Dave Hinz responds:

Fred, you can't change their minds. Their leader has admitted to
their
being no WMDs,



"We can't find them" isn't the same as "they aren't there", Charlie.

Yeah, it is. Buried in the desert just when he needed them most?
Shipped to Syria?

Nah. Only a True Believer will believe that nonsense.

On 16 Mar 2005 10:28:39 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
Dave Hinz responds:

Fred, you can't change their minds. Their leader has admitted to
their
being no WMDs,



"We can't find them" isn't the same as "they aren't there", Charlie.

Yeah, it is.

Bush didn't say "they weren't there", he said "We didn't find them".

Buried in the desert just when he needed them most?

Maybe. It's quick to find hidden things when you know where they're
hidden.

Shipped to Syria?

Maybe.

Dave Hinz wrote:

: Shipped to Syria?

: Maybe.


You know, it occurs to me that maybe the inspectors would have found them
WMDs if they'd remembered to wear their tinfoil hats when they were over
there. Fools!

-- Andy Barss

In article ,
says...
in Iraq, just like in WWII you had a murdering dictator, who
had goals of expansion, Hitler wanted Europe, Saddam wanted more middle
east oil.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler is like comparing Harry Truman to Thomas
Jefferson :-).

But keep up with the far-fetched justifications. They're an amusing
lesson in human nature :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Dave Hinz responds:
Buried in the desert just when he needed them most?


Maybe. It's quick to find hidden things when you know where they're
hidden.


Shipped to Syria?


Maybe.

And, something too many people don't understand today, 'maybe'
presupposes 'maybe not' as well. I'm on the side of 'probably not'
since a lot of experienced people looked in a lot of places for a long
time.

Charlie Self wrote:
Dave Hinz responds:
Buried in the desert just when he needed them most?


Maybe. It's quick to find hidden things when you know where they're
hidden.


Shipped to Syria?


Maybe.

And, something too many people don't understand today, 'maybe'
presupposes 'maybe not' as well. I'm on the side of 'probably not'
since a lot of experienced people looked in a lot of places for a
long
time.

David Kay pointed out that finding the weapons could be extremely
hard so they looked for the factories instead. No factories, no
weapons.

I suppose some will argue that Sadam Husein buried the factories
out in the desert and killed all the people who designed and built
the factories (which would preclude a resumption of production,
and as we know, his WMD with the exception of mustard, were short-
lived) and all the people who worked in the factories and all the
people who buried the factories. The he killed all the people
that killed the other people.

That hypothesis may fall short of completely indisputibly,
impossible but it is surely a lot more improbable than the
obvious one, that Iraq did not resume WMD production and
Sadam Hussein was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted
befor doing so.

--

FF

let's say there where no WMD, even if the French, Russians, Germans,
Saudies, Irealies, US, and every other country with an intelligence
network, had indications that they did.

but lets for get all of that and say it was a big lie, nothing but political
Bull. are you saying that the liberation of a people from a muderious
dictator, was a bad thing, did you know the number of people killed in Iraq
since the end of the war is less then was killed the previous year under
Saddam, and flowing his actions, Libya, who did have an extensive weapons
program, rolled over instantly and gave them up and now we have an Embicy
in Libya for the fist time in how many years?. but if you only watch CNN
you wouldn't know that. looks what going on in Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, and
to some extent Saudi Arabia, the people are starting to demand democory,
and freedom, yes I'm an evil conservite that wants freedom and justice for
all, and if it's in our best national interest, even better, I know it
horrible that I think this way, I'm also happy that Reagan Had the balls to
face down the Russians.

worst case, the president lied and the world is a better place, I can live
with that


wrote:


Charlie Self wrote:
Dave Hinz responds:
Buried in the desert just when he needed them most?


Maybe. It's quick to find hidden things when you know where they're
hidden.


Shipped to Syria?


Maybe.

And, something too many people don't understand today, 'maybe'
presupposes 'maybe not' as well. I'm on the side of 'probably not'
since a lot of experienced people looked in a lot of places for a
long
time.

David Kay pointed out that finding the weapons could be extremely
hard so they looked for the factories instead. No factories, no
weapons.

I suppose some will argue that Sadam Husein buried the factories
out in the desert and killed all the people who designed and built
the factories (which would preclude a resumption of production,
and as we know, his WMD with the exception of mustard, were short-
lived) and all the people who worked in the factories and all the
people who buried the factories. The he killed all the people
that killed the other people.

