In response to "So, where are the WMD"
On Tues, 8 Mar 2005 (Doug Miller) wrote:
a) Syria.
b) Iran.
c) buried in the desert in Iraq.
d) all of the above.

On Tues, 8 Mar 2005 (Doug Miller) wrote:
Afraid to use them against us because he knew we'd nuke him, but didn't want
to get rid of them altogether because he was saving them up to use on Israel.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

You just don't seem able to grasp the simple concept that there were *other*
reasons as well.

Come back when you figure that out.


Living proof...2+2 does = 5

Renata

"...
According to David Brock, the onetime Republican "hit man" whose book,
"The Republican Noise Machine," explains exactly how the system works,
the White House's "explicit goal is to get us to the point where there
are blue [state] facts and red [state] facts."

Judging by my e-mail, it's working. Hardly a day passes that I don't
hear from perfectly decent, intelligent citizens who believe that
there's proof Saddam's WMD were smuggled into Syria or that documents
implicating him in 9/11 have been found. This was Orwell's great fear:
that the very concept of objectivity would disappear from political
discourse. "Collective solipsism," he called it; the ability to
convince people that 2 + 2 = 5.

A few recent examples:

George W. Bush nominates a black woman as secretary of state, and
pundits who have spent their careers decrying "political correctness"
argue as one that Democrats opposing her must be hypocritical bigots.

He nominates for attorney general a guy who rationalized torture, and
that man's ethnicity, too, becomes his only necessary credential. Only
after Alberto Gonzales is confirmed by the Senate do some GOP pundits
rediscover their consciences.

A former male escort infiltrates the White House press corps via the
buddy system, and the very pundits who just months ago warned that
Democrats would enshrine the "homosexual agenda" go silent. Or they
pretend not to understand the difference between a gay reporter and a
gay prostitute. No fatwa issues from radical clerics like Jerry
Falwell or Pat Robertson; James Dobson keeps railing about the
imagined sexual proclivities of a cartoon sponge.

What do such examples tell us? First, that neither the Bush White
House nor most GOP pundits actually give a flying filigree about
"political correctness," " family values, "" moral clarity" or any of
it. What counts is winning. What counts is power.
...."

By Gene Lyons, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Copyright (c) 2005 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.

In article , Renata wrote:
In response to "So, where are the WMD"
On Tues, 8 Mar 2005 (Doug Miller) wrote:
a) Syria.
b) Iran.
c) buried in the desert in Iraq.
d) all of the above.

On Tues, 8 Mar 2005 (Doug Miller) wrote:
Afraid to use them against us because he knew we'd nuke him, but didn't want
to get rid of them altogether because he was saving them up to use on Israel.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

You just don't seem able to grasp the simple concept that there were *other*
reasons as well.

Come back when you figure that out.


Living proof...2+2 does = 5

[irrelevantia snipped]

Did you have a point there somewhere? There is no contradiction between the
true statement that there were other reasons besides WMDs for going to war
with Iraq, and my speculations on what might have happened to those WMDs.

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

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

(Doug Miller) wrote in
news
In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:


The UN required that they be destroyed under UN supervision, in
order that the whole world would KNOW that they had been destroyed.
That did not happen, and thus it is NOT known what became of them.

That's a pretty weak reason to wage a preemptive war.

You just don't seem able to grasp the simple concept that there were
*other* reasons as well.

Really? Which debunked reason do you want to fall back on this time?

It is quite possible to be strongly in favor of freedom, liberty, and
democracy -- but still be very opposed to the Iraq war. Last I checked,
patriotism is not synonymous with blind support for a stupid course of
action.

Come back when you figure that out.

Difficult to figure out such a vague position.


-----------------------
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." -- G. Washington

In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
news
In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:


The UN required that they be destroyed under UN supervision, in
order that the whole world would KNOW that they had been destroyed.
That did not happen, and thus it is NOT known what became of them.

That's a pretty weak reason to wage a preemptive war.

You just don't seem able to grasp the simple concept that there were
*other* reasons as well.

Really? Which debunked reason do you want to fall back on this time?

On my planet, Saddam is still a murderous tyrant. Has that notion been
debunked on yours?


