| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#241
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Feb 2005 11:13:00 -0800, wrote:
Followed up in alt.politics. That's nice. |
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:19:34 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote: That pretty much describes my position as well. Thanks, Nate. I'm afraid Bush is now working up to an excuse for invading Iran and Syria. Our President is on a Crusade. His first agenda, to invade Afghan, than Iraq and Syria next, Iran after that North Korea. Who else did I miss? We are the riches also the most powerful nation on earth, with God guidance and "Gut feeling" Bush will succeed, or will he? We should ask, are we really better off before Bush took office in 2001? The US dollar continues to falls and more than 80% of the rest of the World looks at us with negative feeling. Our debts continue to climb with imports mounting and exports falling. Bush continues to spins that our Social Security will go bankrupt and so forth. Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? |
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:11:32 GMT, Ned wrote:
On 17 Feb 2005 19:15:08 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on 9/11/01. I'm just speechless. Well, _that_ would certainly be an improvement. You can even predict if, Gore had been the President? If your sentence fragment means what I think it means, then yes, I think Gore would have performed badly that day. Hallelujah, God is Great! Here we have an example of "I disagree with person, therefore person must obviously hold a specific believe that I also disagree with". |
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 17 Feb 2005 19:15:08 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on 9/11/01. I'm just speechless. You can even predict if, Gore had been the President? Hallelujah, God is Great! |
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
... You are free to "believe" what you want - many people believe all manner of nonsense. But - and I am *not* a Bush fan by any means - let's inspect Reality for a moment and see how your beliefs stack up against what we observe: Well put thread. Of course it will fall on deaf ears, but nice try anyway! dwhite |
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
If your sentence fragment means what I think it means, then yes,
I think Gore would have performed badly that day. Really. On that day, how could anyone have performed worse than Bush? Do you think Gore or any other sane person would have stood around and listened to goat stories while New York burned? |
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Smith wrote in
: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:42:19 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote: "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in news:1117j2927qgc938 : That's a skewed perspective. A timeline was given after 10 years of Saddam's nonsense, including his removal of power. Dragging it out until UN inspectors were satisfied wouldn't make much sense since a decade had already gone by and an Army can't be held at bay indefinitely and there was a weather factor to deal with. I would agree that the UN member nations could have solved the problem but they had their own interests at heart. Unfortunately much of what you call "nonsense" consists of us accusing Saddam of having things he didn't have, and then us demanding that the Iraqis prove a negative. Not true. We knew Saddam had WMD's. What we didn't know is "when did he get rid of them". We will find his WMD's when we invade Syria. Read the reports. What he had was destroyed by the UN inspectors after the first Gulf War. Do you really believe Saddam put WMDs in Syria, or are you just looking for an excuse to invade another Middle Eastern country? How many more do you think we can afford at a few hundred billion a shot? You do know that numerous 18 wheelers were sent to Syria during our 14 months of negotiating wiht Saddam before the invasion, right? You'll have to show evidence that WMDs were moved to Syria. It's a pretty good conspiracy theory, though. It finally came down to the fact that we went to war because we damned well wanted to go to war. And we were intent to do the tough talk, and ratchet up the confrontation until we got our war. Not even close. Saddam told the world he would not agree to the terms of surrender he signed in 1991. For 14 months the US attempted to get him to comply. For 14 months the US told Saddam to come clean and disclose his WMDs. He said he didn't have them. We didn't believe him. We invaded. Turns out he didn't have any. Not everybody agreed. Our own allies disagreed. The UN wouldn't pass a second resolution. France opposed the resolution, so Bush withdrew it. According to UN 1441, it wasn't needed anyway. I'll assume you wish to defend France's actions. The US withdrew the resolution because there was wide opposition to it and it was clear it would not pass. France has been a steady longtime ally of the US, and we would be thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars ahead if we had moved more cautiously, as many of our allies were counseling. Here's a good timeline: http://www.news10.net/news-special/w...q-timeline.htm There were millions of protesters around the world taking to the streets. It didn't matter, Bush had it in his head that he was going to push his New American Century. Millions? Is that the same as the million mom march? {200,000 = 1 million, according to liberals} Whatever. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Now we've got our war, and the question is whether or not it is going as we expected. No war has ever gone "as expected". That is NOT the question. Sounds like a Rummy quote. Don't blame us, war is hard to predict. Who can know how it will go? Gee, and I thought it was their job to plan, predict, and adjust strategy. I guess that _is_ asking a lot. It's all fine to spout the prose about spreading freedom and democracy, but there also needs to be substance behind the rhetoric. Is anyone learning from the mistakes, or adapting the plan? Well, there are a lot of democrats that seem unhappy about the spread of freedom in Iraq. Ridiculous. We just get disgusted at the people who believe all the sunshine that's being blown, and never question what they are told. And the "plan" is being modified on a daily basis, depending on the situation. That is standard procedure in any war or mop-up operation. Really? I see little evidence of any flexibility or questioning of the plan. Seems to me they are all intent on painting a rosy picture and "staying the course." |
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote in news:37k1niF5e7r24U3
@individual.net: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:25:51 GMT, Mike Smith wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:42:19 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote: Unfortunately much of what you call "nonsense" consists of us accusing Saddam of having things he didn't have, and then us demanding that the Iraqis prove a negative. Not true. We knew Saddam had WMD's. What we didn't know is "when did he get rid of them". We will find his WMD's when we invade Syria. _IF_ he got rid of them. A dozen years is a long time, and Iraq is a very large place. Yeah, and Elvis is still alive, too. |
|
#250
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in :
Followed up in alt.politics. I may quite posting these notices any time now. You know where to look for my replies. Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you can understand that the UN had mandated that Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point. Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly that, shortly after the first Gulf War. And so your point would be? |
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote in news:37k8psF5gscjvU8