That hypothesis may fall short of completely indisputibly,
impossible but it is surely a lot more improbable than the
obvious one, that Iraq did not resume WMD production and
Sadam Hussein was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted
befor doing so.

Richard Clements responds:
worst case, the president lied and the world is a better place, I can
live
with that

You can. To date, more than 1500 young Americans don't live with it,
and something over 12,000 have been maimed or otherwise wounded.

Can you live with that, when what is happening in the involved country
is none of our ****ing business?

let's say there where no WMD, even if the French, Russians, Germans,
Saudies, Irealies, US, and every other country with an intelligence
network, had indications that they did.

Wrong. All of the evidence presented was fake, and the intelligence agencies
of most involved countries knew this. As far as I know every single piece of
WMD evidence presented by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rumsfeld,
or any other chickenhawk crony in the WH administration has proven to be
false.

but lets for get all of that and say it was a big lie, nothing but
political
Bull. are you saying that the liberation of a people from a muderious
dictator, was a bad thing, did you know the number of people killed in
Iraq
since the end of the war is less then was killed the previous year under
Saddam,

Not likely. You have no idea how many people were killed under Saddam. One
thing is very likely though, that the US government is responsible for
killing far more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. And most Iraqi citizens were
better off under Saddam than they are now.

worst case, the president lied and the world is a better place, I can live
with that

How can you even suggest the world is a better place? Tens of thousands of
innocent Iraq civilians, if not more, are now dead as a result of an illegal
invasion. Several hundred tons of exploded DU munitions scattered throughout
Iraq will be killing many more innocent civilians for decades to come. 1500
or more US soldiers are dead and twenty thousand or more US soldiers have
been wounded. Iraq is on the verge of a civil war. The security situation in
Iraq makes it the most dangerous place on earth not only for US troops but
also for civilians of any nationality. Do you think really think American
citizens traveling to Arab or Muslim countries are safer now than before the
invasion? It's going to take many years to undo the damage caused the by the
neocons, not to mention that a sizeable chunk of your tax dollars are going
to be paying for their mistakes for some considerable time. This should give
you something to think about next time you suffer from sticker shock after
filling up at the pumps.

In article , "mp" wrote:

Not likely. You have no idea how many people were killed under Saddam. One
thing is very likely though, that the US government is responsible for
killing far more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. And most Iraqi citizens were
better off under Saddam than they are now.

Can I have some of what you've been smoking?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article ,
says...
but lets for get all of that and say it was a big lie, nothing but political
Bull. are you saying that the liberation of a people from a muderious
dictator, was a bad thing,


No, just that it wasn't worth one American soldier.

And how many of the worlds numerous murderous dictators would you have
us overthrow next?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:06:23 -0800, lgb wrote:
In article ,
says...
but lets for get all of that and say it was a big lie, nothing but political
Bull. are you saying that the liberation of a people from a muderious
dictator, was a bad thing,


No, just that it wasn't worth one American soldier.

And how many of the worlds numerous murderous dictators would you have
us overthrow next?

Well, let's make a list of ones who are known to have used WMD, and
start there.

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:06:23 -0800, lgb wrote:

And how many of the worlds numerous murderous dictators would you have
us overthrow next?

Well, let's make a list of ones who are known to have used WMD, and
start there.

I don't know, Dave, Pol Pot seemed to do quite well without WMD :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:03:43 -0800, lgb wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:06:23 -0800, lgb wrote:

And how many of the worlds numerous murderous dictators would you have
us overthrow next?

Well, let's make a list of ones who are known to have used WMD, and
start there.

I don't know, Dave, Pol Pot seemed to do quite well without WMD :-).

True, but I didn't intend my statement to be an exclusive list, hence
the "...and start there".

Dave Hinz writes:
but lets for get all of that and say it was a big lie, nothing but
political
Bull. are you saying that the liberation of a people from a
muderious
dictator, was a bad thing,

No, just that it wasn't worth one American soldier.


And how many of the worlds numerous murderous dictators would you
have
us overthrow next?



Well, let's make a list of ones who are known to have used WMD, and
start there.

Why don't we do something a shade more reasonable: list those who are a
true, clear and present danger to the U.S., WMDs or no. Then whip their
asses, after which it might be time to start trying to change the
behavior of the rest.

