
http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/poland.htm
http://www.auschwitz.dk/id17.htm


Stalin
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/russian/
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html


Mao
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...9/202829.shtml
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM
http://www.refugeesinternational.org...e/detail/1112/

Saddam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm
http://massgraves.info/
http://massgraves.info/16.jpg
http://massgraves.info/18.jpg
http://massgraves.info/25.jpg
http://www.rantingprofs.com/rantingp...s_victims.html


Pol Pot
http://www.time.com/time/daily/polpot/1.html
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/po...s/pixbone1.jpg


And yet..you leftists love them all.
Speaks volumes about you.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Clearly, this makes it all a grand & glorious thing except for the
somewhat lower kill ratio.
OTOH The initial living population was lower too .....
--
Cliff

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 08:49:03 GMT, Gunner wrote:

Oh yes, the world is in a wonderful state, the US is in great shape, Iraq
and Afghanistan are proving to be examples of successful foreign policy.
Things have never been better in fact. With thoughts like that it's no
wonder that republicans have a blissful attitude. Of course, that
viewpoint is contrary to the majority of people's and to reality but hey,
don't we already know that republicans are in a world of their own where
reality isn't a permanent item?

And is there something Gunner doesn't know about? OBVIOUSLY!

Hawke


I take you you skipped out on Geography?

http://geography.about.com/cs/countr...rcountries.htm

You seem to be about 189 short....

Buffoon

Did you get lost again, Gunner?
Too many fingers again?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 08:49:58 GMT, Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:25:06 -0000, Smithers
wrote:

Anyone with half a brain can understand that over the years the US has
killed innocent people by the thousands. The only difference is that some
Americans can't accept that we do the same thing terrorists do


Another leftist liar.

Buffoon.


Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

My, my but he's getting confused ...
--
Cliff

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 08:59:31 GMT, Gunner wrote:

Tsk tsk....seems the Left loves genocides. (see previous post on the
subject)

"see previous post on the subject"
--
Cliff

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:15:59 GMT, Gunner wrote:

Bennish

Pretty good teacher.
--
Cliff

I have a Bosch router that has both a 1/4 and 1/2 inch collet. I would
like to able to use 3/16 diameter tools and wondered if the collets are
a common one for machinery and if so what are they?
Thanks
GD

"GD" wrote in message
...
I have a Bosch router that has both a 1/4 and 1/2 inch collet. I would
like to able to use 3/16 diameter tools and wondered if the collets are a
common one for machinery and if so what are they?
Thanks
GD

Some routers have 3/8" collets available, but I've never seen one for 3/16".
Perhaps someone will chime in with an insert for a standard size collet that
would handle 3/16". Out of curiosity, what kind of tooling do you have that
has a 3/16" shank?

todd

No, you will not find a 3/16 collet for a router, 1/4, 1/2 and occasionally
3/8 are it. If you want to use 3/16 you are going to have to make a split
compression reducer. However before you invest much time, do bear in mind
that a 3/16 is going to be hard to p[roperly control or avoid breaking in a
woodworking router.

I do not recall any router collet that is equivelent to a standard
metalworking collet.


On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:52:51 -0500, GD wrote:

I have a Bosch router that has both a 1/4 and 1/2 inch collet. I would
like to able to use 3/16 diameter tools and wondered if the collets are
a common one for machinery and if so what are they?
Thanks
GD

I have the router mounted on a mill and there are a lot of small
diameter cutters that have a 3/16 shaft that I could use to cut wooden
inlays.
GD

todd wrote:

"GD" wrote in message
m...


I have a Bosch router that has both a 1/4 and 1/2 inch collet. I would
like to able to use 3/16 diameter tools and wondered if the collets are a
common one for machinery and if so what are they?
Thanks
GD



Some routers have 3/8" collets available, but I've never seen one for 3/16".
Perhaps someone will chime in with an insert for a standard size collet that
would handle 3/16". Out of curiosity, what kind of tooling do you have that
has a 3/16" shank?

todd

Thanks for the info.
GD

Bradford Chaucer wrote:

No, you will not find a 3/16 collet for a router, 1/4, 1/2 and occasionally
3/8 are it. If you want to use 3/16 you are going to have to make a split
compression reducer. However before you invest much time, do bear in mind
that a 3/16 is going to be hard to p[roperly control or avoid breaking in a
woodworking router.