@individual.net: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:02:11 GMT, Ned wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:19:34 -0800, Larry Blanchard wrote: That pretty much describes my position as well. Thanks, Nate. I'm afraid Bush is now working up to an excuse for invading Iran and Syria. Our President is on a Crusade. His first agenda, to invade Afghan, Do you think that, after 9/11, he should have not have invaded Afghanistan? Retaliating against an attack on our country, and eliminating the government that provided sanctuary for our attackers is one thing. Going off on a preemptive war based on "bad intelligence" against a country that was not involved in the attack is a totally separate thing. We should ask, are we really better off before Bush took office in 2001? I am. By any measurable statistic, most people in the US are not. The US dollar continues to falls and more than 80% of the rest of the World looks at us with negative feeling. Eh... (a) so what, (b) us as individuals, or our government, and (c) see (a). You seem to be convinced that neither the stability of our currency nor the respect of our country in the world is important. Most people would probably disagree with you on one or both counts. Our debts continue to climb with imports mounting and exports falling. Do you ever buy foreign goods, Ned? What's your point? Bush continues to spins that our Social Security will go bankrupt and so forth. Anyone who doesn't think there is a social security problem is delusional. Whoever takes the problem on is going to be in for a ****-storm; the Dems just prefer to let someone else do what has to be done. Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid things and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers. We have lots of problems, of which social security is neither the most severe or the most pressing. |
|
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
: Nate Perkins wrote: SNIP The invasion of Iraq was an optional war, against a country that was effectively contained, True. had no WMDs False. They had already used them on the Kurds. The presence and actual use of WMDs in recent Iraqi history made this country far more than some theoretical threat. The fact that they did not have *additional* WMDs doesn't make our move to war less legitimate. We had no way of knowning this - despite the expectation of the Drooling Left that the CIA be perfect, and the posturing of the Moron Right that the CIA *is* perfect. We had to operate on reasonable assumptions drawn from Iraq's actual history since they would not give the UN unrestricted inspection access. Obviously I meant that he had no WMDs at the time of the invasion. That's why none were found. That's why Bush's own inspectors concluded there were none. Of course he had them 20 years earlier. At the time Saddam was using chemical weapons, we were rooting for him in his war with Iran. was nominally cooperating with inspections. "Nominally", yes. In actual fact, not really. A US invasion could have been averted at any time up to the moment of the actual commencement of hostilities had Sadaam made real inspections (unfettered, unmonitored, without threat to the Iraqi participants) happen. He did not, he got tossed out of power. At the end, under pressure of force, the inspectors were going anywhere they wanted within 10 minutes notice. Palaces, military installations, government offices. Yeah, he wasn't eager about having that done. Who would be? Saddam's secular dictatorship was antithetical to Islamic fundamentalism, Tsk, tsk. How very non-PC of you to lump all Islamic fundamentalists into a single group. There are devout (aka fundamentalist) Islamists who do not advocate terror, murder, oppression, and so forth. You are right. I should have been more precise. and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists were not operating significantly in Iraq until we toppled Saddam's regime. False. There is some incidental evidence that Iraqi intelligence was in league with some of the terror operators. At least one well known hijacking terrorist lived and operated freely in Baghdad. Sadaam funded Islamic Palestinian terrorists. No one (with any clue) ever thought Iraq was a direct threat to the West. The concern was that he would make common cause with people who *were* direct threats to the West by funding and/or arming them. This was a legitimate fear given Sadaam's brutal history. Links between Saddam and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are weak at best. Saddam was a brutal secular dictator, and as a secularist he was a prime target for the Wahhabist radicals. He knew it and he kept them under his thumb. If you really want to look at places with links to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, look at our good friends in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Those of us in the opposition are not saying the US shouldn't defend itself. Sure you are. You're only willing to have the US defend itself *sometimes* and then only *after* its been attacked. By analogy, if we were in a bar fight, and the guy at the end of the bar paid me to poke you in the nose, your argument, roughly would be: 1) You can't hit the guy at the end of the bar because he did nothing directly to you and 2) You can't hit me until I actually poke you in the nose. i.e., You cannot interdict while my arm is in motion swinging at you. Nonsense. You guys go off and engineer an ill-advised war with a country that had no WMDs and no links to 9/11, and then when somebody points out that maybe that was a stupid thing to do you all cry "Oh, the Liberals don't want to let the US defend itself!" much as you do. The difference is that we believe that our recent actions are ill-conceived and that they weaken the US in the long run. You are free to "believe" what you want - many people believe all manner of nonsense. But - and I am *not* a Bush fan by any means - let's inspect Reality for a moment and see how your beliefs stack up against what we observe: There have been free elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine for the first time ever (or at least in many years). It is rather doubtful this would have happened without the US projecting force in these regions, directly or otherwise. I agree with respect to Afghanistan. I don't agree with respect to Palestine; I think you want to take credit where none is due. With respect to Iraq, I hope you are right that it ends up being a free democracy. And I hope I am wrong when I fear that it ends up either in civil war or under a Shiite fundamentalist government (a la Iran). The world's 5th largest standing army (iirc), lead by a murderous dictator, was neutralized, and further (potential) deployment of WMDs was halted. There was no active WMD program. And you exaggerate the strength of his army -- all of which had weapons that were 15 years out of date, had no spares, and was 1/3 the size it had been during Gulf War I. Said brutal dictator is now in irons. Other villians in the neighborhood are getting nervous. This was the *real* reason to go to Iraq. Bush wants to bring the Middle East peace and Jesus. But what is mostly needed there, is a deep-seated fear of ****ing off the US. It worked in Libya - go research the conversation between Kaddaffi and Burlusconi in the early days of this war - it is instructive reading. Syria, Iran, North Korea, and all the rest of the tin pot dictator states need to develop a healthy fear of what happens when you threaten Uncle Sam. This is the one and only thing Bush has managed to get right, despite himself... Yeah, everyone is getting nervous. A bunch of us here in the US are getting nervous, too. And when you claim that Bush wants to "bring the Middle East peace and Jesus" it makes me even more nervous. Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as quickly as possible. |
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nate Perkins wrote:
SNIP Nonsense. You guys go off and engineer an ill-advised war with a There's no "you guys" about it - I am not a Republican. I just don't want to get vaporized by flaming JP-6 because *you guys* want to wait until the flames are rising to declare that perhaps, just maybe, we ought to do something. I favor prevention, not after-the-fact responses. Even hardcore ideological Libs like Christopher Hitchins agree with this - that's why he very huffily departed the Left after the 9/11 murders. country that had no WMDs and no links to 9/11, and then when somebody We had NO way to know they did not have WMDs ... unless you are joining the Leftie keening that Bush knew there were none, lied about it, and invaded anyway. You cannot have it both ways: Either we did not know and had to act like there were WMDs, or we did know and Bush lied. In the former case, we did the right thing. The latter, I'd just like to see proof - if you provide proof, I'll be first in line to demand impeachment. points out that maybe that was a stupid thing to do you all cry "Oh, the Liberals don't want to let the US defend itself!" What was stupid about it was believing there would ever be peace in the region in some simple/short period of time. We never actually needed boots on the ground there to neutralize the threat. We could just have bombed, day in and day out, and kept the country in a permanent state of rubble until Sadaam turned himself in. Our boots on the ground are because of this incomprehnsible need we Americans (of all stripes) have to try and do the right thing and bring some measure if liberty to the