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

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

Doug Miller states:

On my planet, Saddam is still a murderous tyrant. Has that notion
been
debunked on yours?

Nobody has even suggested Saddam Hussein was less than a murderous
tyrant. What others, and I, feel is that he was not a direct threat to
the U.S. at any time, not likely to become one in a rational time
frame, and thus was not worth the expenditure of life and treasure that
has been applied.

On 11 Mar 2005 10:32:23 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
Doug Miller states:

On my planet, Saddam is still a murderous tyrant. Has that notion
been
debunked on yours?

Nobody has even suggested Saddam Hussein was less than a murderous
tyrant. What others, and I, feel is that he was not a direct threat to
the U.S. at any time, not likely to become one in a rational time
frame, and thus was not worth the expenditure of life and treasure that
has been applied.

Right, because if it doesn't matter to the USA, it isn't worth doing,
is that it?

Doug Miller wrote:


On my planet, Saddam is still a murderous tyrant. Has that notion
been
debunked on yours?


What planet is that?

On my planet, Saddam Hussein is an ex-tyrant. GW Bush deserves the
credit for that, as he most probably would still be a muderous tyrant
today otherwise.

GWB also deserves credit for Lybia's decision to abondon its WMD
program, for a competant Afghanistan Campaign, and probably his
posturing against Syria has encouraged the Lebanese to stand
up against the Syrian occupation.

OTOH, under GW Bush's direction Iran and North Korea have taken
an apporoach opposite to Lybia, and dicatorships in Pakistan,
and Turkmenistan have been strenghtened, our military is overextended
and under-supplied and the WMD proliferation risk from Iraq has
increased as sites previously kept under UN and IAEA seal have
been looted during the occupation while the US was busy securing
the petroleum infrasructure instead.

Not all of the WMD infrastructure declared to the UN had been
destroyed, much of it was 'dual use' in nature (e.g. yellowcake)
and Iraq had retained it without violating any sanctions, under
close supervision by IAEA and UNSCOM later UNMOVIC.

--

FF

In addition, Putin is now selling weapons grade uranium to Iran. Imagine the country with all that electricity generating oil and they want us to believe they need atomic energy for peaceful purpose.....right. I believe it is time we begin to monitize the debt owed to the United States and drop our gasoline prices.


wrote in message oups.com...

Doug Miller wrote:


On my planet, Saddam is still a murderous tyrant. Has that notion
been
debunked on yours?


What planet is that?

On my planet, Saddam Hussein is an ex-tyrant. GW Bush deserves the
credit for that, as he most probably would still be a muderous tyrant
today otherwise.

GWB also deserves credit for Lybia's decision to abondon its WMD
program, for a competant Afghanistan Campaign, and probably his
posturing against Syria has encouraged the Lebanese to stand
up against the Syrian occupation.

OTOH, under GW Bush's direction Iran and North Korea have taken
an apporoach opposite to Lybia, and dicatorships in Pakistan,
and Turkmenistan have been strenghtened, our military is overextended
and under-supplied and the WMD proliferation risk from Iraq has
increased as sites previously kept under UN and IAEA seal have
been looted during the occupation while the US was busy securing
the petroleum infrasructure instead.

Not all of the WMD infrastructure declared to the UN had been
destroyed, much of it was 'dual use' in nature (e.g. yellowcake)
and Iraq had retained it without violating any sanctions, under
close supervision by IAEA and UNSCOM later UNMOVIC.

--

FF

Dave Hinz responds:
Right, because if it doesn't matter to the USA, it isn't worth doing,

is that it?

Close enough. It was NOT in U.S. interests, yet we've spent (admitted)
about 200 billion bucks in addition to 1500+ American lives, God knows
how many Iraqi lives, and more than 11,000 seriously wounded (again,
U.S. casualities).

The only benefits I can see are ephemeral and unnecessary to U.S.
survival. Someone, somewhere, in and out of the Conservative movement,
needs to get the idea that we are not, never have been, and should not
be, nannies for the frigging world. If we're threatened, kick the ****
out of the threat. Otherwise, stay out. Let them handle their own
problems.

