| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#321
|
|||
|
|||
Rick Cook wrote in
nk.net: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: 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. Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore? That's certainly what Michael Moore would like us to believe. The evidence is otherwise, of course, but since Bush didn't do it in public, that can be safely ignored. OK ... what exactly did Bush do aside from the brief speech and flight on AF1? Do you agree that Cheney was left in charge while Bush was on 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 What's your source? Or do you need one? His source is one part ignorance and one part malice. While it's true that AF1 has some capability to manage national defense, it doesn't have _nearly_ the capability that Cheney's 'secure location' does. What was Cheney's "secure location?" I haven't ever seen it reported. .... |
|
#322
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nate Perkins wrote:
SNIP Bush effectively disengaged from the peace process and only made a token There was no "peace process" - there was the voice of Arafat to the West, and the exact opposite voice from Arafat in Arabic to his own constitutents. Bush "retreated" from someting that was an illusion. One more time: Peace comes after armed conflict has a distinct winner and that winner dictates the terms of peace. (Durable) peace never comes from negotiation - at least it never has so far in the vast bulk of human history. effort at a "roadmap to peace." And when the Israelis sent tanks into the West Bank and Gaza, Bush did nothing diplomatically or financially to restrain them. Nor should he have. In fact, I personally thing the US should officially depart the region entirely other than to trade with the participants. It would be entertaining to watch the various Arab leaders of the area suddenly be forced to learn Hebrew. SNIP The Dems/Left/Libs got shellacked over the last several election cycles at most levels of government for two reasons: This kind of "blame our opponent" mentality, and their general sense of elitism coupled with a palpable contempt for Everyman. And they richly deserved to lose. Bull****. The Dems got beat because the Bushies demonized anyone who was to the left of Jesse Helms. The Bushies made it seem like the progressives weren't for strong national defense, that we don't have First lets define terms: "Progressives" are people who want to make the world a better place with *other people's money* (just like the various flavors of "Necons"). "Better" is as they define the term at any moment in time (just like the neocons). In actual practice, the only difference between the Left and Right is Who Gets Screwed and Who Benefits. Their methods are identical (and reprehensible). Second, your smarmy elitism is showing. You didn't get your butts kicked because "The Bushies" (whoever that may be) demonized you... the implication is that you were misrepresented and people fell for it - i.e., The masses are stupid and you're not. Guess what - you lost (repeatedly - and are continuing to lose ground) because a substantial number of people *did* understand you and rejected your message out of hand. I am not defending the Right, I'm laughing loudly at the Clueless Left that keeps thinking they can win if they just improve their message. In actual fact, the Left has to *change* its message and methods if it ever wants to again be an effective voice. family values, that we don't go to church, that we don't support the second amendment, etc etc. Well that's a lot of crap. We are all for I didn't say any of this, nor do I believe it. I believe the *leadership* of the Left has been hijacked at the highest levels by people like Dean, Clinton, Kennedy, et al, who are enemies of Liberty, suspicious of their own country's values, deeply committed to the freedoms/values of the 2% of nutcases in the culture who are not "maintstream" to the detriment of the majority. Now, defending the minority against majority oppression is one thing. But oppressing the majority to serve the minority is stupid. I don't think people like *you* on the Left particularly fall into this category, but the people who speak for you - and for whom you vote - *do* embrace whacko politics and thus you all keep losing - and its getting worse. Wait until the mid-term elections hand Bush a bulletproof majority in the Senate ... and you'll have no one but your own leadership to blame. You guys think you represent the Everyman. Nonsense. The Everyman Let me try again: I am not a Republican, I do not agree with much of the Bush agenda. I am not one of "you guys". I just think the Left (at the moment) is way worse than the Right. This may change in time. And - whether you like it or not - a good part of the population (and growning) perceives that Bush et al *are* more in touch with Everyman than the *Left* is. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant - perception is reality when it comes time to vote. The Left Leadership's arrogance, condescension, and contempt for anyone outside the narrow corridors of Drooly Academics and Upper Crust Elites continues to cost it political traction because they simply do not get how out of touch with Everyman they've become. cares about leaving a decent legacy for their children. The Everyman realizes that hard work deserves fair compensation, and that everyone Another definition is required he "Fair" means whatever the speaker decides. "Deserve" is a code word for the use of (government) force to artificially undermine advantages individuals have due to their superior work, luck, brains, or skill. "Unfair" is what you scream whenever the social outcome of a given set of circumstances offends you. And you are more than happy to be "unfair" to some people (usually anyone who has more than you do) to be "fair" to other people (usually anyone who has less than you do) so you can pat yourselves on the back with "your" charity and compassion - when in reality it is little more than thinly disguised theft. In some vain hope that some small portion of Reason will resonate with you - you "deserve" only two things: To be free of fraud and to be free of force directed against you (or the threat of force). You do not "deserve" to be successful, smart, good looking, rich, happy, or important. And, no, you don't deserve "fairness" beyond the aforementioned prohibitions against fraud/force/threat. The *reason* this is true, is because beyond limiting f/f/t, any government intervention in the lives of its citizens *always* benefits one person (group) at the *expense* of another person (group). ought to have a fair opportunity to prove their skills. The Everyman will give his neighbor a hand if he's in a tight spot. Yes he will - but you Lefties want to use the force of government to *make* him do this for your Pet Cause Of The Moment. This is both forceful and fraudulent, and is thus immoral. On the other hand, you Bushies believe in a dog-eat-dog world where a I dunno who you're talking to here. I am no "Bushie". helping hand is a waste of "your" tax money on the welfare "bums." You It's not a "helping hand" it's theft - and the Bushies practice it too. Again (using small words and simple concepts) - it is not "charity" or "good works" to *forcibly* remove wealth from one person and give it to another. It is stealing. Something you should have learned long ago in Sunday School/Temple/Mosque/Tee-Pee/... is wrong in all cases. believe in a world where it doesn't matter if you saddle the next generation with a staggering debt, as long as your buddies get some tax Oh how I love it when the Left starts to drool. It is *so* easy to refute. Please turn in your tax preparation books to the back pages where the division of Federal expenditures is documented. For fiscal 2004, just over 20% of the Fed budget went to military expenditures. Around 60% went to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Programs, and Community Development programs. Every single thing in this 60% is a form of theft, outside the Constitutional mandate of government, extracted by force, and, by definition, immoral. If you really cared about the "staggering debt" as something more than a talking point, you and your ilk would kick the entire behind of Congress and demand a return to Constitutional Federalism, wherein the Federal government has its hands tied to do the only thing its supposed to: Keep us free ... well, that, and run the Post Office  SNIP Pretty soon the country is going to wake up and realize that the neo-cons aren't really representing the Everyman at all. And then we'll see who gets the shellacking. You're right - the necons don't represent Everyman - but they are far less removed from Everyman than the Left - and that's why you're gonna continue to lose power. They're really wrong about a lot of things, and you guys are even worse. The cure for this is a serious reclamation of Federalism, as I said. The Federal government ought to be a minor part of every citizen's life - in taxation and in actual presence. Until this is true, the Right is going to look bad, and the Left is going to look worse. No - he was arrogantly stupid. His failure to open his kimono to a superpower making threats on his front porch was pure ego and hubris. The invasion was entirely avoidable up until the last moment. Setting aside the prudence of the war generally, I think Bush was sincere in his willingness to stand down our military had SH cooperated as we wished. The "everyone knows that he had it coming to him anyway" reasoning. No, it's the "Reality trumps Theory" line of reasoning. He refused to cooperate with Reality (much like the political Left) and got his nether regions handed to him (much like the political Left). SNIP 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 Ward Churchill leaps to mind. Teddy Kennedy is implictly in the same Ward Churchill leaps to mind because he's all over Fox News and Clear Channel. Without Fox and Clear Channel pushing the story, nobody would even know who Ward Churchill is. But by airing Churchill every night, That is *not* true. Churchill has offended the living crap out of people in his own community having nothing to do with Right wing broadcasters. For the record, I oppose all federal funding for schools, but, if we fund anyone, then we have to fund everyone. The attempt to silence this walking rectal parasite is wrong. He should continue to be able to speak his mind freely for several reasons: 1) Government ought not to be in the business of choosing who does and who does not get to speak. 2) The best way to get rid of lousy ideas is let those ideas be loudly spoken. The more often, the better, so that people see what a fraud the speaker is. 3) The more his ideas get spoken, the more people will realize what kind of nonsense their tax dollars pay for, and the sooner we can get the government out of the (fake) education business. they can pump up their ratings and stoke conservative indignation as well. With 300 million people in the country you are bound to find an oddity like Churchill. If you ask 100 people, you may even find one that agrees with Churchill. But you will probably find ten other people who are eager to send those people off to Gitmo. I worry more about the ten than I do about the one. I'm shocked, just *shocked* at these last two paragraphs. As a self avowed member of the Deeply Caring Left do you not see the conflict in your statements above? On the one hand, you dismiss the Churchill affair to nothing more than an attempt to "stoke conservative indignation", but on the other you argue that very few people agree with him anyway. Where (he says sweetly) is the *Liberal indignation* about Churchill's outrageous statements, pray tell? Oh silly, me the man who compares the workers in the Twin Towers to Eichman's minions is *far far* less worrisome to you than people on this country's political (far) Right. And you continue to be astounded by how rapidly you're losing political clout in this nation? 