people of the region while we're at it. Stupid us. I, for one, would prefer to see a policy of strategic bombing (military and government targets) if we need to do more of this. A couple of targets per day for a year or so would keep people out of their government jobs in, say, Syria and Iran, and let them know we tired of their nonsense without ever putting an American shoe in that sand... But I'm pretty non-PC myself. Keep em scrambling for cover and see how much time or energy they have for exporting terror. Plus, its good practice for our pilots... I agree with respect to Afghanistan. I don't agree with respect to Palestine; I think you want to take credit where none is due. Really? Do you seriously think the post-Yassar regime' would be negotiating were it not for US pressure. What the Arab world seems not to get is that we have our hand on Israel's collar a good deal of the time. If we had exited the arena years ago (which all the Darlings of the Left keep advocating in subtle ways) they'd be speaking Hebrew from Teheran to Tripoli. Come to think of it, that's not such a bad plan. We get out and let the Israelis clean up the mess their way ... which is rather effective. With respect to Iraq, I hope you are right that it ends up being a free democracy. And I hope I am wrong when I fear that it ends up either in civil war or under a Shiite fundamentalist government (a la Iran). The world's 5th largest standing army (iirc), lead by a murderous dictator, was neutralized, and further (potential) deployment of WMDs was halted. There was no active WMD program. And you exaggerate the strength of his army -- all of which had weapons that were 15 years out of date, had no spares, and was 1/3 the size it had been during Gulf War I. OK - so it was the 8th or 9th or Whatever-Makes-You-Happy largest army in the world. Nitpicking at minor details doesn't change the larger point - we neutralized one of the top N military threats in the world. Said brutal dictator is now in irons. Other villians in the neighborhood are getting nervous. This was the *real* reason to go to Iraq. Bush wants to bring the Middle East peace and Jesus. But what is mostly needed there, is a deep-seated fear of ****ing off the US. It worked in Libya - go research the conversation between Kaddaffi and Burlusconi in the early days of this war - it is instructive reading. Syria, Iran, North Korea, and all the rest of the tin pot dictator states need to develop a healthy fear of what happens when you threaten Uncle Sam. This is the one and only thing Bush has managed to get right, despite himself... Yeah, everyone is getting nervous. A bunch of us here in the US are getting nervous, too. And when you claim that Bush wants to "bring the And most of you have never lived anywhere else and seen real oppression. I have - well, I've seen the results of the oppression after the fact. Americans - I am proudly one of you now - especially those born and raised here, are immensely naive' about how most of the rest of the world actually works. The political Right in this country is silly, and sometimes stupid, but the Left is flatly dangerous. It embraces the secular version of "Jesus and peace" and hopes if you sing enough choruses of Kumbaya, everyone will just get along. Peace comes (eventually) from winning armed conflict, not from negotiation or listening to Babs Streisand (or Alec Baldwin, or ....) englightening the world with the oh-so-learned observations on geopolitics. Middle East peace and Jesus" it makes me even more nervous. This is the disease of the neo-cons. They have some weird religious version of Manifest Destiny running around in their heads. The good thing is that their deep religiosity makes it natural for them to be able to spot and name Evil - something the Libs largely don't even believe exists. At the heart of the Leftie soul is this deeply held belief that people are good and that circumstances make them bad. It is the inverse of the religious doctrine of Original Sin. This cripples the Left when it comes time to try and name something as Bad, Evil, or Wrong. Look at the walking rectal passage at CU and his utterances about 9/11 for a pungent example. Yes, he's an extreme example, but his views differ (mostly) only in degree not kind from the "mainstream" Left. I used to despise the Left and Right equally - they both want to screw people out of their lives, money, and freedom to apply it to their pet causes. But the events of the past 4 years have demonstrated that the Left is considerably worse and more dangerous. In addition to wanting to "screw people out of ..." they also wish to impose their secular version of Right and Wrong which is essentially a denial that the latter innately exists. Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as quickly as possible. And that, of course, was not happening under previous administrations right? You need to go rent a clue on the difference between correlation and causality. Korea, Iran, and the rest are doing what they do *because they are totalitarian states* - they have always done some version of this stuff and they can only be permitted to go so far before they get swatted. As I said, my preference is continuous bombing of key targets until they implode ... but, That's Not Very Nice (tm) ... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article 1, Nate Perkins wrote:
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in : Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you can understand that the UN had mandated that Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point. Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly that, shortly after the first Gulf War. Ummm, no, they didn't, and, no, he didn't. What part of "under UN supervision" do you not understand? Saddam may have destroyed those weapons, but the UN mandated that they be destroyed under UN supervision so that it could be *verified* that they were destroyed. That did *not* happen. -- 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? |
|
#255
|
|||
|
|||
|
"mp" If your sentence fragment means what I think it means, then yes, I think Gore would have performed badly that day. Really. On that day, how could anyone have performed worse than Bush? Do you think Gore or any other sane person would have stood around and listened to goat stories while New York burned? And he should have rushed out and peed on the towers to put the flames out right? Kerry said they sat around stunned for 45 minutes. I think it was a normal reaction, not much could have been done after the fact but your criticism is typical of the left. Keep it up, I like the results. |
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:51:05 -0800, Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article , says... Anyone who doesn't think there is a social security problem is delusional. Whoever takes the problem on is going to be in for a ****-storm; the Dems just prefer to let someone else do what has to be done. Now THAT's the Dave I love to disagree with :-). Oh good. The normal order of things has been restored. Yes, SS has a problem. No, SS is NOT in a crisis, as Bush would have us believe. But, that's word games. The sooner something gets done to get it steered in the right direction (or at least, less in the _wrong_ direction), the less that steering will hurt. Deciding if the word "problem" or "crisis" is more accurate, is just a pointless waste of effort. I think everyone agrees that it's headed in the wrong direction. 1. His estimates are based on a peeimistic forecast of grwoth at half the rate it has averaged for 50 years or so. I'd prefer the word "conservative" rather than "pessimistic", but OK. If things turn out better than predicted, then so much the better. 2. Private accounts will do nothing to solve the problem - Bush glosses over the fact that his solution requires reducing benefits. That would work without the private accounts. Yes, but I'd prefer to self-direct _some_ of my own investment. (I honestly don't think I'll ever see any of it, so anything non-zero is a plus, but that's beside the point.) 4. The "crisis", if any, is more properly called a "bubble". By the time it occurs, the baby boomers will start dying off and the ration of retirees to workers will improve again - although how much is anyones bet. Shouldn't that be simple to calculate? We've got birth rate data up to and including 2004, after all. Why is it "anyone's bet"? Death rates on a population the size of the US should be pretty calculable as well? 5. Removing the limit on SS taxable earnings and slightly increasing the rate at which retimement age is slated to rise would, if not eliminate any fund shortage, at least push it considerably further into the future. That's another approach, yes. Something in the right direction needs to be done, and at least Bush has the balls to start things moving in the right direction. No matter who touches it, they're gonna get burned. A lame-duck President is the ideal person to do that; it's gonna **** off peole no matter what or who does whatever needs to get done. And it seems nobody knows (or will say) what'll happen to the employers share of the taxes employees take out for the private accounts. Wanna' bet the companies would get to keep them? I don't see your point here, sorry. |