Charlie Self wrote:
Nate Perkins notes:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:
Ayup. But a lot of the neocons refuse to let go of the WMD excuse.

Yeah, and a lot of the neolibs keep harping on that, falsely
claiming

that it was "the" reason we went to war.

Of course it was the reason we went to war. You think all the
speeches
the
administration gave about "mushroom clouds" were just window
dressing?

If recognizing reality makes me a "neolib," then I'll take the label.

I won't. Nothing "neo" about me being a liberal. And I'm proud of it.
I'd hate to be in Bush's corner when judgment day comes. But the
false
reasons we went to war aren't mine or any other liberal's. They're
Bush's.

I will give Rooster Bush credit in one area, though. He is great at
making reality seem like a hinderance to him doing great things. He
and
his buddies managed to make a combat vet look like a coward...yet he
is
essentially a draft dodger! He has created, with lots of help, the
same
sort of twisting presentation on Iraq changing horses in mid-stream
and
dropping WMDs and immediate threats as justification while picking up
an absolute fact---Saddam Hussein was a nasty and brutal dictator, so
we're justified in spending billions of bucks and thousands of lives.

But his lock-step followers go to paragraph 42 at the start to pick
up
a hint of what is later the lead reason given.

In article .com, "Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller states:

On my planet, Saddam is still a murderous tyrant. Has that notion
been
debunked on yours?

Nobody has even suggested Saddam Hussein was less than a murderous
tyrant. What others, and I, feel is that he was not a direct threat to
the U.S. at any time, not likely to become one in a rational time
frame, and thus was not worth the expenditure of life and treasure that
has been applied.

Oh, yes, someone has suggested that, at least implicitly: Nate, in his
response to me, finally acknowledged that there might have been reasons other
than WMDs for invading Iraq, and implied that they've been debunked too.

Not all of them.

Not on my planet, anyway.

Maybe on Nate's.

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

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

On 11 Mar 2005 13:01:30 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
Dave Hinz responds:
Right, because if it doesn't matter to the USA, it isn't worth doing,

is that it?

Close enough.

OK, so then, pollution that others produce isn't our problem, people
starving in other countries (because they live where there isn't any
food) isn't our problem, and so on?

The only benefits I can see are ephemeral and unnecessary to U.S.
survival.

See above.

Someone, somewhere, in and out of the Conservative movement,
needs to get the idea that we are not, never have been, and should not
be, nannies for the frigging world.

You see that as a _conservative_ problem?

If we're threatened, kick the ****
out of the threat. Otherwise, stay out. Let them handle their own
problems.

Sounds good, let's cut off all the aid, grants, relief, and all that.
They don't pay our taxes, so **** 'em.

Dave Hinz responds:
OK, so then, pollution that others produce isn't our problem, people
starving in other countries (because they live where there isn't any
food) isn't our problem, and so on?


The only benefits I can see are ephemeral and unnecessary to U.S.
survival.


See above.


Someone, somewhere, in and out of the Conservative movement,
needs to get the idea that we are not, never have been, and should
not
be, nannies for the frigging world.


You see that as a _conservative_ problem?


If we're threatened, kick the ****
out of the threat. Otherwise, stay out. Let them handle their own
problems.


Sounds good, let's cut off all the aid, grants, relief, and all that.
They don't pay our taxes, so **** 'em.

Not what I said. We should not go to war over someone else's problems.
And, yeah, this time around it's a Conservative problem. Conservative
Republicans, or those claiming to be, got us into this Iraq hole.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
m:

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller states:

On my planet, Saddam is still a murderous tyrant. Has that notion
been
debunked on yours?

Nobody has even suggested Saddam Hussein was less than a murderous
tyrant. What others, and I, feel is that he was not a direct threat to
the U.S. at any time, not likely to become one in a rational time
frame, and thus was not worth the expenditure of life and treasure
that has been applied.

Oh, yes, someone has suggested that, at least implicitly: Nate, in his
response to me, finally acknowledged that there might have been
reasons other than WMDs for invading Iraq, and implied that they've
been debunked too.

Not all of them.

Not on my planet, anyway.

Maybe on Nate's.