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. They weren't "tortured" except in the lexicon of the Left. They were *humiliated* and placed under *duress*. No permanent physical harm came to any of them as best as I have read. And "they" in this case, were Are you serious? "Lexicon of the Left"? Here's just one example: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6988054/ In May of 2004 the Army had 33 active probes going on for the deaths of a total of 32 detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May21.html OK Sparky, time for another history lesson. People out of uniform, enaged in active combat during a time of war (active hostilities) are legally considered *spies*. A uniformed army has (in most cases) the right to *kill such people on the spot* without explanation, other than to demonstrate their status as spies. The Geneva Conventions do not apply. I would share your Oh-So-Sincere-Lefty-Outrage if the persons in question had been uniformed soliders who were treated as described. But they were not. There may be practical reasons to avoid outright torture (because it is often not effective) but there are no moral or legal reasons to avoid it. In combat it is kill or be killed. If you have to push some spies around to reduce the numbers of your comrades that are killed or maimed, so be it. Also the argument against coercion on the grounds that we hope our own POWs will be better treated, *really* doesn't apply here - while we were embarassing the Poor Darlings, their fellow jihadists were *beheading* our *non-combatant civilians*. ... Lefties that lie, cheat, and steal are wrong too. They typically do not engage in torture or murder though. That they leave to No - they usually make nice with the people who *are* torturers and murderers. As long ago as the FDR administration the US political Left was openly in bed with avowed Communists. The KGB had people operating in government with the tacit knowledge of the FDR folks (this is documented in excruciating detail in "The Mitrokhin Archive"). Communism in its various 20th Century incarnations was responsible for literally millions of deaths and many more cases of vast human rights abuses ... but the Left was always in love with it in varying degrees. The Left also has - at various times - been in love with the human rights paradises in Cuba, North Viet Nam, Maoist China, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. No, they don't actually *do* the torture and murder - they (in some degree) enable the hitmen who do it ... Similar arguments were used by the supporters of McCarthy to blacklist a lot of good Americans. I think that as a country, we have a short recollection of history. I have a very *good* recollection of history - let's make sure you do. Joe McCarthy was another walking rectal parasite. He was a grandstanding drunk and a power hungry Congress Critter. However, two things turn out to be true that are often overlooked when he is cited to try to make or refute a point (as you do - we'll get to that in a moment): First, he's often tarred with the brush of the House UnAmerican Activities stuff that went after Hollywood. Since you're up on your history, you'll know that this was almost entirely not the case. HUAC was a *House* committee - McCarthy was in the *Senate*, and he was there *after* HUAC was already in motion. Secondly, McCarthy's primary concern was the inflitration of the US *government* by Communist spies and sympathizers. It turns out *he was largely right*. Mitrokhin, among others, (the former KGB insider who defected to the West with a huge load of records in the late 1980s) documents all manner of Communist infiltration of the US federal government from FDR forward in many case with the knowledge of US officials, especially during the FDR era. McCarthy's methods and motives were awful, but his concerns and claims were more right than most people realize. Now, back to your silly little attempt to counter my point. It doesn't matter who said what as regards to McCarthy or anyone else. If you make common cause with murderers, you are an accessory to murder. This is true whether it is the US government propping up South American dictators, Jimmy Carter going to Cuba and remaining strangely silent about that dictator's behavior (while publicly condemning the policies of his own nation), Jane Fonda making squeaky noises with people trying to kill her fellow citizens in Viet Nam, or .... well, you get the idea. Now, both Right and Left administrations have been guilty about this sort of thing over the years ... and it is reprehensible. But ... given that it did happen, one is led to ask, "Whose bad guys were worse?" The American Right has tended to prop up Bad Guys who were, whatever else their sins, *pro-American*. The Left, by contrast, has cozied up to leaders and movements that are *anti* American. Once again we see that the Right is bad/awful/horrible/nasty/stupid sometimes, but the Left, reliably, is worse ... You Lefties are going to continue to lose ground to the Right for these and many other reasons. One of the many reasons I have come to have such irredeemable contempt for the Left is that it has (by its behavior and stupidity) handed the keys of power to the Right for a very long time. I prefer it when the Left and Right have about an equal division of power. The more they fight, the less they get done, and Liberty flourishes when government is in perpetual deadlock. Instead, we have the Drooling Left ineptly fumbling around without a clue, without any identifiable principles, defending the coarsest possible causes, inflaming the mainstream voters, and generally conceding more and more power to the Right. Now this particular Rightwing government doesn't worry me so much. But in the long view, Rightwing governments are scary things. Hitler and Mussolini both leap to mind as examples of the Right gone Wrong. The antidote for all this, in case you care, is to reclaim our intellectual and philosophical heritage. If the Left wants to be relevant again, it has to admit to itself that wealth redistribution, no matter how noble the intention, is theft in every case. It has to embrace Federalism and limited government. It needs to affirm the power of Capitalism and competition as the sole honest vehicle by which people's lives are made better (by themselves). In short, the modern "liberal" movement, needs to abandon the bankrupt socialism that has crippled it from FDR forward and instead become a *Classical Liberal* movement. We Classical Liberals would welcome you and any real Conservatives back into the fold that built this nation. Until that happens, the Left will continue to lose ground, the Right will continue to gain power, and Liberty will continue its path to permanent extinction. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#323
|
|||
|
|||
|
GregP wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:19:18 -0500, "Dan White" wrote: "All these conservatives"? Politics 101 says that Repubs are strong on defense, and Dems are weak on it. Propaganda 101, you mean. The heavy lifting has always been done by the Democrats, WWI, WWII, Korea. The Vietnam mess is everyone's mess. The Republicans, on the other hand, have been the Brave Conquerors of Grenada, Panama, and Iraq (they were chased out of Lebanon). Oh, you forgot one: The Republicans also were responsible for the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. A war, BTW, in which more Americans died, by far, than all the rest of them combined. Modern Republicans are an embarassment to their namesakes of the 19th Century, but the GOP does have a "grand" tradition no Democrat can touch... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#324
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nate Perkins wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote in : Nate Perkins wrote: The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his plan will cause more harm than good. In what way(s)? It's the wrong direction because it increases the deficit, and in the short term the deficit is a far more pressing problem than is social security. Borrowing more money (a couple trillion) to finance the parallel privatization plan is risky because it increases the risk that foreign debtors will decrease confidence in our committment to fiscal discipline. There are a host of other problems as well: inconsistent projection basis for SS solvency vs privatization returns, unlikely projection of future stock values based on recent historical values, and erosion of return differences due to administrative fees. Privatizers like to accurately point out that SS revenues/expenditures are not practically separate from the general federal revenues/expenditures. With that being true, then the best thing to do to ease multiple problems is to restore fiscal discipline. That's what I figured you were going after... What's wrong w/ the direction, not what's wrong w/ details of how to implement a change in direction? That's what bugs me about the whole debate--it's a ****ing contest between two extremes with neither taking the time nor effort to consider a combination of changes. My contention is the idea of increasing personal stake in one's own retirement is almost mandatory while retaining commitments made to those close enough to retirement that it is only responsible to maintain those within reason. News organizations only exacerbate the problem as their primary purpose seems to be to foment dissension to sell headlines. If you listened to Greenspan the other day, you would get a feel for what could realistically be done. The real problem is the other out-of-control entitlement spending (MediCare, MedicAid, etc.) that both political parties are almost equally responsible for. |
|
#325
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in m: In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in m: 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. So now you admit that all the weapons were destroyed years earlier. But you want to claim that the invasion was still justified because the i's weren't dotted correctly and the t's weren't crossed right? Geez, Nate, your reading comprehension just gets worse and worse. I did *not* "admit that all the weapons were destroyed years earlier". I acknowledged the possibility that they might have been, while emphasizing that there was *no* UN verification of that fact. And you completely missed the larger point of my comment, which is that your claim that Saddam destroyed those weapons under UN supervision is a great, fat, thumping LIE. From the letter of submission from Charles Duelfer's final report: "It now appears clear that Saddam, despite internal reluctance, particularly on the part of the head of Iraq’s military industries, Husayn Kamil, resolved to eliminate the existing stocks of WMD weapons during the course of the summer of 1991 in support of the prime objective of getting rid of sanctions. The goal was to do enough to be able to argue that they had complied with UN requirements." So on your planet, "resolved to eliminate" is the same as "actually did eliminate". Readthat Duelfer quote again. As often as necessary to understand it. Especially the last sentence. That makes it very clear that the former Iraqi government was not to actually comply with the UN requirements, but simply to *appear* to do so. Si I have to wonder if it really worth thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars just because you don't like the way the paperwork was done??? It seems to me that this is an ideal justification for pushing continuing inspections, but not for launching a war. You persistently miss the point. The problem is not with "the way the paperwork was done". The problem is that, although the former Iraqi government *claimed* to have destroyed the WMDs, there was, and is, *no* independent verification that they actually did so, and hence no way of knowing that those weapons were actually destroyed, other than taking Saddam's word for it. Bottom line: We know he had WMDs at one point, because he actually used them. He claimed to have gotten rid of them. Nobody can verify that claim. It's illogical to assume that the claim is true. Your posts are nothing but a lot of silly hairsplitting. The fact is that WMDs were the primary reason to go to war, and it's clear that Saddam had no active WMD programs. You want to quibble about paperwork and wording, You obviously didn't read, or didn't comprehend, *anything* I wrote. Come back when your reading comprehension improves. -- 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? |