On 18 Mar 2005 12:00:07 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
Dave Hinz writes:

Well, let's make a list of ones who are known to have used WMD, and
start there.

Why don't we do something a shade more reasonable: list those who are a
true, clear and present danger to the U.S., WMDs or no. Then whip their
asses, after which it might be time to start trying to change the
behavior of the rest.

Sure, that's work. Still a subset of all those whose asses need
kicking, but a good start.

This is getting scary. First I was agreeing with Larry, now with you...
I just checked my calibration with my California Aged Hippy Coworker,
and it seems not to have changed. Odd.

Charlie Self wrote:
Dave Hinz writes:
but lets for get all of that and say it was a big lie, nothing
but
political
Bull. are you saying that the liberation of a people from a
muderious
dictator, was a bad thing,

No, just that it wasn't worth one American soldier.


And how many of the worlds numerous murderous dictators would you
have
us overthrow next?



Well, let's make a list of ones who are known to have used WMD, and
start there.

Why don't we do something a shade more reasonable: list those who are
a
true, clear and present danger to the U.S., WMDs or no. Then whip
their
asses, after which it might be time to start trying to change the
behavior of the rest.

Being hard to whip pretty much goes hand-in-hand with being a true,
clear, and present danger to the US. For example, since the end of
the Korean War, the US has generally avoided even diplomatic action
against the PRC for fear it would escalate into something we didn't
want to take on. Consider that we renewed 'Most Favored Nation
Trading Status' with them, after certifying that they had an acceptable
human rights record, just after they massacred a couple of thousands
of peaceful portestors in Tiennamen Square. Though that probably
had more to do with the cheap labor they provide for American
companies to exploit than concern for reprisals.

Iraq was one of many troubled places in the world that needed to
be cleaned up. A courageous leader would use the facts to try
to convince his people to make the sacrifices needed to clean them
up. Or maybe he would decide that the time was not right. A
pucilinious wimp would simply lie to get what he wanted.

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:

Being hard to whip pretty much goes hand-in-hand with being a true,
clear, and present danger to the US. For example, since the end of
the Korean War, the US has generally avoided even diplomatic action
against the PRC for fear it would escalate into something we didn't
want to take on. Consider that we renewed 'Most Favored Nation
Trading Status' with them, after certifying that they had an acceptable
human rights record, just after they massacred a couple of thousands
of peaceful portestors in Tiennamen Square. Though that probably
had more to do with the cheap labor they provide for American
companies to exploit than concern for reprisals.

I imagine it had a lot more to do with their contributions to Clinton's
election campaign fund...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Charlie Self wrote:

Richard Clements responds:
worst case, the president lied and the world is a better place, I can
live
with that

You can. To date, more than 1500 young Americans don't live with it,
and something over 12,000 have been maimed or otherwise wounded.

Can you live with that, when what is happening in the involved country
is none of our ****ing business?

lets ask the people who are there and experiencing it first have I have 6
friends that were there, and a few more that are diploid and can't say
where they are and they have nothing but good things to say about what's
going on over there, ya it sucks to be away from home but they agree with
what's going on, and about how wrong the coverage in the media is, I'll
take there word for what's going on

Richard Clements wrote:
I have 6
friends that were there, and a few more that are diploid

Given your level of discourse, I can't really take you at your word.

You have friends with doubled chromosome levels?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Being hard to whip pretty much goes hand-in-hand with being a true,
clear, and present danger to the US. For example, since the end of
the Korean War, the US has generally avoided even diplomatic action
against the PRC for fear it would escalate into something we didn't
want to take on. Consider that we renewed 'Most Favored Nation
Trading Status' with them, after certifying that they had an
acceptable
human rights record, just after they massacred a couple of thousands
of peaceful portestors in Tiennamen Square. Though that probably
had more to do with the cheap labor they provide for American
companies to exploit than concern for reprisals.

I imagine it had a lot more to do with their contributions to
Clinton's
election campaign fund...


What? You REALLY think Bush vetoed economic sanctions against China
because they contributed to his opponent?

America's China policies over the last 40 years have been consitent
and without regard to which party was in the WH.

--

FF

Not likely. You have no idea how many people were killed under Saddam. One
thing is very likely though, that the US government is responsible for
killing far more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. And most Iraqi citizens
were
better off under Saddam than they are now.

Can I have some of what you've been smoking?

Not smoking, drinking. You can have all you want. It's called truth serum.