Absolutely wrong, Doug. I never ever said that Saddam was less than a
murderous tyrant.

What I said was that Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to Al Qaeda, and
therefore the primary stated reasons for war have been debunked. You
appear to want to deny the reality that the administration *did* use
WMDs and terror ties as the primary justification for preemptive war.
And you appear to believe the fiction that it was never primarily about
WMDs; that instead it was about something in paragraph 42 of the
Cincinatti speech.

You consistently want to try to divert the argument into a question of
absolutes that might be easier for your point to argue. In fact few
things in life are black and white absolutes. The question is whether a
reasonable person, knowing what we know now, would find a compelling
reason to engage in a war that's costing us hundreds of billions and
thousands of lives. For me, there is not.

Spreading freedom and democracy. Yeah, right. Take a look at how
influential Al Sistani has become in Iraqi politics. Do you think he
sports a fundamentalist Islamic beard and a turban because he's going to
advocate Western-style democracy?

Dislodging dictators. Yeah, right. We don't have enough troops or
money to go after every bad dictator in the world. And the reality is
that we don't. We cozy up to bad apples like Musharraf (who really is a
dictator exporting WMD technology), and we ignore genocidal tragedies
like those in Darfour.

Do you really believe this is about a consistent and effective foreign
policy?


"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong,
which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be
a man." --Mark Twain

Dave Hinz wrote in
:

On 11 Mar 2005 13:01:30 -0800, Charlie Self
wrote:
Dave Hinz responds:
Right, because if it doesn't matter to the USA, it isn't worth
doing,

is that it?

Close enough.

OK, so then, pollution that others produce isn't our problem, people
starving in other countries (because they live where there isn't any
food) isn't our problem, and so on?

What a lot of nonsense. The point is to pursue a reasonable foreign
policy that promotes long-term US interests. Sometimes that means
investing in foreign development or collective security. Not for
idealistic reasons, but because encouraging collaboration and shared
responsibility nets us a return of political and economic stability in
the long run.

The flip side to this is that an unreasonable foreign policy creates a
net drain on us in the long run. It works against our long term
economic and political interests by further increasing anti-Americanism
and further destabilizing the Middle East and the Muslim world. It
screws posterity and saddles our children with economic and political
debt. Hello, GWB?


The only benefits I can see are ephemeral and unnecessary to U.S.
survival.

See above.

Someone, somewhere, in and out of the Conservative movement,
needs to get the idea that we are not, never have been, and should
not be, nannies for the frigging world.

You see that as a _conservative_ problem?

Lately, it sure looks to me like the Bushies want to be the military
policeman of the world. You think otherwise?


If we're threatened, kick the ****
out of the threat. Otherwise, stay out. Let them handle their own
problems.

Sounds good, let's cut off all the aid, grants, relief, and all that.
They don't pay our taxes, so **** 'em.


See above.

In article 01, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller states:

On my planet, Saddam is still a murderous tyrant. Has that notion
been
debunked on yours?

Nobody has even suggested Saddam Hussein was less than a murderous
tyrant. What others, and I, feel is that he was not a direct threat to
the U.S. at any time, not likely to become one in a rational time
frame, and thus was not worth the expenditure of life and treasure
that has been applied.

Oh, yes, someone has suggested that, at least implicitly: Nate, in his
response to me, finally acknowledged that there might have been
reasons other than WMDs for invading Iraq, and implied that they've
been debunked too.

Not all of them.

Not on my planet, anyway.

Maybe on Nate's.

Absolutely wrong, Doug. I never ever said that Saddam was less than a
murderous tyrant.

What I said was that Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to Al Qaeda, and
therefore the primary stated reasons for war have been debunked.


Those were not the "primary stated reasons" for the war, as you continue to
falsely claim; rather, they were two reasons among many. And neither one has
been "debunked" as you falsely claim: It's not proven that Iraq had no WMDs,
and they definitely *did* have ties to al Qaida and numerous other terror
organizations.




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

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

In article ,
says...
Those were not the "primary stated reasons" for the war, as you continue to
falsely claim; rather, they were two reasons among many.