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:20:37 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in news:37k8psF5gscjvU8 @individual.net: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:02:11 GMT, Ned wrote: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:19:34 -0800, Larry Blanchard wrote: That pretty much describes my position as well. Thanks, Nate. I'm afraid Bush is now working up to an excuse for invading Iran and Syria. Our President is on a Crusade. His first agenda, to invade Afghan, Do you think that, after 9/11, he should have not have invaded Afghanistan? Retaliating against an attack on our country, and eliminating the government that provided sanctuary for our attackers is one thing. So, you agree with that war. Would you have agreed with going to war there a year earlier, based on intelligence, or would you be doing the same thing you're doing about Iraq now? Going off on a preemptive war based on "bad intelligence" against a country that was not involved in the attack is a totally separate thing. See above. Best available intel said he was being a problem. Maybe he was - we gave him more than a decade to hide the stuff, y'know? We should ask, are we really better off before Bush took office in 2001? I am. By any measurable statistic, most people in the US are not. If you say so. Sounds like a judgement call in any case. But, the real question should be "Are you better off with Bush in office than you would have been with Gore in office?" - equally unanswerable of course, but I've got my feelings on that matter. The US dollar continues to falls and more than 80% of the rest of the World looks at us with negative feeling. Eh... (a) so what, (b) us as individuals, or our government, and (c) see (a). You seem to be convinced that neither the stability of our currency nor the respect of our country in the world is important. Most people would probably disagree with you on one or both counts. I'm not convinced that our currency's value has anything to do with us being disliked by the man in the street somewhere. Our debts continue to climb with imports mounting and exports falling. Do you ever buy foreign goods, Ned? What's your point? My point is, if our imports are increasing, then one should look no further than the shelves of the local wal-mart where they shop, buying imported goods. If people didn't buy it, it wouldn't be imported. Bush continues to spins that our Social Security will go bankrupt and so forth. Anyone who doesn't think there is a social security problem is delusional. Whoever takes the problem on is going to be in for a ****-storm; the Dems just prefer to let someone else do what has to be done. Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid things and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers. Where did I say that above? I'm glad he's got the balls to start working on something that _nobody_ has wanted to deal with for decades. We have lots of problems, of which social security is neither the most severe or the most pressing. And the sooner someone starts working on SS, the less difficult and painless it will be to get it going in a positive direction. Wait until it's too late, and there _will_ be a crisis. Oh damn, Bush is once again doing something before the **** hits the fan. Damn that Bush! He's doing something pre-emptive. What the hell is he thinking? Sheesh. You bitch when the guy does something before it blows up, you bitch when the guy _doesn'_ do something before it blows up. There's a pattern here. |
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message But, that's word games. The sooner something gets done to get it steered in the right direction (or at least, less in the _wrong_ direction), the less that steering will hurt. Deciding if the word "problem" or "crisis" is more accurate, is just a pointless waste of effort. I think everyone agrees that it's headed in the wrong direction. Move down here, run for office and I'd vote for you in a heartbeat ... I like your style! -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 11/06/04 |
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:41:24 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in : Nate Perkins wrote: SNIP The invasion of Iraq was an optional war, against a country that was effectively contained, True. had no WMDs False. They had already used them on the Kurds. The presence and actual use of WMDs in recent Iraqi history made this country far more than some theoretical threat. The fact that they did not have *additional* WMDs doesn't make our move to war less legitimate. We had no way of knowning this - despite the expectation of the Drooling Left that the CIA be perfect, and the posturing of the Moron Right that the CIA *is* perfect. We had to operate on reasonable assumptions drawn from Iraq's actual history since they would not give the UN unrestricted inspection access. Obviously I meant that he had no WMDs at the time of the invasion. That's why none were found. That's why Bush's own inspectors concluded there were none. "Can't find 'em" doesn't mean "aren't here" or even "weren't here", Nate. Of course he had them 20 years earlier. At the time Saddam was using chemical weapons, we were rooting for him in his war with Iran. What about the Sarin shell that injured our guys, Nate? Don't they count? Did it not exist? Couple liters of Sarin, what, that's not enough M to be a W of MD? "Nominally", yes. In actual fact, not really. A US invasion could have been averted at any time up to the moment of the actual commencement of hostilities had Sadaam made real inspections (unfettered, unmonitored, without threat to the Iraqi participants) happen. He did not, he got tossed out of power. At the end, under pressure of force, the inspectors were going anywhere they wanted within 10 minutes notice. Palaces, military installations, government offices. Yeah. "Um, no, you can't come in yet...wait, couple more years... (scramble scramble) - OK, (everything hidden? Yup, I think so...), all right, come on in." You're a fool if you don't think that's what was going on when the UN was pussyfooting around saying "Oh, pleeeeease let us come in? Come on, Pleeeeease?". Yeah, he wasn't eager about having that done. Who would be? Someone who was still hiding or moving things he wanted to not be found. Sure you are. You're only willing to have the US defend itself *sometimes* and then only *after* its been attacked. By analogy, if we were in a bar fight, and the guy at the end of the bar paid me to poke you in the nose, your argument, roughly would be: 1) You can't hit the guy at the end of the bar because he did nothing directly to you and 2) You can't hit me until I actually poke you in the nose. i.e., You cannot interdict while my arm is in motion swinging at you. Nonsense. You guys go off and engineer an ill-advised war with a country that had no WMDs and no links to 9/11, We know they _HAD_ WMDs. We know we haven't found much of them yet. "no links to 9/11" is arguable at best. Why did he have those bio-lab trailers buried, I wonder? What _is_ with those uranium enhancing centrifuge parts? How many more sarin shells are still "wups, forgot that one too" buried? and then when somebody points out that maybe that was a stupid thing to do you all cry "Oh, the Liberals don't want to let the US defend itself!" I personally think we should have kicked ass, set up the new guy (or not), and got the hell out. But, going in needed to be done. There have been free elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine for the first time ever (or at least in many years). It is rather doubtful this would have happened without the US projecting force in these regions, directly or otherwise. I agree with respect to Afghanistan. I don't agree with respect to Palestine; I think you want to take credit where none is due. You probably won't acknowledge Libya's disarming is a result of Bush's decisions either, I suppose. With respect to Iraq, I hope you are right that it ends up being a free democracy. And I hope I am wrong when I fear that it ends up either in civil war or under a Shiite fundamentalist government (a la Iran). Long as they're no