In article , "mp" wrote:
Not likely. You have no idea how many people were killed under Saddam. One
thing is very likely though, that the US government is responsible for
killing far more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. And most Iraqi citizens
were
better off under Saddam than they are now.

Can I have some of what you've been smoking?

Not smoking, drinking. You can have all you want. It's called truth serum.

Fine - substantiate those claims, then. Especially the one about the US
government supposedly killing more Iraqis than Saddam. If you really believe
that, you're delusional, and you should seek help from a qualified mental
health professional. [Tip for you in that regard: you won't have to wait
nearly as long for an appointment if you phone a clinic in the US.]

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Charlie Self wrote:

Richard Clements wrote:
I have 6
friends that were there, and a few more that are diploid

Given your level of discourse, I can't really take you at your word.

You have friends with doubled chromosome levels?

belive me or not, I don't care, that's what I based part of my conclusion on

Richard Clements states:

You have friends with doubled chromosome levels?



belive me or not, I don't care, that's what I based part of my
conclusion on

Yeah, well, I suggest you look up "diploid" in a dictionary, if you
have one.

well yes I didn't spell it right, sorry, so when you run out of arguments
you start complaining about my spelling, funny that.
this is boring me, your entitled to think anything you want, even if it's
wrong, that's what great about living here, and what we would like to let
other people do, ah the joy of freedom


Charlie Self wrote:

Richard Clements states:

You have friends with doubled chromosome levels?



belive me or not, I don't care, that's what I based part of my
conclusion on

Yeah, well, I suggest you look up "diploid" in a dictionary, if you
have one.

Richard Clements blathers:
well yes I didn't spell it right, sorry, so when you run out of
arguments
you start complaining about my spelling, funny that.
this is boring me, your entitled to think anything you want, even if
it's
wrong, that's what great about living here, and what we would like to
let
other people do, ah the joy of freedom

Let 'em enjoy it. After they make the effort to get it. Or are you
enlisting in the military to go help out?

Criticizing your spelling is a simple job. You do not even use the
correct words to describe what you think, so it's up to the reader to
translate. You're a malapropist, with the concurrent inability to think
straight that goes along with that problem.

I'm a medically disqualified, or I would be, I have 2 plates 7 screws in my
right ankle. I have one brother who i still in the service (air force) and
3 that are out (2 army, one navy) and a fair number of friends in the
service, or former service members. you have your opinion and that's fine,
and by all means don't let the facts interrupt it but I digress. make
sawdust, have fun, and be well I have better things to do

Charlie Self wrote:

Richard Clements blathers:
well yes I didn't spell it right, sorry, so when you run out of
arguments
you start complaining about my spelling, funny that.
this is boring me, your entitled to think anything you want, even if
it's
wrong, that's what great about living here, and what we would like to
let
other people do, ah the joy of freedom

Let 'em enjoy it. After they make the effort to get it. Or are you
enlisting in the military to go help out?

Criticizing your spelling is a simple job. You do not even use the
correct words to describe what you think, so it's up to the reader to
translate. You're a malapropist, with the concurrent inability to think
straight that goes along with that problem.

Richard Clements blares:

.I'm a medically disqualified, or I would be, I have 2 plates 7 screws
in my
right ankle. I have one brother who i still in the service (air force)
and
3 that are out (2 army, one navy) and a fair number of friends in the
service, or former service members. you have your opinion and that's
fine,
and by all means don't let the facts interrupt it but I digress. make
sawdust, have fun, and be well I have better things to do

What facts have you presented?

Incidentally, I believe I saw a news item the other day about a soldier
who had a foot blown off in Iraq who is going back--as an active duty
soldier.

It's funny about friends. I'm a former Marine, with many friends in the
same situation, and most of my friends are also veterans. Most of them
think this war is not the best idea our government has ever come up
with. We're doing something that didn't need to be done by us, for
people who mostly don't appreciate it, in a manner that is depleting
natural resources in this country (young service people), and using up
other national treasure as well.

I'm really curious what Bush supporters who believe in his "mission" to
turn the world into democracies think we'll be able to afford as we go
along. There's no end in sight in Iraq, with some so-called
administration experts now saying we're going to be there for a decade
or more. There is no indication that the "saving" of Iraq, and its
rebuilding, will ever be financed by Iraqi oil, as was the original
intent. So the U.S. is going to spend 750 soldiers lives and 50 to 100
billion bucks each year for the next decade, while thinking seriously
about continuing the process in other countries with nasty-assed
dictators?