If you really believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. Those other
reasons were barely mentioned afterthoughts until the first two didn't
pan out.

And neither one has
been "debunked" as you falsely claim: It's not proven that Iraq had no WMDs,
and they definitely *did* have ties to al Qaida and numerous other terror
organizations.

Well, you can't prove a negative, so I guess you're right there. But at
least you'll have to admit that the ones Rumsfeldt said we knew the
location of certainly haven't shown up.

And Iraq had no more ties to terrorists than any other Arab/Muslim
nation. Like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for example.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article , lgb wrote:
In article ,
says...
Those were not the "primary stated reasons" for the war, as you continue to
falsely claim; rather, they were two reasons among many.

If you really believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. Those other
reasons were barely mentioned afterthoughts until the first two didn't
pan out.

Absolutely false, as the President's speech (cited frequently in this thread)
clearly shows. That speech laid out multiple justifications for the war, prior
to the invasion.

And neither one has
been "debunked" as you falsely claim: It's not proven that Iraq had no WMDs,
and they definitely *did* have ties to al Qaida and numerous other terror
organizations.

Well, you can't prove a negative, so I guess you're right there. But at
least you'll have to admit that the ones Rumsfeldt said we knew the
location of certainly haven't shown up.

True enough. But that doesn't mean they were never there. Don't you suppose
that anything that we publicly declared knowledge of, would be at the very top
of Saddam's list of stuff to hide before we got there?

And Iraq had no more ties to terrorists than any other Arab/Muslim
nation. Like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for example.

More than some (e.g. Egypt and Turkey), less than others (e.g. Iran and
Afghanistan under the Taliban). But it's certainly false to claim, as some do,
that Iraq had *no* ties to terrorism.

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

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

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article 01, Nate
Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller states:

On my planet, Saddam is still a murderous tyrant. Has that notion
been
debunked on yours?

Nobody has even suggested Saddam Hussein was less than a murderous
tyrant. What others, and I, feel is that he was not a direct threat
to the U.S. at any time, not likely to become one in a rational time
frame, and thus was not worth the expenditure of life and treasure
that has been applied.

Oh, yes, someone has suggested that, at least implicitly: Nate, in
his response to me, finally acknowledged that there might have been
reasons other than WMDs for invading Iraq, and implied that they've
been debunked too.

Not all of them.

Not on my planet, anyway.

Maybe on Nate's.

Absolutely wrong, Doug. I never ever said that Saddam was less than a
murderous tyrant.

What I said was that Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to Al Qaeda, and
therefore the primary stated reasons for war have been debunked.


Those were not the "primary stated reasons" for the war, as you
continue to falsely claim; rather, they were two reasons among many.
And neither one has been "debunked" as you falsely claim: It's not
proven that Iraq had no WMDs, and they definitely *did* have ties to
al Qaida and numerous other terror organizations.

Those were the primary stated reasons for the war. They figure
prominently in every major speech the administration gave at the time,
including the President's letter to Congress declaring the decision to
go to war. It figures clearly in every major policy speech of the time,
including the Cincinatti speech.

How quickly you forget about all the claims of yellow cake from Niger,
all the unmanned drones that were supposed to deliver WMD to the US.
All the talk of aluminum tubes supposedly for uranium enrichment. All
the talk of "mobile weapons labs" that are since likewise discredited.
Tons and tons of VX nerve gas, and chemical weapons ready to deploy
around Baghdad with 45 minutes notice. Did you forget Powell's entire
speech to the UN, too?

Bah. You are just in denial.

The really tragic thing is that now the administration has dragged the
US into Iraq, there seems to be very little thought given to what must
be done to win there. We still try to fight it on the cheap, and we act
like positive speeches are a substitute for effective policy and
actions. God forbid the Bushies should put aside their hubris for a
minute and think about strategy and performance.

In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

In article 01, Nate
Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller states:

On my planet, Saddam is still a murderous tyrant. Has that notion
been
debunked on yours?

Nobody has even suggested Saddam Hussein was less than a murderous
tyrant. What others, and I, feel is that he was not a direct threat
to the U.S. at any time, not likely to become one in a rational time
frame, and thus was not worth the expenditure of life and treasure
that has been applied.