longer a threat to us, sorry, but they can (and will) go on killing each other without hurting my feelings. We're not going to change their little thousand-year grudge, but we can limit the scope of how it threatens us or our allies. The world's 5th largest standing army (iirc), lead by a murderous dictator, was neutralized, and further (potential) deployment of WMDs was halted. There was no active WMD program. ^^^^^^ Active being the operative word. Now, it'll hopefully be harder for them to restart their WMD programs as well. Said brutal dictator is now in irons. Funny how your type seems to think that's not important. Other villians in the neighborhood are getting nervous. This was the *real* reason to go to Iraq. Bush wants to bring the Middle East peace and Jesus. But what is mostly needed there, is a deep-seated fear of ****ing off the US. It worked in Libya Damn right it did. But, he won't give Bush any credit for that, watch. - go research the conversation between Kaddaffi and Burlusconi in the early days of this war - it is instructive reading. Syria, Iran, North Korea, and all the rest of the tin pot dictator states need to develop a healthy fear of what happens when you threaten Uncle Sam. This is the one and only thing Bush has managed to get right, despite himself... Yeah, everyone is getting nervous. A bunch of us here in the US are getting nervous, too. And when you claim that Bush wants to "bring the Middle East peace and Jesus" it makes me even more nervous. I don't give a damn about what religion someone practices. I get a tad twitchy when they have shown ability and willingness to use WMD on people, and make aggressive noises towards my country. SH bluffed. We called his bluff. He lost. Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as quickly as possible. So, do you think that's wise of them, all things considered? |
|
#260
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:56:12 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote:
For 14 months the US told Saddam to come clean and disclose his WMDs. He said he didn't have them. We didn't believe him. We invaded. Turns out he didn't have any. Turns out we didn't find any. |
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:59:21 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in news:37k1niF5e7r24U3 @individual.net: _IF_ he got rid of them. A dozen years is a long time, and Iraq is a very large place. Yeah, and Elvis is still alive, too. Riiiight, because that's exactly the same thing as a deranged dictator with a stash of weapons he's happy to use, being given a dozen years to hide something he's not supposed to have. |
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:27:35 -0600, Swingman wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message But, that's word games. The sooner something gets done to get it steered in the right direction (or at least, less in the _wrong_ direction), the less that steering will hurt. Deciding if the word "problem" or "crisis" is more accurate, is just a pointless waste of effort. I think everyone agrees that it's headed in the wrong direction. Move down here, run for office and I'd vote for you in a heartbeat ... I like your style! I'm not sure if I should be honored, or offended? If the Libertarians would get their act together (as defined by - get some LOCAL offices and work up before just shooting for the top spot), I might be interested in politics, but...I hate meetings. Probably wouldn't work. In the meantime, I just pick the party whose choice doesn't turn my stomach as much and pull the lever, y'know? |
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:27:35 -0600, wrote: I'm not sure if I should be honored, or offended? It would be interesting to know _why_ you would be offended? -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 11/06/04 |
|
#265
|
|||
|
|||
|
Larry Blanchard wrote:
.... But if an employer can reduce his tax burden by up to $1000 (and more in later years) per employee, that's a giant payback to Bush's corporate supporters. No, if it were true (which it certainly isn't at least yet and I sincerely doubt it would ever be part of the final plan) it would aid immensely in maintaining US industry competiveness which would enhance economic growth and probably spur additional hiring... My expectation would be that if there were contributions to personal accounts, the employer "contribution" (a mismonmer if ever there were one, btw) would be added to the account as well...at least if I were the individual who had the opportunity to opt into such a plan I'd really be p-o'ed if that weren't the case. As for the employer "contribution", if you've ever become self-employed, that deception will soon be revealed...  |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:41:24 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote: "Can't find 'em" doesn't mean "aren't here" or even "weren't here", Nate. You can't find the Lock Ness moster, Yeti, Alien abductors either, or a live T.Rex either. Doesn't mean they aren't here or even weren't here. Of course he had them 20 years earlier. At the time Saddam was using chemical weapons, we were rooting for him in his war with Iran. What about the Sarin shell that injured our guys, Nate? Don't they count? Did it not exist? Couple liters of Sarin, what, that's not enough M to be a W of MD? Love the way you refer to ONE (1) sarin shell as 'they'. As you know, Iraq declared to UNSCOM that it had produced and test fired about 70 prototype sarin of that design. No data are available as to how may detonated on impact or were recovered. ISG was unable to determine whether or not that one (1) had been fired or not. So as you know, that shell (note singular) is not evidence of a violation of the sanctions. You're a fool if you don't think that's what was going on when the UN was pussyfooting around saying "Oh, pleeeeease let us come in? Come on, Pleeeeease?". Could you try to be a bit more mature? I agree with respect to Afghanistan. I don't agree with respect to Palestine; I think you want to take credit where none is due. You probably won't acknowledge Libya's disarming is a result of Bush's decisions either, I suppose. I will. I will also acknowledge that North Korea and Iran went the other way and accelerated their programs. I'll also point out that being right accross the Mediteranean from Lybia, the French weren't about to let Lybia become a nuclear power either. Before you dump on the French, tell us who has been fighting Lybian expansion in North Africa for teh last thirty years. .... There was no active WMD program. ^^^^^^ Active being the operative word. Now, it'll hopefully be harder for them to restart their WMD programs as well. And the fact being that every nation with a chamical industry or universities has a de facto formant WMD program. .... Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as quickly as possible. So, do you think that's wise of them, all things considered? Bush has already proved to them that the US uses diplomacy as a distraction while building up for military action. -- FF |
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote: ... See above. Best available intel said he was being a problem. Wrong. An examination of the data available at the time the October, 2002 NIE was released shows that intel was carefully selected to exaggerated the danger psoed by Iraq. By March 2003 far better intel was available that clearly showed the NIE to be wrong. Maybe he was - we gave him more than a decade to hide the stuff, y'know? No matter how often you repeat that lie it remains a lie. From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM was on the ground in Iraq searching, removing and destroying. From 1999 to 2002 Iraq had time to hide anything that wasn't destroyed in Operation Desert Fox. and anything produced during the inspections hiatus. In 2002, and 2003, inspections showed that materials that had been inventoried and tagged were still intact under IAEA and UNSCOM seal providing storng evidence that no WMD programs were resumed during that period. The 'discrepencies' Blix referred to in his reports between the Iraqi declarations and what UNMOVIC could acccount for were almost all a 'discrepency' between Iraqi documentation and US _estimates_. Given that the US was caught red-handed foisting forged documents on the IAEA how much trust would any reasonable person have for the Bush administration? That's the major point. To believe that Iraq was in compliance one need only rely on independently verified FACT. To believe that Iraq was not in compliance one has to trust a proven lian. -- FF |