Please. Tell me what FACTS you've got!

Richard Clements wrote:
...



if you read my first post to this thread it was a comparative of
Iraqi
Freedom and WWII, another similarity is the guy who got his foot
blown off,
just so you know He made the request to go back, that hasn't happened
since
WWII either.

I read it and the comparison is still rediculous. The US enterred
the war in Europe after the Axis powers had occupied or otherwise
subjugated most of Western Europe. The US invaded Iraq after Iraq
had failed in two expansion attempts and after the Iraqi military
had been reduced to near complete impotency.


as far as Bush supporters wanting to take out Sadam, I wish Clinton
would
have had the ball to do that, but they where a little preoccupied at
the
time, and to try to cover it up he blows up a baby food factory.

As you know, and therefor chose to omit, a much larger simultaneous
attack was made on bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. As you
also know, the Republicans in Congress were vehemently opposed to
those attacks, though some especially dishonest revisionist have
tried to advance the abusrd claim that the Republicans were being
critical because Clinton didn't follow-up with ground forces.
Plenty of blame to go around.

and as
far as no end in site, we are all ready pulling troops out bit by
bit, and
we are much further along then we where a few years after the capture
of
Germany and Japan. and that's the point I was making

Comparing the capture of Germany and Japan, two nations with a combined
population nearly equal to the US at the time, to the occupation of
Iraq is just as absurd now as it was befor.

Vietnam is a much better comparison. After Tet in 1968 the Viet
Cong were never able to mount a sustained offensive. After that
we were able to reduce US troop strength in Viet Nam. But the
communists never stopped fighting until we left and they won.

The Iraqi insurgents will never stop fighting until we leave and
it would appear the the bulk of the Iraqis, other than the Kurdish
Peshmerga, are reluctant to fight their fellow Iraqis. I don't
blame them either. If the US were occupied by a foreign power
(another rediculous analogy, I agree) I would not fight against
the American insurgents even if the occupying power had deposed
an evil dictator.

No tiny nation like Iraq can conduct an effective defense against
the US. But no miltary can put down an insurgency without
overwhelming support from the indigenous population.

--

FF

OK the republicans where against Clinton "waging the dog", and could be
compared to throwing rocks at a hornets nest, sure you kill a few hornets
but really all you do is **** them off.

as far as a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, there is very little
comparison to how the war is run and rules involved and how the local
population is reacting, the Tet offense was an overwhelming US victory, but
was pushed as a Viet Con victory by the media, and the administration
played politics and took the war out of the hands of the military and when
congress is deciding how and where to fight, yes your going to loose. here
where it becomes VERY different there isn't nearly as many insurgency
fighters in Iraq, the largest attack since the Iraqi Election had 26
insurgents, if we stop fighting, they will win, but unlike Vietnam, we
aren't playing politics with how the war is run, the troops aren't being
pulled out because of political pressure, the being pulled out because
there are Iraqi troops to replace them

wrote:


Richard Clements wrote:
...



if you read my first post to this thread it was a comparative of
Iraqi
Freedom and WWII, another similarity is the guy who got his foot
blown off,
just so you know He made the request to go back, that hasn't happened
since
WWII either.

I read it and the comparison is still rediculous. The US enterred
the war in Europe after the Axis powers had occupied or otherwise
subjugated most of Western Europe. The US invaded Iraq after Iraq
had failed in two expansion attempts and after the Iraqi military
had been reduced to near complete impotency.


as far as Bush supporters wanting to take out Sadam, I wish Clinton
would
have had the ball to do that, but they where a little preoccupied at
the
time, and to try to cover it up he blows up a baby food factory.

As you know, and therefor chose to omit, a much larger simultaneous
attack was made on bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. As you
also know, the Republicans in Congress were vehemently opposed to
those attacks, though some especially dishonest revisionist have
tried to advance the abusrd claim that the Republicans were being
critical because Clinton didn't follow-up with ground forces.
Plenty of blame to go around.

and as
far as no end in site, we are all ready pulling troops out bit by
bit, and
we are much further along then we where a few years after the capture
of
Germany and Japan. and that's the point I was making

Comparing the capture of Germany and Japan, two nations with a combined
population nearly equal to the US at the time, to the occupation of
Iraq is just as absurd now as it was befor.