|
#326
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in m: In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: Not true. See the timeline in the Duelfer report. Line 94, "Unexpectedly robust UN inspections lead Iraq to start unilateral destruction, as later claimed by regime." (July 1991). Line 96, "CW and all BW munitions unilaterally destroyed, according to subsequent Iraqi claims." (Mid July 1991). Line 103, "Destruction of Bulk Agents at Al Hakam" (Sept 91). "as later claimed by the regime." "according to ... Iraqi claims." And of course we *all* know that Saddam Hussein *always* told the truth. The point of the Duelfer report is that the evidence supports the conclusion that in this particular case the Iraqis were telling the truth. Perhaps they were... but since they refused to comply with the UN requirements, there wasn't any way to know that. And, given the history of the previous Iraqi regime, there was no reason to suppose it, either. Hindsight is 20/20, of course. What planet have you been living on for the last fifteen years, Nate? Why do I get the impression that if you can't win by reason or facts that you will try to win by insults? You've proven imprevious both to reason and to facts. -- 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? |
|
#327
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#328
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nate Perkins" "Fletis Humplebacker" Odd. I searched the page with the quoted words and didn't find those comments. However, you are still missing the point. The Iraqi were to destroy their WMDs under UN inspector supervision. Had they done that there have been no need to make any claims at all. It would have been documented. Why you and some others can't grasp that particular point is peculiar. The quotes are there on the lines mentioned. I search the page you linked to with the find tool and it didn't find them. I think it is you that is missing the point. Not so long ago, it wasn't standard American foreign policy to launch preemptive wars, and certainly not without a clear and present danger. No, that wasn't the point at all. We were discussing Saddams WMDs and why he was being inspected by the UN. You shifted away from it quite suddenly. Now, we launch them at will, and rely on a postjustification of shifting rationales and technicalities. To the contrary, your rationale is in hindsight. As we've been discussing, at the time most of world leaders and intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMDs. We don't know whether Saddam really destroyed them or moved them so your postanalysis is purely political. |
|
#329
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nate Perkins" Rick Cook Fletis Humplebacker wrote: Fletis Humplebacker wrote: 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. Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore? That's certainly what Michael Moore would like us to believe. The evidence is otherwise, of course, but since Bush didn't do it in public, that can be safely ignored. OK ... what exactly did Bush do aside from the brief speech and flight on AF1? Do you agree that Cheney was left in charge while Bush was on AF1? Put in charge would be a better decription, for reasons already discussed. Or do you have some kind of national security expertise that we haven't seen yet? 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 tha What's your source? Or do you need one? His source is one part ignorance and one part malice. While it's true that AF1 has some capability to manage national defense, it doesn't have _nearly_ the capability that Cheney's 'secure location' does. What was Cheney's "secure location?" I haven't ever seen it reported. I don't think you quite understand what 'secure location' means. Secret locations are generally not publicized. |
|
#330
|
|||
|
|||
|
"GregP" Rick Cook The guy's name was Oral *Roberts*. Jeez, the least you can do is get the objects of your hate righ The guy's name is sleazebag, a True Christian Patriot, but let's not split hairs..... I'm on a different computer right now. Thanks for reminding me to add you to the killfile. |
|
#331
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Doug Miller" wrote in message . .. It's also worth examining the circumstances under which we entered both World Wars under Democrat administrations. There is credible evidence that the Lusitania was running guns to Britain, with the knowledge and complicity of the Wilson administration, and the Germans sank it because they found out (ar at least suspected). There is also credible evidence that the Roosevelt administration deliberately ignored warnings of an impending Japanese attack, in the knowledge that it would give an excuse for entering a war that the American populace strongly favored staying _out_ of. FDR did express the desirability of having Japan make the first hostile act, even if he didn't deliberately provoke it. Say what you will, he knew that people like GregP would be second-guessing and opposing the effort unless it was punctuated by many American deaths. He knew he could count on the support of the isolationist Republicans once war was declared, it was the liberals' (Communists) support he doubted. They'd just gone through their volte face with the attack on the Soviet Union, and if Stalin made nice with his fellow dictator again, their support was gone. |
|
#332
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fletis Humplebacker wrote: "Nate Perkins" ... What was Cheney's "secure location?" I haven't ever seen it reported. I don't think you quite understand what 'secure location' means. Secret locations are generally not publicized. It doesn't matter anyways. Cheney spent that day at the White House. -- FF |
|
#333
|
|||
|
|||
|
George wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message . .. ... There is also credible evidence that the Roosevelt administration deliberately ignored warnings of an impending Japanese attack, in the knowledge that it would give an excuse for entering a war that the American populace strongly favored staying _out_ of. I've never seen that accusation substantiated. FDR did express the desirability of having Japan make the first hostile act, even if he didn't deliberately provoke it. ... Are you forgetting the Flying Tigers? -- FF |
|
#334
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 13:31:01 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:
FDR did express the desirability of having Japan make the first hostile act, even if he didn't deliberately provoke it. Say what you will, he knew that people like GregP would be second-guessing and opposing the effort unless it was punctuated by many American deaths. He knew he could count on the support of the isolationist Republicans once war was declared, it was the liberals' (Communists) support he doubted. They'd just gone through their volte face with the attack on the Soviet Union, and if Stalin made nice with his fellow dictator again, their support was gone. The most vocal, obscene voices raised against participation in the war were the Good Republicans who created the "German- American Bund" to support Adolf. |
|
#335
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 20 Feb 2005 05:58:07 EST, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
.... snip of some more well-reasoned commentary Ward Churchill leaps to mind because he's all over Fox News and Clear Channel. Without Fox and Clear Channel pushing the story, nobody would even know who Ward Churchill is. But by airing Churchill every night, That is *not* true. Churchill has offended the living crap out of people in his own community having nothing to do with Right wing broadcasters. For the record, I oppose all federal funding for schools, but, if we fund anyone, then we have to fund everyone. The attempt to silence this walking rectal parasite is wrong. He should continue to be able to speak his mind freely for several reasons: 1) Government ought not to be in the business of choosing who does and who does not get to speak. 2) The best way to get rid of lousy ideas is let those ideas be loudly spoken. The more often, the better, so that people see what a fraud the speaker is. 3) The more his ideas get spoken, the more people will realize what kind of nonsense their tax dollars pay for, and the sooner we can get the government out of the (fake) education business. they can pump up their ratings and stoke conservative indignation as well. While I agree with this sentiment, one of the problems is that the Ward Churchills and their ilk have pretty much had free reign of our academic institutions while effectively shutting out the other side; using tactics such as labeling as "hate speech" and "harassment" any airing of arguments contrary to theirs. Actually, Churchill has already made a statement that gives a way out for the University and the state of Colorado. Early in this debate, he made the statement, "I don't work for the regents or the citizens of Colorado, at least not in the way they think I do". Well, that pretty much simplifies things, since he doesn't work for the regents or the citizens (and thus by extension, he doesn't work for the University,which is operated by the regents), there is no reason for the University or the State of Colorado to continue paying him. The antidote for all this, in case you care, is to reclaim our intellectual and philosophical heritage. If the Left wants to be relevant again, it has to admit to itself that wealth redistribution, no matter how noble the intention, is theft in every case. It has to embrace Federalism and limited government. It needs to affirm the power of Capitalism and competition as the sole honest vehicle by which people's lives are made better (by themselves). In short, the modern "liberal" movement, needs to abandon the bankrupt socialism that has crippled it from FDR forward and instead become a *Classical Liberal* movement. We Classical Liberals would welcome you and any real Conservatives back into the fold that built this nation. Until that happens, the Left will continue to lose ground, the Right will continue to gain power, and Liberty will continue its path to permanent extinction. Classical liberalism has no relationship to modern liberalism (or progressivism since liberalism has gotten such a bad rap -- they decided to change names -- same program, totally different name). In reality, you are distinguishing the difference between "statists" and libertarians (with a small "l". The modern liberal movement, and to a degree, some on the far right, readily embrace statist policies, giving the government more and more power, taking it away from the citizenry. The left typically wages economic warfare on its citizens in pursuit of these statist policies (taking from those who have 'benefited' from society the most and redistributing that take to those who will vote for them) although they have recently gotten into the moral side of the equation also, using so called "hate speech" and "harassment" laws to bend the people to their will while silencing the opposition. At this point, I think your pessimism regarding the death of freedom is misplaced; the places where the loss of freedom continues seems to be those areas where the right has compromised with the left -- my main beef with the current administration -- they are too eager to compromise principals in the spirit of "getting along". +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
#336