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:35:12 -0600, Swingman wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:27:35 -0600, wrote: I'm not sure if I should be honored, or offended? It would be interesting to know _why_ you would be offended? Well, calling someone a politician could be interpreted in several ways. I'll take it as it seems you meant it, though, and say "thanks". Dave |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:03:48 GMT, Ned wrote:
On 17 Feb 2005 22:02:46 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: snip for brevity Great. Now I don't know what specifically I said that you're responding to. There's brevity, then there's "leave in some freaking context, wouldja?". Trying to understand you and BTW, Are you a Christians and which Church do you go to? Not relevant. The points I make aren't related to membership or attendance at a church. That's my point - you're assuming something that (a) doesn't relate, and (b) doesn't matter, based on a disagreement that we apparently have. |
|
#271
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote: On 18 Feb 2005 10:55:40 -0800, wrote: Dave Hinz wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:41:24 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote: "Can't find 'em" doesn't mean "aren't here" or even "weren't here", Nate. You can't find the Lock Ness moster, Yeti, Alien abductors either, or a live T.Rex either. Doesn't mean they aren't here or even weren't here. Here, hypocrite Fred (who bitches about off-topic posts) posts to an offtopic thread. While crossposting outside of this group. He makes a stupid point, to boot. Fred, those things have never been _known_ to exist, while SH's WMD are known _to_ have existed. 1) T. Rex was included in the list precisely because it was known to have existed. 2) In Iraq today the US is fighting insurgents. The insurgents fight in civlian clothing for two important reasons. a) If they wore uniforms, gathered in mass and engaged in a a stand-up fight with the US they would be immediately wiped out. b) By fighting the US in civilian clothing they force the US to treat Iraqi civilians with suspician, driving a wedge between the US troops and the indigenous population. c) They don't have uniforms to wear. Now, some people will bitch and moan and complain that the isurgency doesn't fight fair but the fact is the US has but two choices, to fight as best we can despite the circumstances the insurgency is perverting to their advantage or give up. Here on rec.woodworking today you post OT with a vague subject line instead of posting in a proper newsgroup with a subject line that is informative. Obviously your motivation is the same as 2) a) above. If you were to stick to the rules you'd post in a newsgroup where the issues you wished to discuss were on- topic and with an informative subject line. Then other authors knowledgible in the topic would engage you and you wouldn't have a chance. My choices are to do the best I can despite the circumstances you have perverted to your advantage, or to give up. I am not willing to let evil win without a fight. Love the way you refer to ONE (1) sarin shell as 'they'. Lovely, a grammar kop now. Nice revisionism now that you were caught trying to misrepresent one shell as many. As you know, Iraq declared to UNSCOM that it had produced and test fired about 70 prototype sarin of that design. No data are available as to how may detonated on impact or were recovered. In other words, they didn't do the paperwork they promised to do, and WMD exists that they said didn't. Gotcha. IOW they declared to UNSCOM that they were fired and they didn't know if any unexploded shells were still somewhere out in the desert along with perhaps 10% of all of the munitions fired in the Iran-Iraq war--including chemical munitions. ISG was unable to determine whether or not that one (1) had been fired or not. Relevance being ...??? That the Iraqi declarations are consistant with the observed reality. So as you know, that shell (note singular) is not evidence of a violation of the sanctions. Riiiiiight, it just happened to be right there, purely a mistake, woopsie, could have happened to anyone. Obviously the insurgents mistakenly thought it was HE. Where do you think the insurgents get their IED material if not from unexploded munitions combed from old battlefields and test ranges? It's effectively true. All the UN would do was use mildly harsh language to "demand" access, and he stonewalled until he was done hiding or moving his stuff. When there was nothing left (to hide), he let them come in. To the contrary, Blix described the Iraqi 2002-2003 cooperation as 'unprecedented'. Again, you are either deceptively omitting the time frame of your vague assertions or outright lying about the degree of access UNMOVIC enjoyed in 2002-2003. At least you admit that after Desert Fox, Iraq had nothing left to hide. Thank you for agreeing, though I'll argue that the threat of force also had something to do with it. You probably won't acknowledge Libya's disarming is a result of Bush's decisions either, I suppose. I will. I will also acknowledge that North Korea and Iran went the other way and accelerated their programs. And you are saying that, because Bush is willing to attack someone acting up, they decided to risk that? "Hey, there's this big army right next door, so let's tone it up a bit"? Doubtful. More likely they were going that direction anyway. These things don't develop overnight, Fred. They decided that not being able to defend themselves was riskier than relying on the good will of the US. .... There was no active WMD program. ^^^^^^ Active being the operative word. Now, it'll hopefully be harder for them to restart their WMD programs as well. And the fact being that every nation with a chamical industry or universities has a de facto formant WMD program. I notice that you snipped the part about the uranium centrifuge parts and the bio-lab trailers that were hidden/buried. Why is that, Fred (asked Dave, knowing exactly why...) The Uranium centrifuge parts, being buried in someone's front yard for over a decade, clearly were not part of an ACTIVE, WMD program. 'Active' as you noted befor, being the operant word. No one ever argued that Saddam Hussein could be trusted, that was one of Bush's lies. No one ever argued that Iraq would not resume WMD production if it could--that was another of Bush's lies. The argument was that Iraq had not and could not, hence no need for immediate military action. No one has found mobile biological labs. The trailers that were found were equippped with high capacity refrigerated reaction vessels and compressors and cylinders for collectng the evolved gas. That, and the trace evidence in the trailers makes it clear that these were mobile hydrogen generators. The CIA used to have a page with pictures of the actual trailers, if it is still up, you can look for yourself. Nobody bright enough to be able to make a mobile biological lab would be stupid enough to try to capture the evolved gasses by compressing them into cylinders and even if they were, the capacity of the refrigeration and gas collection system greatly exceeds anything that would be needed to do that. Since you knew your information was false, why'd you bring it up? ... Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as quickly as possible. So, do you think that's wise of them, all things considered? Bush has already proved to them that the US uses diplomacy as a distraction while building up for military action. So, are you saying he should attack without diplomacy, as soon as he checks for permission from you, or what's your point? I'm sure he's quite beyond taking morality-based advice but he should try honesty. -- FF |
|
#272
|
|||
|
|||
|
Really. On that day, how could anyone have performed worse than Bush? Do
you think Gore or any other sane person would have stood around and listened to goat stories while New York burned? And he should have rushed out and peed on the towers to put the flames out right? Kerry said they sat around stunned for 45 minutes. I think it was a normal reaction, not much could have been done after the fact but your criticism is typical of the left. Keep it up, I like the results. It's pretty hard to argue against someone who thinks a normal reaction is sitting around listening to goat stories with a dumb deer-in-the-headlights stare while the country you're responsible for (specifically the commerce center of the world) is being attacked and destroyed. |
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doug Miller wrote:
In article 1, Nate Perkins wrote: "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in : Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you can understand that the UN had mandated that Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point. Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly that, shortly after the first Gulf War. Ummm, no, they didn't, and, no, he didn't. What part of "under UN supervision" do you not understand? Saddam may have destroyed those weapons, but the UN mandated that they be destroyed under UN supervision so that it could be *verified* that they were destroyed. That did *not* happen. -- 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? Actually Doug, it's worse than that. Whether this is lack of knowledge or historical revisionism toward a domestic political goal, I can't say. What some folks are ignoring is that Saddam did _not_ dismantle his WMD program after the Gulf War. He continued his biological weapons programs under the noses of the UN inspectors, all the while swearing up and down he had dismantled them. This came to light when Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel al-Majid, defected in 1995 and blew the whistle on him. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...defectors.html The UN inspectors were completely hoodwinked. That included the inspector in charge of the program -- a guy by the name of Hans Blix. You may have heard of him. This also ignores the 9/11 Commission's conclusion that Saddam intended to re-start his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted. Oh yeah, about that Sarin gas shell used as a roadside bomb. Two significant facts that seem to have eluded the critics are 1) all those shells were reported to the UN inspectors as destroyed. 2) the shell was not marked as a chemical weapon at all. In fact it was unmarked. Fundamentally as far as I can see, almost none of the criticism is about our real failings in Iraq. It is instead about domestic politics and the fact that these are the policies of a president who is roundly, thoroughly hated. As a result most of the criticism is either profoundly ignorant or very much beside the point. Our mistakes in Iraq have been many and severe, notably not using enough troops, but you'd be hard put to learn about them by reading most of the critics. --RC |
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ned wrote:
On 17 Feb 2005 22:02:46 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: snip for brevity Trying to understand you and BTW, Are you a Christians and which Church do you go to? Why? Is there some sort of religious purity test you have to pass before your comments are to be taken seriously? Or are you just searching for an excuse to write off posts you can't argue with logically? --RC |
|
#275
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 17 Feb 2005 22:02:46 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
snip for brevity Trying to understand you and BTW, Are you a Christians and which Church do you go to? |
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk wrote: Nate Perkins wrote: SNIP .... I agree with respect to Afghanistan. I don't agree with respect to Palestine; I think you want to take credit where none is due. Really? Do you seriously think the post-Yassar regime' would be negotiating were it not for US pressure. I think the death of Yassar Arafat was probably more beneficial than any US 'pressure'. More than putting pressure on anyone in particular I think the Bush administration enabled everyone to rachet up the violence. Note that there isn't much pressure on Russia or Turkmenistan to move toward, nor on Pakistan to move back to Democracy these days. There was no active WMD program. And you exaggerate the strength of his army -- all of which had weapons that were 15 years out of date, had no spares, and was 1/3 the size it had been during Gulf War I. OK - so it was the 8th or 9th or Whatever-Makes-You-Happy largest army in the world. Nitpicking at minor details doesn't change the larger point - we neutralized one of the top N military threats in the world. Back when Iraq HAD a bigger army and were supported by the US and the Soviet Union they fought to a draw with Iran while Iran was subject to sanctions so severe that their fighter pilots sometimes had to communicate with each other with hand signals becuase their radios didn't work. Then they invaded Kuwait. You know what happened after that. So, just who was iraq going to invade next? Syria? Turkey? They might have been able to take on Jordan. But I think Saddam Hussein knew the US wouldn't let them get away with that either. He wasn't terribly bright, but he wasn't suicidely stupid either. .... Middle East peace and Jesus" it makes me even more nervous. This is the disease of the neo-cons. They have some weird religious version of Manifest Destiny running around in their heads. I think Manifest destiny is merely a secular presentation of the Protestant Doctrine of Predestination, similar to how 'Intelligent Design' is simply a secular presentation of the Protestant Doctrine of Creationism. Consider the contrast between the Protestant Colonization of Eastern North America and the Catholic colonization of Western North America. The Protestants simply supplanted the Native Americans, driving them out. The Catholics herded them into missions to convert them into Catholics and assimilate them into the Colonial society. Around the world you'll find various Protestant sects established in part on the doctrine that the local natives had no souls. The good thing is that their deep religiosity makes it natural for them to be able to spot and name Evil - something the Libs largely don't even believe exists. Open your eyes man! I challenge you to find a Liberal that doesn't quickly agree that Saddam Hussein is evil or a neo-con who will admit to any evilness in Falwell, Robinson, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, Limbacher or Gonzales. Lots of liberals will freely admit that perjury about a blow-job is perjury, even if it's not 'bad enough' to justify throwing the President out of office. But try to find a neo-con that thinks torturing prisoners is worth even appointing a special prosecutor. Far from being able to spot evil the neo-cons by and large are either bland to or (given that they aren't ALL stupid) happy to deny the most dangerous of evil men in their midst, those that attack the moral priciples themselves .... I used to despise the Left and Right equally - they both want to screw people out of their lives, money, and freedom to apply it to their pet causes. But the events of the past 4 years have demonstrated that the Left is considerably worse and more dangerous. In addition to wanting to "screw people out of ..." they also wish to impose their secular version of Right and Wrong which is essentially a denial that the latter innately exists. I don't agree that the Left, however defined (personally I find such characterisations as Left, Right, Liberal, and neo-con to be not particularly useful) may leave us open to physical attack but the neo-cons attack the very moral principles that make America worth fighting for. Which is why I fight them. I oppose them as a matter of moral principle. Deceit and dishonesty are wrong. Torture and murder are wrong. Chosing unpopular victims for the object of those exercises does not change that. Lefties that lie, cheat, and steal are wrong too. They typically do not engage in torture or murder though. That they leave to the craven cowards and pucilinious wimps among the neo-cons. Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as quickly as possible. And that, of course, was not happening under previous administrations right? Under the previous administration the North Korean program was stopped dead in its tracks. Dunno about Iran. But, no evidence of NPT violations by Iran has emrged. Thus far if Iran has any violations, they have kept them well-hidden while being quite bold about their actions within the NPT limitations. They've skillfully out-manouvered the US on the diplomatic front. As you know, so long as Iran does not violate the NPT, and thus far there has been no evidence that they have, the US and other nuclear powers are REQUIRED to assist Iran in nuclear development. Of course when the only American Diplomat with two brain cells to rub together is shackled and gagged that's not too tough. -- FF |
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
"mp"
Really. On that day, how could anyone have performed worse than Bush? Do you think Gore or any other sane person would have stood around and listened to goat stories while New York burned? And he should have rushed out and peed on the towers to put the flames out right? Kerry said they sat around stunned for 45 minutes. I think it was a normal reaction, not much could have been done after the fact but your criticism is typical of the left. Keep it up, I like the results. It's pretty hard to argue against someone who thinks a normal reaction is sitting around listening to goat stories with a dumb deer-in-the-headlights stare while the country you're responsible for (specifically the commerce center of the world) is being attacked and destroyed. At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think he should have done at the moment. |