Vietnam is a much better comparison. After Tet in 1968 the Viet
Cong were never able to mount a sustained offensive. After that
we were able to reduce US troop strength in Viet Nam. But the
communists never stopped fighting until we left and they won.

The Iraqi insurgents will never stop fighting until we leave and
it would appear the the bulk of the Iraqis, other than the Kurdish
Peshmerga, are reluctant to fight their fellow Iraqis. I don't
blame them either. If the US were occupied by a foreign power
(another rediculous analogy, I agree) I would not fight against
the American insurgents even if the occupying power had deposed
an evil dictator.

No tiny nation like Iraq can conduct an effective defense against
the US. But no miltary can put down an insurgency without
overwhelming support from the indigenous population.

Fine - substantiate those claims, then. Especially the one about the US
government supposedly killing more Iraqis than Saddam. If you really
believe
that, you're delusional, and you should seek help from a qualified mental
health professional. [Tip for you in that regard: you won't have to wait
nearly as long for an appointment if you phone a clinic in the US.]

The combined results of both wars and the sanctions could easily be
responsible for over 1 million casualties, and according to Unicef half of
these are children under 5.

Richard Clements wrote:
...

as far as a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, there is very little
comparison ...

wrote:


Richard Clements wrote:
...



if you read my first post to this thread it was a comparative of
Iraqi
Freedom and WWII,

....
I read it and the comparison is still rediculous.
....


Comparing the capture of Germany and Japan, two nations with a
combined
population nearly equal to the US at the time, to the occupation of
Iraq is just as absurd now as it was befor.

Vietnam is a much better comparison.



Oh, I agree that there is little comparison betwen Vietnam and Iraq.

But still. Vietnam is a much better analog to Iraq than WWII.

--

FF

*Larry* wrote:

In addition, Putin is now selling weapons grade uranium to Iran.
...

I don't think so, can you point me to a reliable source? Given how
easy it is to make an atomic bomb with U-235 I would think that
if Putin sells 20 kilos of weapons grade Uranium to Iran then
Iran will immediately have an atomic bomb.

I'm pretty sure that selling weapons grade Uranium would be a very
serious violation of the NPT.

--

FF

In article , "mp" wrote:
Fine - substantiate those claims, then. Especially the one about the US
government supposedly killing more Iraqis than Saddam. If you really
believe
that, you're delusional, and you should seek help from a qualified mental
health professional. [Tip for you in that regard: you won't have to wait
nearly as long for an appointment if you phone a clinic in the US.]

The combined results of both wars and the sanctions could easily be
responsible for over 1 million casualties, and according to Unicef half of
these are children under 5.

As usual, when challenged to substantiate your ridiculous claims, you start to
change the subject. I'm still waiting for substantiation.

And... to blame the United States for Iraqi deaths that occurred during, and
as a result of, the war that *Saddam* started by invading Kuwait in 1991 is,
well, delusional.

Thanks for playing.




--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

And my dad can beat up both of your dads.

Can you two take this ****ing contest off-wreck?

In article nLJ0e.19564$I16.13281@trndny03, "Tim and Steph" wrote:
And my dad can beat up both of your dads.

Can you two take this ****ing contest off-wreck?

It's easy enough to filter out if you don't want to see it. See the "OT" at
the beginning of the subject line?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:17:02 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


It's easy enough to filter out if you don't want to see it. See the "OT" at
the beginning of the subject line?

I just took a crap in the middle of your dining room...

....but I did put a sign up saying, "I'm taking a crap in the middle of
your dining room - have a nice day".


Thomas J. Watson - WoodDorker

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 (webpage)

In article , Tom Watson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:17:02 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


It's easy enough to filter out if you don't want to see it. See the "OT" at
the beginning of the subject line?

I just took a crap in the middle of your dining room...

....but I did put a sign up saying, "I'm taking a crap in the middle of
your dining room - have a nice day".

So you haven't figured out how to use filters and killfiles either? It's not
the same situation, Tom, and you know it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article nLJ0e.19564$I16.13281@trndny03, "Tim and Steph"
wrote:
And my dad can beat up both of your dads.

Can you two take this ****ing contest off-wreck?

It's easy enough to filter out if you don't want to see it. See the "OT"
at
the beginning of the subject line?

Indeed. I can read. Arguing on the internet is a lot like running in the
special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded. Neither of you
are going to change each other's minds, so what's the point? It's just a
lot of hot air being blown.