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , GregP wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 13:31:01 -0500, "George" george@least wrote: FDR did express the desirability of having Japan make the first hostile act, even if he didn't deliberately provoke it. Say what you will, he knew that people like GregP would be second-guessing and opposing the effort unless it was punctuated by many American deaths. He knew he could count on the support of the isolationist Republicans once war was declared, it was the liberals' (Communists) support he doubted. They'd just gone through their volte face with the attack on the Soviet Union, and if Stalin made nice with his fellow dictator again, their support was gone. The most vocal, obscene voices raised against participation in the war were the Good Republicans who created the "German- American Bund" to support Adolf. And your proof of this claim would be... ? -- 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? |
|
#337
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rick Cook wrote: Actually it did come out later. Cheney was in the alternate national command center. Cheney has SAID he was at the white house when word came that another plane was headed toward DC and he was bodily carried by Secret Service to a bunker under the White House. -- FF |
|
#338
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 20 Feb 2005 05:58:07 EST, Tim Daneliuk wrote: ... snip of some more well-reasoned commentary Ward Churchill leaps to mind because he's all over Fox News and Clear Channel. Without Fox and Clear Channel pushing the story, nobody would even know who Ward Churchill is. But by airing Churchill every night, That is *not* true. Churchill has offended the living crap out of people in his own community having nothing to do with Right wing broadcasters. For the record, I oppose all federal funding for schools, but, if we fund anyone, then we have to fund everyone. The attempt to silence this walking rectal parasite is wrong. He should continue to be able to speak his mind freely for several reasons: 1) Government ought not to be in the business of choosing who does and who does not get to speak. 2) The best way to get rid of lousy ideas is let those ideas be loudly spoken. The more often, the better, so that people see what a fraud the speaker is. 3) The more his ideas get spoken, the more people will realize what kind of nonsense their tax dollars pay for, and the sooner we can get the government out of the (fake) education business. they can pump up their ratings and stoke conservative indignation as well. While I agree with this sentiment, one of the problems is that the Ward Churchills and their ilk have pretty much had free reign of our academic institutions while effectively shutting out the other side; using tactics such as labeling as "hate speech" and "harassment" any airing of arguments contrary to theirs. Actually, Churchill has already made a statement that gives a way out for the University and the state of Colorado. Early in this debate, he made the statement, "I don't work for the regents or the citizens of Colorado, at least not in the way they think I do". Well, that pretty much simplifies things, since he doesn't work for the regents or the citizens (and thus by extension, he doesn't work for the University,which is operated by the regents), there is no reason for the University or the State of Colorado to continue paying him. My hope is that *many* people will be offended by both people like Churchill as well as the double standard you identify and act to get government out of the education business entirely. The antidote for all this, in case you care, is to reclaim our intellectual and philosophical heritage. If the Left wants to be relevant again, it has to admit to itself that wealth redistribution, no matter how noble the intention, is theft in every case. It has to embrace Federalism and limited government. It needs to affirm the power of Capitalism and competition as the sole honest vehicle by which people's lives are made better (by themselves). In short, the modern "liberal" movement, needs to abandon the bankrupt socialism that has crippled it from FDR forward and instead become a *Classical Liberal* movement. We Classical Liberals would welcome you and any real Conservatives back into the fold that built this nation. Until that happens, the Left will continue to lose ground, the Right will continue to gain power, and Liberty will continue its path to permanent extinction. Classical liberalism has no relationship to modern liberalism (or progressivism since liberalism has gotten such a bad rap -- they decided to change names -- same program, totally different name). In reality, you are distinguishing the difference between "statists" and libertarians (with a small "l". The modern liberal movement, and to a degree, some on the far right, readily embrace statist policies, giving the government more and more power, taking it away from the citizenry. The left typically wages economic warfare on its citizens in pursuit of these statist policies (taking from those who have 'benefited' from society the most and redistributing that take to those who will vote for them) although they have recently gotten into the moral side of the equation also, using so called "hate speech" and "harassment" laws to bend the people to their will while silencing the opposition. At this point, I think your pessimism regarding the death of freedom is misplaced; the places where the loss of freedom continues seems to be those areas where the right has compromised with the left -- my main beef with the current administration -- they are too eager to compromise principals in the spirit of "getting along". I did not want to use the "l-Word" because it is too politically loaded. "Classical Liberal" is a more neutral term... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#339
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#340
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
: Nate Perkins wrote: SNIP Bush effectively disengaged from the peace process and only made a token There was no "peace process" - there was the voice of Arafat to the West, and the exact opposite voice from Arafat in Arabic to his own constitutents. Bush "retreated" from someting that was an illusion. One more time: Peace comes after armed conflict has a distinct winner and that winner dictates the terms of peace. (Durable) peace never comes from negotiation - at least it never has so far in the vast bulk of human history. Wow, what a concept. Diplomacy has no use. Settle everything with a war, and see who's still left alive. It's a good thing you and the rest of the Bushies weren't running the country during the Cuban Missile Crisis. effort at a "roadmap to peace." And when the Israelis sent tanks into the West Bank and Gaza, Bush did nothing diplomatically or financially to restrain them. Nor should he have. In fact, I personally thing the US should officially depart the region entirely other than to trade with the participants. It would be entertaining to watch the various Arab leaders of the area suddenly be forced to learn Hebrew. Maybe, maybe not. Without our support and arms, it is the Israelis who would be more likely learning to speak Arabic. That is, unless some country like Iran finishes its rush to make nukes. SNIP The Dems/Left/Libs got shellacked over the last several election cycles at most levels of government for two reasons: This kind of "blame our opponent" mentality, and their general sense of elitism coupled with a palpable contempt for Everyman. And they richly deserved to lose. Bull****. The Dems got beat because the Bushies demonized anyone who was to the left of Jesse Helms. The Bushies made it seem like the progressives weren't for strong national defense, that we don't have First lets define terms: "Progressives" are people who want to make the world a better place with *other people's money* (just like the various flavors of "Necons"). "Better" is as they define the term at any moment in time (just like the neocons). In actual practice, the only difference between the Left and Right is Who Gets Screwed and Who Benefits. Their methods are identical (and reprehensible). More bull****. I probably pay more taxes than you do. So let's quit with the nonsense of "other people's money." More likely it's you who wants to reallocate how my tax money is spent, not the other way around. You guys are always hung up on the fact that you have to pay taxes. Tough luck. If you don't like it you can move to someplace else where the taxes are lower and the opportunity is higher (if you can find such a place). Second, your smarmy elitism is showing. You didn't get your butts kicked because "The Bushies" (whoever that may be) demonized you... the implication is that you were misrepresented and people fell for it - i.e., The masses are stupid and you're not. Guess what - you lost (repeatedly - and are continuing to lose ground) because a substantial number of people *did* understand you and rejected your message out of hand. I am not defending the Right, I'm laughing loudly at the Clueless Left that keeps thinking they can win if they just improve their message. In actual fact, the Left has to *change* its message and methods if it ever wants to again be an effective voice. Bush won because he was better at propaganda than the other side was. He succeeded in wrapping himself in the flag, cultivating fear of terror, and by slandering the opposition. Here's an incumbent president who put on Zell Miller as his keynote speaker. Here's an incumbent president whose own delegates were wearing "purple heart bandaids" on his own convention floor. This is an incumbent president who wins by dividing the country. You are welcome to him. The neo cons stand for fiscal irresponsibility, bigger government, reckless preemptive foreign wars, intolerance, subordination of personal freedoms, and corporate corruption. The progressives favor strong and smart defense, small government, equal opportunity for success through hard work, and freedom of (not from) religion. It's the Republicans who really need to change. They need to get the intolerant and dangerous neo-cons out of the control of the party. And they need to make the party less beholden to the corrupting influences of big corporate money and pseudo-political religious nuts. And incumbent presidents need to understand that their primary responsibility is not to reward their special interests, but to govern for posterity. family values, that we don't go to church, that we don't support the second amendment, etc etc. Well that's a lot of crap. We are all for t I didn't say any of this, nor do I believe it. I believe the *leadership* of the Left has been hijacked at the highest levels by people like Dean, Clinton, Kennedy, et al, who are enemies of Liberty, suspicious of their own country's values, deeply committed to the freedoms/values of the 2% of nutcases in the culture who are not "maintstream" to the detriment of the majority. Now, defending the minority against majority oppression is one thing. But oppressing the majority to serve the minority is stupid. I don't think people like *you* on the Left particularly fall into this category, but the people who speak for you - and for whom you vote - *do* embrace whacko politics and thus you all keep losing - and its getting worse. Wait until the mid-term elections hand Bush a bulletproof majority in the Senate ... and you'll have no one but your own leadership to blame. The very fact that you think that the leadership of the left has been "hijacked by [people] who are enemies of Liberty, suspicious of their own country's values ... [ad nauseum]" is a pretty good indication that you have bought into the Republican propaganda machine. There were 57 million who voted against Bush in the last election. The vast majority of those 57 million are regular people ... they go to church, maybe they drink beer instead of white wine, maybe they enjoy their second amendment rights. Most of them love their families. Pretty regular people. Now they sure as hell aren't 57 million Hollywood liberals, and most of them aren't smarmy elitists or moral degenerates. The fact that the neo-cons want you to think that they are ought to give you pause. You guys think you represent the Everyman. Nonsense. The Everyman Let me try again: I am not a Republican, I do not agree with much of the Bush agenda. I am not one of "you guys". I just think the Left (at the moment) is way worse than the Right. This may change in time. And - whether you like it or not - a good part of the population (and growning) perceives that Bush et al *are* more in touch with Everyman than the *Left* is. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant - perception is reality when it comes time to vote. The Left Leadership's arrogance, condescension, and contempt for anyone outside the narrow corridors of Drooly Academics and Upper Crust Elites continues to cost it political traction because they simply do not get how out of touch with Everyman they've become. Right, a good part of the population believes the advertising. It doesn't mean it's true advertising. Really. The left fights for a fair minimum wage and you call them Upper Crust Elites. The left fights to use the surplus to make social security solvent instead of using it for more tax cuts, and they get derided as "lockbox" obsessed. The left fights for clean air and water, and they get called treehuggers (anybody remember when the Clean Air laws were really to make air cleaner?). The left urges diplomacy and inspections before going to war, and of course they are pansies. The Democrats back all of Bush's anti-terror initiatives, and in the next election a bunch of them get painted as weak on terror. So who's going to fight for moral values like a balanced budget, social tolerance, equal opportunity, education, fair compensation for hard work, and the chance to succeed by hard work? It sure doesn't look like the neo- cons will ... unless your idea of the perfect America is an aristocracy of the rich. cares about leaving a decent legacy for their children. The Everyman realizes that hard work deserves fair compensation, and that everyone Another definition is required he "Fair" means whatever the speaker decides. "Deserve" is a code word for the use of (government) force to artificially undermine advantages individuals have due to their superior work, luck, brains, or skill. "Unfair" is what you scream whenever the social outcome of a given set of circumstances offends you. And you are more than happy to be "unfair" to some people (usually anyone who has more than you do) to be "fair" to other people (usually anyone who has less than you do) so you can pat yourselves on the back with "your" charity and compassion - when in reality it is little more than thinly disguised theft. Fair is busting your ass to provide for your family and getting a reasonable minimum wage for doing so. Fair is access to quality public education. Fair is the expectation that all of the nation's debts don't get passed on to your children. Fair is the idea that if you invest in stock, the company won't use accounting scams to screw you out of your investment. Fair is the idea that a construction worker doesn't pay more tax than a rich investor pays on his capital gains. Fair is the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you have a decent chance of getting ahead. If those are liberal concepts, or if you think that those ideas are "thinly disguised theft," so be it. In some vain hope that some small portion of Reason will resonate with you - you "deserve" only two things: To be free of fraud and to be free of force directed against you (or the threat of force). You do not "deserve" to be successful, smart, good looking, rich, happy, or important. And, no, you don't deserve "fairness" beyond the aforementioned prohibitions against fraud/force/threat. The *reason* this is true, is because beyond limiting f/f/t, any government intervention in the lives of its citizens *always* benefits one person (group) at the *expense* of another person (group). You act like the concept of fairness is obscene. What a country your philosophy would create. Under your system, you are entitled to get just as much as you can screw your neighbor out of! "It is reasonable that everyone who asks justice should do justice." -- Thomas Jefferson, American Founding Father and third U.S. president (1743-1826), letter to George Hammond, 1792 ought to have a fair opportunity to prove their skills. The Everyman will give his neighbor a hand if he's in a tight spot. Yes he will - but you Lefties want to use the force of government to *make* him do this for your Pet Cause Of The Moment. This is both forceful and fraudulent, and is thus immoral. No, the neo-cons aren't the type to give their neighbors a helping hand. The sit around bemoaning the way the government uses "their" taxes to pay for the "welfare bums." Poll for the neo-cons out there. Any of you guys ever worked in the soup kitchen at the local shelter? Most of the churches contribute volunteers to work a shift there. Go take a look at the "welfare bums" at the shelter. They are a lot of single moms with kids (some ill). More construction workers than you can shake a stick at. Most of them work in jobs that don't let them make ends meet. None of them are under the influence of drugs or alcohol (you have to be sober to get in). On the other hand, you Bushies believe in a dog-eat-dog world where a I dunno who you're talking to here. I am no "Bushie". helping hand is a waste of "your" tax money on the welfare "bums." You It's not a "helping hand" it's theft - and the Bushies practice it too. Again (using small words and simple concepts) - it is not "charity" or "good works" to *forcibly* remove wealth from one person and give it to another. It is stealing. Something you should have learned long ago in Sunday School/Temple/Mosque/Tee-Pee/... is wrong in all cases. No, it's tax. It's the fee that you pay to live in a stable and secure society that affords you the opportunity to work hard and prosper. If you think you can find a country that affords a better ratio of opportunity/cost, then you should move there. With regards to what everyone learns in Sunday School/Temple/Mosque/Tee- Pee, well every single religion I know of has fairly explicit teachings on the requirement that all people have obligation to their fellow man. believe in a world where it doesn't matter if you saddle the next generation with a staggering debt, as long as your buddies get some tax Oh how I love it when the Left starts to drool. It is *so* easy to refute. Please turn in your tax preparation books to the back pages where the division of Federal expenditures is documented. For fiscal 2004, just over 20% of the Fed budget went to military expenditures. Around 60% went to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Programs, and Community Development programs. Every single thing in this 60% is a form of theft, outside the Constitutional mandate of government, extracted by force, and, by definition, immoral. If you really cared about the "staggering debt" as something more than a talking point, you and your ilk would kick the entire behind of Congress and demand a return to Constitutional Federalism, wherein the Federal government has its hands tied to do the only thing its supposed to: Keep us free ... well, that, and run the Post Office What a red herring. I could care less about debating with you whether or not the Constitution provides the authority for government to render these services. You can hypothesize some kind of minimalist utopia where the last hundred years never happened, but that would be just a pipe dream. The fact is that the budget deficit has skyrocketed to record levels under Bush. Even in times of war and record deficit, he has successfully pushed large tax cuts that preferentially benefit the rich. Of course, since these are all on borrowed money, it's my kids that will end up paying for Bush's tax cuts. I make a reasonable salary, and I pay a fair amount of tax. I figure that's my responsibility -- those were the rules of the game when I earned the salary, and I'm obligated to pay it. Fair enough. Now can you explain to me why my kids should be obligated to pay a future debt incurred by our generation, just so that millionares can get a tax break today? SNIP Pretty soon the country is going to wake up and realize that the neo-cons aren't really representing the Everyman at all. And then we'll see who gets the shellacking. You're right - the necons don't represent Everyman - but they are far less removed from Everyman than the Left - and that's why you're gonna continue to lose power. They're really wrong about a lot of things, and you guys are even worse. The cure for this is a serious reclamation of Federalism, as I said. The Federal government ought to be a minor part of every citizen's life - in taxation and in actual presence. Until this is true, the Right is going to look bad, and the Left is going to look worse. Of course you realize that the Right has increased the intrusion of the Federal government into the lives of the citizens. Aside from the obvious example of the Patriot Act, the government is now larger than it's ever been. Paradoxically, the Right has grown government more than the Left ever did. And the Right is working hard for judicial activism, except for the causes of the Right. But a vote for Peroutka is almost as good as a vote for the Democrats. No - he was arrogantly stupid. His failure to open his kimono to a superpower making threats on his front porch was pure ego and hubris. The invasion was entirely avoidable up until the last moment. Setting aside the prudence of the war generally, I think Bush was sincere in his willingness to stand down our military had SH cooperated as we wished. The "everyone knows that he had it coming to him anyway" reasoning. No, it's the "Reality trumps Theory" line of reasoning. He refused to cooperate with Reality (much like the political Left) and got his nether regions handed to him (much like the political Left). Might makes right, eh? SNIP 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 Ward Churchill leaps to mind. Teddy Kennedy is implictly in the same Ward Churchill leaps to mind because he's all over Fox News and Clear Channel. Without Fox and Clear Channel pushing the story, nobody would even know who Ward Churchill is. But by airing Churchill every night, That is *not* true. Churchill has offended the living crap out of people in his own community having nothing to do with Right wing broadcasters. For the record, I oppose all federal funding for schools, but, if we fund anyone, then we have to fund everyone. The attempt to silence this walking rectal parasite is wrong. He should continue to be able to speak his mind freely for several reasons: What do you know of Churchill offending the living crap out of people in his own community? Shucks, I live 30 miles from where Churchill teaches. Nobody here gave a tinker's damn about Churchill. It took Fox News and Clear Channel to pump the story before I even knew who Ward Churchill was. 1) Government ought not to be in the business of choosing who does and who does not get to speak. 2) The best way to get rid of lousy ideas is let those ideas be loudly spoken. The more often, the better, so that people see what a fraud the speaker is. 3) The more his ideas get spoken, the more people will realize what kind of nonsense their tax dollars pay for, and the sooner we can get the government out of the (fake) education business. they can pump up their ratings and stoke conservative indignation as well. With 300 million people in the country you are bound to find an oddity like Churchill. If you ask 100 people, you may even find one that agrees with Churchill. But you will probably find ten other people who are eager to send those people off to Gitmo. I worry more about the ten than I do about the one. I'm shocked, just *shocked* at these last two paragraphs. As a self avowed member of the Deeply Caring Left do you not see the conflict in your statements above? On the one hand, you dismiss the Churchill affair to nothing more than an attempt to "stoke conservative indignation", but on the other you argue that very few people agree with him anyway. Where (he says sweetly) is the *Liberal indignation* about Churchill's outrageous statements, pray tell? Oh silly, me the man who compares the workers in the Twin Towers to Eichman's minions is *far far* less worrisome to you than people on this country's political (far) Right. And you continue to be astounded by how rapidly you're losing political clout in this nation? Correct. Churchill's basically a fringer of no real importance. Fox is pumping the story to get ratings money. Churchill will make lots of money from the notoriety. The Right will continue to use this case as an example of the need to suppress free speech, which (if they are successful) is much more dangerous than Churchill's crackpot opinions. In the meantime the country will largely to continue real and pressing problems like the deficit, the economy, and Iraq. 