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "mp" Really. On that day, how could anyone have performed worse than Bush? Do you think Gore or any other sane person would have stood around and listened to goat stories while New York burned? And he should have rushed out and peed on the towers to put the flames out right? Kerry said they sat around stunned for 45 minutes. I think it was a normal reaction, not much could have been done after the fact but your criticism is typical of the left. Keep it up, I like the results. It's pretty hard to argue against someone who thinks a normal reaction is sitting around listening to goat stories with a dumb deer-in-the-headlights stare while the country you're responsible for (specifically the commerce center of the world) is being attacked and destroyed. At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think he should have done at the moment. Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1. AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that Bush knew he was the less competent of the two. I'm glad that when the chips were down he stepped aside and let the more competent person take over. I'm not happy to have a President who is not competent to be Comander-in-Chief. -- FF |
|
#280
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote: On 18 Feb 2005 12:46:58 -0800, wrote: Knock it off with the followup games already, wouldja? How typical of an evil person. Not content with merely getting away with doing something wrong, you insist on trying to corrupt others as well. Won't work on me. Dave Hinz wrote: As you know, Iraq declared to UNSCOM that it had produced and test fired about 70 prototype sarin of that design. No data are available as to how may detonated on impact or were recovered. In other words, they didn't do the paperwork they promised to do, and WMD exists that they said didn't. Gotcha. IOW they declared to UNSCOM that they were fired and they didn't know if any unexploded shells were still somewhere out in the desert along with perhaps 10% of all of the munitions fired in the Iran-Iraq war--including chemical munitions. In other words, there could still be a ****load of buried WMD in Iraq. Good to see you finally acknowledge that fact. I'm glad to see that you aknowledge that unrecovered duds on abandoned test ranges and old battlefields are not a violation of the UN sanctions. ISG was unable to determine whether or not that one (1) had been fired or not. Relevance being ...??? That the Iraqi declarations are consistant with the observed reality. If you believe that that shell just -happened- to be there, I suppose. If it wasn't there, how could the insurgents have found it? Obviously the insurgents mistakenly thought it was HE. Where do you think the insurgents get their IED material if not from unexploded munitions combed from old battlefields and test ranges? Obviously they have more sources than just salvage. For small arms, sure. So where do YOU think they get unexploded 155s? It's effectively true. All the UN would do was use mildly harsh language to "demand" access, and he stonewalled until he was done hiding or moving his stuff. When there was nothing left (to hide), he let them come in. To the contrary, Blix described the Iraqi 2002-2003 cooperation as 'unprecedented'. In other words, in 2002-2003 they finally started cooperating, and previously, they hadn't been. Yes, once again, you make my point for me. Now you admit that when threatened with US action Iraq caved and cooperated. That is the point I was making all along. Thank you for admitting I was correct. Again, you are either deceptively omitting the time frame of your vague assertions or outright lying about the degree of access UNMOVIC enjoyed in 2002-2003. How about, say, the end of Desert Storm until 2002, Fred? How about all that stuff destroyed under UNSCOM supervison, Mr Hinz? At least you admit that after Desert Fox, Iraq had nothing left to hide. Don't misstate my points. I say he has nothing left to hide, because he's hidden it all already. That's not the same has he has nothing. (here comes word-games Fred saying "he's in custody, he HAS nothing" - don't bother). Like what and where? Please be specific. They decided that not being able to defend themselves was riskier than relying on the good will of the US. Their choice. If they make the wrong move, they'll pay for it. Too bad they didn't learn by example. They did learn from example. Iraq cooperated and was invaded anyhow. They are not about to make the same mistake as Saddam Hussein. Why do you thkn Bush made his Plan Nine demand, that Iraq prove it did not have WMD? That was a demand that could not be met. Bush did not want Saddam Hussein to stay in power, no matter what. Of course there are differences. China restricts US action against North Korea and Iran is far more populous than Iraq. There was no active WMD program. ^^^^^^ Active being the operative word. Now, it'll hopefully be harder for them to restart their WMD programs as well. And the fact being that every nation with a chamical industry or universities has a de facto formant WMD program. I notice that you snipped the part about the uranium centrifuge parts and the bio-lab trailers that were hidden/buried. Why is that, Fred (asked Dave, knowing exactly why...) The Uranium centrifuge parts, being buried in someone's front yard for over a decade, clearly were not part of an ACTIVE, WMD program. No ****. But it certainly shows intent to resume one, which is now much more difficult than it was before. No one ever denied that Saddam Hussein had the intent to make WMD, that was one of Bush's lies. 'Active' as you noted befor, being the operant word. So, you're saying the madman is free to have whatever the hell he wants, as long as he's not producing WMD's at that very moment? Amazing. No, I am saying only what I've written. No one ever argued that Saddam Hussein could be trusted, that was one of Bush's lies. Nice deception there. At the time SH was being supported, he was the lesser of two evils. Huh? Not only do you not address my remarks, you refer to something else, what exactly? No one ever argued that Iraq would not resume WMD production if it could--that was another of Bush's lies. I think you just added an extra negative there. Iraq most definately would have been happy for the UN to get out of their hair so they could keep making WMD. Again we agree. That's what I said. The argument was that Iraq had not and could not, hence no need for immediate military action. Riiiiight. Let's wait until we have been attacked, and _then_ do it. That's a great idea. Even if Iraq HAD a vast chemical and biological arsenal and a few nuclear weapons Iraq STILL would not have attacked the US. Again Saddam Hussein was not terribly bright, but he was not suicidely stupid. No one has found mobile biological labs. The trailers that were found were equippped with high capacity refrigerated reaction vessels and compressors and cylinders for collectng the evolved gas. That, and the trace evidence in the trailers makes it clear that these were mobile hydrogen generators. The CIA used to have a page with pictures of the actual trailers, if it is still up, you can look for yourself. I'll just wander around the internet until I find whatever you may or may not be talking about. Not. http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq...nts/index.html Nobody bright enough to be able to make a mobile biological lab would be stupid enough to try to capture the evolved gasses by compressing them into cylinders and even if they were, the capacity of the refrigeration and gas collection system greatly exceeds anything that would be needed to do that. In other words, you would design them differently if your assumptions are correct. And? No, they would be designed differently if YOUR assumptions were correct. Geez, you really are stupid, aren't you? .... I'm sure he's quite beyond taking morality-based advice but he should try honesty. What the hell does "morality-based advice" mean in fred-speak? It means based on morality. No doubt an alien concept to the likes of you. -- FF |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Urgent and vitally important party shoes question! | UK diy | |||
| What is the most important | Woodturning | |||
| Important! | Electronics Repair | |||
| Important Tip | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