Oh, yes, someone has suggested that, at least implicitly: Nate, in
his response to me, finally acknowledged that there might have been
reasons other than WMDs for invading Iraq, and implied that they've
been debunked too.

Not all of them.

Not on my planet, anyway.

Maybe on Nate's.

Absolutely wrong, Doug. I never ever said that Saddam was less than a
murderous tyrant.

What I said was that Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to Al Qaeda, and
therefore the primary stated reasons for war have been debunked.


Those were not the "primary stated reasons" for the war, as you
continue to falsely claim; rather, they were two reasons among many.
And neither one has been "debunked" as you falsely claim: It's not
proven that Iraq had no WMDs, and they definitely *did* have ties to
al Qaida and numerous other terror organizations.

Those were the primary stated reasons for the war. They figure
prominently in every major speech the administration gave at the time,
including the President's letter to Congress declaring the decision to
go to war. It figures clearly in every major policy speech of the time,
including the Cincinatti speech.

You keep saying that. That does not, however, make it true. The fact is, there
were *other* reasons as well, which *also* figured prominently in every major
speech the administration gave at the time. But you'd rather ignore those;
you've even gone so far as to claim that one of them was never even stated.

--
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?

Nate Perkins laments:
The really tragic thing is that now the administration has dragged
the
US into Iraq, there seems to be very little thought given to what must
be done to win there. We still try to fight it on the cheap, and we
act
like positive speeches are a substitute for effective policy and
actions. God forbid the Bushies should put aside their hubris for a
minute and think about strategy and performance.

Jesus! That reminds me of a speech I gave a bunch of kids in college
about '66, Vietnam. I was a veteran against the war, but, at that
point, mostly because we were trying to fight it on the cheap and with
Korean War weaponry.

Historic repetition will have us all spinning in our graves.

Charlie Self wrote:

Historic repetition will have us all spinning in our graves.

What is that old saw about those who do not learn from their mistakes
are doomed to repeat them?

Lew

Lew Hodgett notes:
What is that old saw about those who do not learn from their mistakes

are doomed to repeat them?

And the mistakes get more expensive all the time, in lives and money.
The Tonkin Gulf and the Domino Theory all over again.

Charlie Self wrote:

And the mistakes get more expensive all the time, in lives and money.
The Tonkin Gulf and the Domino Theory all over again.

I'm reminded of the first chief engineer that I worked for and his
attempts to rein me in, so to speak.

Here I am, smart ass young engineer, just out of engineering school,
sitting in his office one day, when out of the blue, he asks me a question.

"Lew, what is the difference between an oriental and an occidental?"

I sat very quietly, trying to avoid an answer since I new my chief
engineer was on a fishing mission and I was bait.

Finally, I could stall no longer and sort of shrugged my shoulders.

He looked at me and said, "Lew, it's simple, the occidental learns from
his mistakes, the oriental learns from the mistakes of others, it's
cheaper."

It was a lesson well learned that day.

I even began to start liking rice G.

Lew

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:09:08 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

wrote:

wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Nate Perkins wrote:
SNIP

...

... snip

Tim,

Very well reasoned and well-written response.


Under the previous administration the North Korean program was
stopped dead in its tracks. Dunno about Iran. But, no evidence
of NPT violations by Iran has emrged. Thus far if Iran has any
violations, they have kept them well-hidden while being quite
bold about their actions within the NPT limitations.

Another logical fallacy. The absence of proof is not the same
thing as the absence of the action in question. It is impossible
to believe that the Koreans were "stopped dead in their tracks"
under the previous administration - this would mean that they
spooled up an entire nuclear weapons program from whole cloth
in only the last 4 years - this is very unlikely.

No, it does not mean that at all. It defies reason that anyone
would suppose that is a reasonable inference from what I wrote.

What I wrote, as opposed to what I have to think is a delberately
deceptive misrepresentation is that they were stopped NOT that
their weapons infrastructure was removed or destroyed.

That they were able to create nuclear weapons within a year of two
(not four) after resuming their weapons implies that they were
stopped at a point where they were onlyu a year or two away from
their first weapon.