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. They weren't "tortured" except in the lexicon of the Left. They were *humiliated* and placed under *duress*. No permanent physical harm came to any of them as best as I have read. And "they" in this case, were Are you serious? "Lexicon of the Left"? Here's just one example: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6988054/ In May of 2004 the Army had 33 active probes going on for the deaths of a total of 32 detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May21.html OK Sparky, time for another history lesson. People out of uniform, enaged in active combat during a time of war (active hostilities) are legally considered *spies*. A uniformed army has (in most cases) the right to *kill such people on the spot* without explanation, other than to demonstrate their status as spies. The Geneva Conventions do not apply. I would share your Oh-So-Sincere-Lefty-Outrage if the persons in question had been uniformed soliders who were treated as described. But they were not. There may be practical reasons to avoid outright torture (because it is often not effective) but there are no moral or legal reasons to avoid it. In combat it is kill or be killed. If you have to push some spies around to reduce the numbers of your comrades that are killed or maimed, so be it. Also the argument against coercion on the grounds that we hope our own POWs will be better treated, *really* doesn't apply here - while we were embarassing the Poor Darlings, their fellow jihadists were *beheading* our *non-combatant civilians*. The most practical reason for avoiding torture is that when it becomes known, it undermines the fight to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. How many terrorists do you suppose that Osama recruited as a result of those Abu Ghraib pictures? Technicalities for the status of the prisoners has no bearing on the need of the military to define and follow protocols and to enforce military discipline. ... Lefties that lie, cheat, and steal are wrong too. They typically do not engage in torture or murder though. That they leave to No - they usually make nice with the people who *are* torturers and murderers. As long ago as the FDR administration the US political Left was openly in bed with avowed Communists. The KGB had people operating in government with the tacit knowledge of the FDR folks (this is documented in excruciating detail in "The Mitrokhin Archive"). Communism in its various 20th Century incarnations was responsible for literally millions of deaths and many more cases of vast human rights abuses ... but the Left was always in love with it in varying degrees. The Left also has - at various times - been in love with the human rights paradises in Cuba, North Viet Nam, Maoist China, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. No, they don't actually *do* the torture and murder - they (in some degree) enable the hitmen who do it ... Similar arguments were used by the supporters of McCarthy to blacklist a lot of good Americans. I think that as a country, we have a short recollection of history. I have a very *good* recollection of history - let's make sure you do. Joe McCarthy was another walking rectal parasite. He was a grandstanding drunk and a power hungry Congress Critter. However, two things turn out to be true that are often overlooked when he is cited to try to make or refute a point (as you do - we'll get to that in a moment): McCarthy was popular as hell for quite a while. His little pogrom went on for quite some time, and his supporters were using some of the same language that we see from the Bushies today. First, he's often tarred with the brush of the House UnAmerican Activities stuff that went after Hollywood. Since you're up on your history, you'll know that this was almost entirely not the case. HUAC was a *House* committee - McCarthy was in the *Senate*, and he was there *after* HUAC was already in motion. Secondly, McCarthy's primary concern was the inflitration of the US *government* by Communist spies and sympathizers. It turns out *he was largely right*. Mitrokhin, among others, (the former KGB insider who defected to the West with a huge load of records in the late 1980s) documents all manner of Communist infiltration of the US federal government from FDR forward in many case with the knowledge of US officials, especially during the FDR era. McCarthy's methods and motives were awful, but his concerns and claims were more right than most people realize. His methods were corrosive to democracy. Now, back to your silly little attempt to counter my point. It doesn't matter who said what as regards to McCarthy or anyone else. If you make common cause with murderers, you are an accessory to murder. This is true whether it is the US government propping up South American dictators, Jimmy Carter going to Cuba and remaining strangely silent about that dictator's behavior (while publicly condemning the policies of his own nation), Jane Fonda making squeaky noises with people trying to kill her fellow citizens in Viet Nam, or .... well, you get the idea. Suppose the US covertly supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and suppose the US largely turned a blind eye while Saddam was using chemical weapons in that war? Now, both Right and Left administrations have been guilty about this sort of thing over the years ... and it is reprehensible. But ... given that it did happen, one is led to ask, "Whose bad guys were worse?" The American Right has tended to prop up Bad Guys who were, whatever else their sins, *pro-American*. The Left, by contrast, has cozied up to leaders and movements that are *anti* American. Once again we see that the Right is bad/awful/horrible/nasty/stupid sometimes, but the Left, reliably, is worse ... What??? You are going to claim that the Left is cultivating anti- Americanism? I'll need some examples of that ... and better ones than Jane Fonda (unless you are making your argument based on private citizens, in which case I can find some real nutcases on the right). Besides, your argument that the Right only supports pro-American causes is significantly undermined by our support for the Mujadeen, which later went on to form both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Darned, how could we have known that Islamic fundamentalist militants wouldn't be friendly to the US? You Lefties are going to continue to lose ground to the Right for these and many other reasons. One of the many reasons I have come to have such irredeemable contempt for the Left is that it has (by its behavior and stupidity) handed the keys of power to the Right for a very long time. I prefer it when the Left and Right have about an equal division of power. The more they fight, the less they get done, and Liberty flourishes when government is in perpetual deadlock. Instead, we have the Drooling Left ineptly fumbling around without a clue, without any identifiable principles, defending the coarsest possible causes, inflaming the mainstream voters, and generally conceding more and more power to the Right. Now this particular Rightwing government doesn't worry me so much. But in the long view, Rightwing governments are scary things. Hitler and Mussolini both leap to mind as examples of the Right gone Wrong. Ah, we have a point of agreement! A divided Congress and Presidency are essential to restore checks and balances. The Democrats are to blame for not fighting harder in the last two elections. And Rightwingers carried to extremes are very dangerous. The antidote for all this, in case you care, is to reclaim our intellectual and philosophical heritage. If the Left wants to be relevant again, it has to admit to itself that wealth redistribution, no matter how noble the intention, is theft in every case. It has to embrace Federalism and limited government. It needs to affirm the power of Capitalism and competition as the sole honest vehicle by which people's lives are made better (by themselves). In short, the modern "liberal" movement, needs to abandon the bankrupt socialism that has crippled it from FDR forward and instead become a *Classical Liberal* movement. We Classical Liberals would welcome you and any real Conservatives back into the fold that built this nation. Until that happens, the Left will continue to lose ground, the Right will continue to gain power, and Liberty will continue its path to permanent extinction. No. I agree that smaller government is more desirable. I agree that lower taxes are desirable (insofar as they can be reasonably achieved without large deficits). I agree that protection of our Constitutional rights is an utmost priority. But I also think that the existing system of government is basically workable (provided checks and balances were restored), and I think the form of Federalism that you advocate is too radical a solution at present. |
|
#341
|
|||
|
|||
|
Duane Bozarth wrote in
: Nate Perkins wrote: Duane Bozarth wrote in : Nate Perkins wrote: The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his plan will cause more harm than good. In what way(s)? It's the wrong direction because it increases the deficit, and in the short term the deficit is a far more pressing problem than is social security. Borrowing more money (a couple trillion) to finance the parallel privatization plan is risky because it increases the risk that foreign debtors will decrease confidence in our committment to fiscal discipline. There are a host of other problems as well: inconsistent projection basis for SS solvency vs privatization returns, unlikely projection of future stock values based on recent historical values, and erosion of return differences due to administrative fees. Privatizers like to accurately point out that SS revenues/expenditures are not practically separate from the general federal revenues/expenditures. With that being true, then the best thing to do to ease multiple problems is to restore fiscal discipline. That's what I figured you were going after... What's wrong w/ the direction, not what's wrong w/ details of how to implement a change in direction? That's what bugs me about the whole debate--it's a ****ing contest between two extremes with neither taking the time nor effort to consider a combination of changes. My contention is the idea of increasing personal stake in one's own retirement is almost mandatory while retaining commitments made to those close enough to retirement that it is only responsible to maintain those within reason. News organizations only exacerbate the problem as their primary purpose seems to be to foment dissension to sell headlines. If you listened to Greenspan the other day, you would get a feel for what could realistically be done. The real problem is the other out-of-control entitlement spending (MediCare, MedicAid, etc.) that both political parties are almost equally responsible for. I agree with you completely. The concept of partial privatization is not inherently bad, provided it could be done in a prudent way that did not kill the short term debt, and provided the private investments could be done with minimal impact to the markets and with minimal administrative overhead. It's just that I don't see much chance of that happening. I agree that the real problem is out of control spending in all areas, including entitlements, as well as irresponsible tax revenue reductions, since both have contributed significantly to the deficits. |
|
#342