I do not recall any router collet that is equivelent to a standard
metalworking collet.


On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:52:51 -0500, GD wrote:



I have a Bosch router that has both a 1/4 and 1/2 inch collet. I would
like to able to use 3/16 diameter tools and wondered if the collets are
a common one for machinery and if so what are they?
Thanks
GD

"GD" wrote in message
...
I have a Bosch router that has both a 1/4 and 1/2 inch collet. I would
like to able to use 3/16 diameter tools and wondered if the collets are a
common one for machinery and if so what are they?
Thanks
GD

If it's important to you, you can make a sleeve adapter. For such small
diameter a split sleeve would work just fine.

Something like this would get you started - probably need to ream the ID.
http://www.onlinemetals.com/merchant...owunits=inches

Any machine shop could help you out. I don't think you can buy an actual
collet for that diameter.

--
********
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com

todd wrote:
"GD" wrote in message
...
I have a Bosch router that has both a 1/4 and 1/2 inch collet. I would
like to able to use 3/16 diameter tools and wondered if the collets are a
common one for machinery and if so what are they?
Thanks
GD

Some routers have 3/8" collets available, but I've never seen one for 3/16".
Perhaps someone will chime in with an insert for a standard size collet that
would handle 3/16". Out of curiosity, what kind of tooling do you have that
has a 3/16" shank?

todd




How about these from Hardinge?

http://hardinge.com/usr/pdf/collet/2351E.pdf

--
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude ©
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World
http://www.pulsareng.com/

Pounds on Wood wrote:
"GD" wrote in message
...

I have a Bosch router that has both a 1/4 and 1/2 inch collet. I would
like to able to use 3/16 diameter tools and wondered if the collets are a
common one for machinery and if so what are they?
Thanks
GD


If it's important to you, you can make a sleeve adapter. For such small
diameter a split sleeve would work just fine.

Something like this would get you started - probably need to ream the ID.
http://www.onlinemetals.com/merchant...owunits=inches

Any machine shop could help you out. I don't think you can buy an actual
collet for that diameter.

Yes that looks like a good solution. All it needs is reamed to 3/16
and a slit. May be a little problem making the slit.
...lew...

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:52:51 -0500, GD
wrote:

I have a Bosch router that has both a 1/4 and 1/2 inch collet. I would
like to able to use 3/16 diameter tools and wondered if the collets are
a common one for machinery and if so what are they?
Thanks
GD

Do what everyone else does, use a reducing bushing. They are
available from the places that sell routerbits, but most shops make
their own.
Take a piece of 9/16 stock turn the OD to .500 and drill the ID to
..187. Put one slit though the side and you are done. We used to slit
through the whole diameter but three quarters of the length. Turn it
over, rotate 90 degrees and slit again. This theoretically gives you
more even compression, but I've never noticed a difference.

Doesn't really need to be hardened

Will

Lew Hartswick (in t)
said:

| Yes that looks like a good solution. All it needs is reamed to 3/16
| and a slit. May be a little problem making the slit.

No problem. Take it to a machine shop. They can use a slitting saw on
their mill - although they might need to special order the appropriate
thickness sawblade for your adapter. Be prepared to be asked about the
thickness of the slot.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Garlicdude (in ) said:

| todd wrote:
|| "GD" wrote in message
|| ...
||| I have a Bosch router that has both a 1/4 and 1/2 inch collet. I
||| would like to able to use 3/16 diameter tools and wondered if the
||| collets are a common one for machinery and if so what are they?
||
|| Some routers have 3/8" collets available, but I've never seen one
|| for 3/16". Perhaps someone will chime in with an insert for a
|| standard size collet that would handle 3/16". Out of curiosity,
|| what kind of tooling do you have that has a 3/16" shank?
|
| How about these from Hardinge?
|
| http://hardinge.com/usr/pdf/collet/2351E.pdf

Bookmarked! Thanks, Dude!

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:16:29 -0600, "Morris Dovey" wrote:

Lew Hartswick (in t)
said:

| Yes that looks like a good solution. All it needs is reamed to 3/16
| and a slit. May be a little problem making the slit.

No problem. Take it to a machine shop. They can use a slitting saw on
their mill - although they might need to special order the appropriate
thickness sawblade for your adapter. Be prepared to be asked about the
thickness of the slot.

Bandsaw or hacksaw.
An "angled" cut should work just fine I'd think.
--
Cliff