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in : In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in . com: In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in . com: 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. So now you admit that all the weapons were destroyed years earlier. But you want to claim that the invasion was still justified because the i's weren't dotted correctly and the t's weren't crossed right? Geez, Nate, your reading comprehension just gets worse and worse. I did *not* "admit that all the weapons were destroyed years earlier". I acknowledged the possibility that they might have been, while emphasizing that there was *no* UN verification of that fact. And you completely missed the larger point of my comment, which is that your claim that Saddam destroyed those weapons under UN supervision is a great, fat, thumping LIE. From the letter of submission from Charles Duelfer's final report: "It now appears clear that Saddam, despite internal reluctance, particularly on the part of the head of Iraq’s military industries, Husayn Kamil, resolved to eliminate the existing stocks of WMD weapons during the course of the summer of 1991 in support of the prime objective of getting rid of sanctions. The goal was to do enough to be able to argue that they had complied with UN requirements." So on your planet, "resolved to eliminate" is the same as "actually did eliminate". Readthat Duelfer quote again. As often as necessary to understand it. Especially the last sentence. That makes it very clear that the former Iraqi government was not to actually comply with the UN requirements, but simply to *appear* to do so. Si I have to wonder if it really worth thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars just because you don't like the way the paperwork was done??? It seems to me that this is an ideal justification for pushing continuing inspections, but not for launching a war. You persistently miss the point. The problem is not with "the way the paperwork was done". The problem is that, although the former Iraqi government *claimed* to have destroyed the WMDs, there was, and is, *no* independent verification that they actually did so, and hence no way of knowing that those weapons were actually destroyed, other than taking Saddam's word for it. Bottom line: We know he had WMDs at one point, because he actually used them. He claimed to have gotten rid of them. Nobody can verify that claim. It's illogical to assume that the claim is true. Your posts are nothing but a lot of silly hairsplitting. The fact is that WMDs were the primary reason to go to war, and it's clear that Saddam had no active WMD programs. You want to quibble about paperwork and wording, You obviously didn't read, or didn't comprehend, *anything* I wrote. Come back when your reading comprehension improves. Not likely, Doug. Your quibbling, hairsplitting, and word games are a complete waste of my time. I'll try one more time, after which I'll be forced to write you off as completely uneducatable. This is not "quibbling, hairsplitting, [or] word games," Nate. This is a statement of plain facts: The UN mandated that Saddam destroy his WMDs under UN supervision so that everybody in the world would know that they had been destroyed. He didn't do that. He might have destroyed them, he might have hidden them, he might have cooked and eaten them. Whatever he did with them, he did in secret. Therefore, NOBODY KNOWS what happened to them, except for Saddam and the people working for him. I find it bizarre, to say the least, that you assume on this basis that they were in fact destroyed. -- 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? |
|
#343
|
|||
|
|||
|
Constitutional refresher.
The very first sentence: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." See - provide for defense, common welfare of the people, maintain freedom. Renata On 20 Feb 2005 05:58:07 EST, Tim Daneliuk wrote: _GIANT snip- return to Constitutional Federalism, wherein the Federal government has its hands tied to do the only thing its supposed to: Keep us free ... well, that, and run the Post Office -GIANT Snip- |
|
#344
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Renata wrote:
Constitutional refresher. The very first sentence: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Further refresher: The remainder of the document enumerates *quite* specifically what the federal government may and may not do. Amendment X clarifies this by saying, in essence, that anything that the federal government is not specifically authorized to do, it may *not* do. If the government were to confine its expenditures and activities to only those functions which the Constitution authorizes, it would be much, much smaller. -- 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? |
|
#345
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:02:20 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:
I'm on a different computer right now. Thanks for reminding me to add you to the killfile. Ah, yes, the "different computer" line. Next it will be "something happened to my settings," and then "I read this in another post" routine. |
|
#347
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#348
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , GregP wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:24:17 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: The most vocal, obscene voices raised against participation in the war were the Good Republicans who created the "German- American Bund" to support Adolf. And your proof of this claim would be... ? Stop plaing the ignirint ilitirit fundamentalist and do your own lookups. No, that won't wash. You've been caught once again, posting nonsense, then ducking the issue when challenged. Same old story. You've posted too many falsehoods already to have any credibility at all. Bottom line: You made the claim, you prove it's true. -- 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? |
|
#349
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amen, Brother.
|
|
#350
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article , says... If the government were to confine its expenditures and activities to only those functions which the Constitution authorizes, it would be much, much smaller. Again we agree! But since it has taken my money for over 60 years, I plan to get as much back from it as I can :-). And I can't argue with that -- they took it from you, I'd say they owe it back to you, plus interest. But aren't you ****ed when you think about how much *more* money you'd have, if you had invested what they took? -- 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? |
|
#351
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18 Feb 2005 15:01:00 -0800, wrote:
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. How typical of a trollish person, trying to drag another group's noise into this one. 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. I never said that and you know it. Your type says there aren't WMD there, and if there are, they don't count for some reason or another. I reject that, on both counts. 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? It obviously _was_ there, Fred, that's my point. How many more just happen to be there? 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? Are you proposing that all the stashes of material have been identified, inventoried, and/or destroyed? How...naiive of you. 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. Yeah, after we gave them a decade to hide what they needed to hide. "Come on in, you won't find anything". That is the point I was making all along. Thank you for admitting I was correct. Distorting your opponent's statements is a good way to admit you can't win the argument on the merit of your own. Concession of point noted. 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? My question first. What happened during that decade, Fred? Sure, he let a token amount be destroyed, but obviously the WMD he had was non-zero (even you would have to admit that). 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. What part of "we gave him a decade to hide stuff" don't you understand? It's _hidden_, Fred. 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. You have an interesting definitino of "cooperated". 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. I'm having a hard time trying to have a problem with that, sorry. SH needed to go. There's a dozen other countries with dictators who need to go, too. Of course there are differences. China restricts US action against North Korea and Iran is far more populous than Iraq. Point? 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. Let's look at that sentence for a minute. That's the second time you've used it or something similar. Here, you're gluing two dissimilar thoughts into one. "No one ever denied that SH had the intent to make WMD.". So here, you're saying that SH wanted to make WMD. I think we both agree on that. But then, "that was one of Bush's lies.". What, that SH wanted WMD? or that nobody said he didn't, or what? '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. It's obviously not clear or rational, hence the question to clarify. 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? That which you wrote. Do try to keep up, Fred. SH was being supported ("trusted", if you will) _at the time_, because at the time, we disliked Iran even more. 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. ....which is why they were glad to stonewall the UN for a decade, so they could make and hide what they did. 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. Your faith in a ruthless dictator and his zealots is, I think, misplaced. You trust SH and a whole lot of people who hate us? Great, why not go visit over there & let us know how it turns out. We'll see you on TV, I suppose. 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 You haven't read that page then, obviously. Which specific part of it are you claiming shows your point? Because I see it saying that it's clear they were _NOT_ mobile hydrogen generators. It says that was the cover story. You can find that under the heading of "Hydrogen production cover story". It also shows examples of mobile laboratories used for legitimate purposes, and compares and contrasts those with these mobile production labs. In other words, you have completely mis-stated what that document talks about. You either misread it, or words to you mean other things than they do to the rest of the world, or more likely, you assumed nobody would check and find out that you're lying about what the article says. 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? The CIA's opinion seems to differ with yours. 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. Riiiight, so because I don't trust a dictator who has used WMD, I'm immoral. Amazing. |
|
#352
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:50:55 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in : "Can't find 'em" doesn't mean "aren't here" or even "weren't here", Nate. Dave, you are starting to look desperate in your denial. The primary pretext for going to war with Iraq was WMDs, but they had none prior to the invasion. That was _one_ of the reasons, yes. 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? No, one twenty year old leftover sarin shell from the Iran-Iraq war is not enough for me to want to go into a war that costs thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. And yet, it shows that there were WMD there that were not declared. He had his trailers mothballed & stored. If he was acting in good faith, why would he have and store those trailers, Nate? 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?". At the end the UNMOVIC guys were going anywhere they wanted with no notice. You know that. Yes, he was done hiding his stuff by then. So I think you are intentionally exaggerating. And still nothing was found. It's not that easy to move large quantities of WMDs, as Iraq was supposed to have. We had surveillance overflights, satellites, etc etc looking for just that. Ten years is a long time. 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? Bio lab trailers? That was really laughable. Do you know anything about science ... chemical, biological, or nuclear materials? Ever seen a chemical plant or a pharmaceutical plant? Do you suppose that companies like Dow and Amgen spend hundreds of millions of dollars building manufacturing plants when they could just as easily do it in a "mobile tractor trailer?" Why don't you tell that to the CIA? Here's the link that Fred didn't understand: http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq.../index.html#07 What centrifuge parts do you mean? The incomplete parts buried in some guy's backyard in 1991? Incomplete, yes, but critical parts to rebuilding the program. Please comment on the trailers, though, it'd be interesting to see how you twist it. "I don't trust the CIA" is I expect what your answer will be. 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. Yeah, a bunch of you guys on the right want to get out now that the going is messy. Unfortunately leaving now creates a much bigger mess than if we had done nothing. So we have to stay and clean up the problem that was created. Which, the problem of us rebuilding the infrastructure, or the problem of us having removed the dictator? You probably won't acknowledge Libya's disarming is a result of Bush's decisions either, I suppose. No, I don't. Imagine my surprise. Libya had been trying to rejoin the international community since 1998, when it turned over the two terror suspects for the Lockerbie bombing. In early 2001, Libya was lobbying through Britain for lifting of UN sanctions. And yet, nothing moved until we were in the neighborhood with an army. 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. Do you really think there will be less threat to us if one of the largest countries in the Middle East is either in civil war or under a Shiite fundamentalist government? If they're fighting each other, that's better than them fighting us. So sure, kill each other, weaken each other. Keeps 'em busy and off our doorstep. 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. Do they need WMDs? Where are those, what, 330 tons of high grade plastic explosives that went missing? Do you suppose any of that ended up with Al Zaqari, and through him over to Osama? I see, so now Nate says "Why worry about WMD when they have other weapons". Interesting twist. I don't trust 'em at all, especially with WMD. Yeah, we are definitely safer now. Good thing the UN was on top of things, eh? Said brutal dictator is now in irons. Funny how your type seems to think that's not important. Brutal dictators are a dime a dozen in the world. And he's not much different from some of the brutal dictators that we are calling allies today. 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. I'll give Bush plenty of credit for ****ing off the Middle East. The middle east is ****ed off that Libya disarmed? That's strange. News flash: they've been ****ed off at us since the crusades. 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? Seems to be effective so far. You think we can take them all on at once? You suppose we'll invade them once they have nukes? Hard to say. The people who know more about it than you and I do, know more about it than you and I do. |
|
#353
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message 5.201... And when the Israelis sent tanks into the West Bank and Gaza, Bush did nothing diplomatically or financially to restrain them. So? |
|
#354
|
|||
|
|||
|
"CW" wrote in message ... "Nate Perkins" wrote in message 5.201... And when the Israelis sent tanks into the West Bank and Gaza, Bush did nothing diplomatically or financially to restrain them. So? Great response. This is the kind of intelligent discourse we can expect from the right. |
|
#356
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:41:56 -0800, "mp" wrote:
That's because Bush doesn't see everything in black and white as you are doing here. He is working diplomatically as much as possible. You have a short memory. As you don't seem to recall, Bush was hell bent on charging into Iraq, while the rest of the world was saying let's give diplomacy a chance Actually, it was to let Blix (spell?) finish his work, which he did less than a year later. |
|
#357
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#358
|
|||
|
|||
|
I asked a question. You failed to answer. About says it.
"Roy Blankenship" wrote in message ink.net... Great response. This is the kind of intelligent discourse we can expect from the right. |
|
#359
|
|||
|
|||
|
"CW" wrote in message ... I asked a question. You failed to answer. About says it. "Roy Blankenship" wrote in message ink.net... Great response. This is the kind of intelligent discourse we can expect from the right. You asked nothing, top-poster. You gave a defiant "So?" in response to another post. YOU figure it out. |
|
#360
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote in
: On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:50:55 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote: Dave Hinz wrote in : "Can't find 'em" doesn't mean "aren't here" or even "weren't here", Nate. Dave, you are starting to look desperate in your denial. The primary pretext for going to war with Iraq was WMDs, but they had none prior to the invasion. That was _one_ of the reasons, yes. You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks. How many times did the Bush administration mention "mushroom clouds?" How many times did they mention 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath? If you want to pretend that none of that happened, and that the Congress and public would have been eager to wage a preemptive war just to "spread freedom and liberty," then I think you are not being realistic. 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? No, one twenty year old leftover sarin shell from the Iran-Iraq war is not enough for me to want to go into a war that costs thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. And yet, it shows that there were WMD there that were not declared. He had his trailers mothballed & stored. If he was acting in good faith, why would he have and store those trailers, Nate? Who said he was acting in good faith besides you? As for those trailers, they are only one in a long line of exaggerations: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...977853,00.html 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?". At the end the UNMOVIC guys were going anywhere they wanted with no notice. You know that. Yes, he was done hiding his stuff by then. Why do you guys continue to disbelieve the final report of the President's own handpicked chief investigator: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...ne_Events.html So I think you are intentionally exaggerating. And still nothing was found. It's not that easy to move large quantities of WMDs, as Iraq was supposed to have. We had surveillance overflights, satellites, etc etc looking for just that. Ten years is a long time. Ibid. 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? Bio lab trailers? That was really laughable. Do you know anything about science ... chemical, biological, or nuclear materials? Ever seen a chemical plant or a pharmaceutical plant? Do you suppose that companies like Dow and Amgen spend hundreds of millions of dollars building manufacturing plants when they could just as easily do it in a "mobile tractor trailer?" Why don't you tell that to the CIA? Here's the link that Fred didn't understand: http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq.../index.html#07 Yeah, that is another embarrassment for the CIA, isn't it? And embarrassing that Colin Powell showed all those glossy slides of those trailers to the UN, too: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...977853,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/09/in...al/09WEAP.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/in...al/26WEAP.html What centrifuge parts do you mean? The incomplete parts buried in some guy's backyard in 1991? Incomplete, yes, but critical parts to rebuilding the program. Please comment on the trailers, though, it'd be interesting to see how you twist it. "I don't trust the CIA" is I expect what your answer will be. See above. 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. Yeah, a bunch of you guys on the right want to get out now that the going is messy. Unfortunately leaving now creates a much bigger mess than if we had done nothing. So we have to stay and clean up the problem that was created. Which, the problem of us rebuilding the infrastructure, or the problem of us having removed the dictator? Silly. You probably won't acknowledge Libya's disarming is a result of Bush's decisions either, I suppose. No, I don't. Imagine my surprise. Libya had been trying to rejoin the international community since 1998, when it turned over the two terror suspects for the Lockerbie bombing. In early 2001, Libya was lobbying through Britain for lifting of UN sanctions. And yet, nothing moved until we were in the neighborhood with an army. Libya had been trying to negotiate to lift sanctions for several years prior to Iraq. Trying to attribute Libya's previous actions to the Iraq war is wishful thinking. 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. Do you really think there will be less threat to us if one of the largest countries in the Middle East is either in civil war or under a Shiite fundamentalist government? If they're fighting each other, that's better than them fighting us. So sure, kill each other, weaken each other. Keeps 'em busy and off our doorstep. Wow. Do you think the threat to us is from the Iraqis??? The Iraqis have not been a threat since Gulf War I. The threat to us is from Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. One of the principal goals of Al Qaeda is to undermine and topple all secular nations in the Middle East, and to spread Taliban-style theocracy. Not only does our war in Iraq destabilize one of the largest secular countries in the region, it also empowers the Shiite majority that is most closely allied with fundamentalist Iran. Plus, the war in Iraq is a recruiting boon for Bin Laden, and it's an efficient training ground for terrorists. Surely you have heard of Al-Zarqawi and his group, recently renamed "Al Qaeda in Iraq." 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. Do they need WMDs? Where are those, what, 330 tons of high grade plastic explosives that went missing? Do you suppose any of that ended up with Al Zaqari, and through him over to Osama? I see, so now Nate says "Why worry about WMD when they have other weapons". Interesting twist. I don't trust 'em at all, especially with WMD. Yeah, we are definitely safer now. Good thing the UN was on top of things, eh? You blame the UN? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...orld/sns-iraq- munitions,1,7437110.story?coll=chi-news-hed Kind of speaks for itself. Said brutal dictator is now in irons. Funny how your type seems to think that's not important. Brutal dictators are a dime a dozen in the world. And he's not much different from some of the brutal dictators that we are calling allies today. Funny how your type seems to think that's not important. I do think it is important that we are making alliances with people that are nearly as bad as Saddam. Pakistan's exportation of nuclear weapons technology is potentially much much worse than anything Saddam did. So why did Musharraf pardon AQ Khan, and why is Musharraf our good buddy? 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. I'll give Bush plenty of credit for ****ing off the Middle East. The middle east is ****ed off that Libya disarmed? That's strange. News flash: they've been ****ed off at us since the crusades. I think you know why the Middle East (and most of the world) is ****ed with the US. And that it is much worse now than it was previous to the Iraq war. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3518412.stm http://people-press.org/commentary/d...?AnalysisID=77 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? Seems to be effective so far. You think we can take them all on at once? You suppose we'll invade them once they have nukes? Hard to say. The people who know more about it than you and I do, know more about it than you and I do. Wow. You obviously have a level of trust that I don't. |
| 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