Anyone who had an interest in the subject and was following the
news knew that their weapons facilties were locked and sealed by
the IAEA, subject to continuous remote monitoring and reinspection.

The accusation leveled by the Bush administation, that they were
somehow coninuing their weapons development program while being
actively monitored by the IAEA also defies reason. Notably,
the Bush administartion presented no evidence whatsover to support
that cliam though it has not been at all shy sbout presenting
evidence (e.g. detection of noble gasses off the coast) that North
Korea has continued its progam AFTER the Bush adminstration reneged
on its agreements prompting NOrth Korea to openly resume nuclear
weapons production.


Actually, it would have had to have happened even faster, they were
already making rumblings about having nukes 2 years ago.

See above.

Fact is, while
the West was shipping food and aid and supporting the building of
"non-weapon" capable nuclear facilities, the NK's were continuing
their
pursuit of nuclear weapons and improving their ballistic missile
technology. They couldn't have spooled up their missile program in a
short
two years either (NoDong shot over Japan).

Here you confabulate two different programs. The agreement that
halted the North Korean nuclear weaposn program did not address
their missile program. BTW, what was the date of the first Nodong
launch.


In other news, related to the article at the top of this thread:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/12/wis...ngs/index.html

Obviously the way to prevent crimes of this nature is to stop
and search any Christian males (regardless of denomination)
attempting to board, er, enter a Church. After all, they fit
the profile of an insane mass murderer.

Actually, since for the most part you cannot reliably determine
a person's religion per se from their identifying documents it
would be better to search anyone who is a national of a nation
that has a significant Christian population.

I realize this may seem extreme to some people, but clearly it
would have saved those lives in Wisconsin and a number of
others in similar incidents over the past several years.

--

FF

Sun, Mar 13, 2005, 12:02pm (EST-3) claims:
snip Obviously the way to prevent crimes of this nature is to stop and
search any Christian males (regardless of denomination) attempting to
board, er, enter a Church. After all, they fit the profile of an insane
mass murderer. snip

You've got to remember: People go by what you say. You make it
sound like you mean that. Some politician gets hold of that, and
they'll probably try to implement it.



JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold

J T wrote:


You've got to remember: People go by what you say. You make it
sound like you mean that.

NSS.

I once joked on this newsgroup about putting powah tools in a
microwave oven ot dry them off and someone went ballistic thinking
I was serious.

Sadly, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that someone
would do that.

--

FF

fredfigh notes:
once joked on this newsgroup about putting powah tools in a
microwave oven ot dry them off and someone went ballistic thinking
I was serious.


Sadly, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that someone
would do that.

My guess, though, is that they'd not do it twice. Some people really do
have to learn the hard way.

Mon, Mar 14, 2005, 8:27am (EST-3) says:
snip Sadly, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that someone
would do that.

No prob. Let 'em do it. They'll learn quick, when the tool starts
sparking.



JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold

Charlie Self wrote:

Close enough. It was NOT in U.S. interests, yet we've spent (admitted)
about 200 billion bucks in addition to 1500+ American lives, God knows
how many Iraqi lives, and more than 11,000 seriously wounded (again,
U.S. casualities).

The only benefits I can see are ephemeral and unnecessary to U.S.
survival. Someone, somewhere, in and out of the Conservative movement,
needs to get the idea that we are not, never have been, and should not
be, nannies for the frigging world. If we're threatened, kick the ****
out of the threat. Otherwise, stay out. Let them handle their own
problems.

Charlie my boy, you are just too damn logical for this bunch of anal
retentive Neanderthals.

As my mother told me when I was about 10, "Son, if you insist on messing
around with chicken ****, you are going to get some on you".

It is still applicable.

Lew

Lew Hodgett responds:
Charlie my boy, you are just too damn logical for this bunch of anal
retentive Neanderthals.

As my mother told me when I was about 10, "Son, if you insist on
messing
around with chicken ****, you are going to get some on you".


It is still applicable. "

'Fraid so, but I won't stand up with fleas.

On 11 Mar 2005 14:20:18 -0800, "Charlie Self"
wrote:

Not what I said. We should not go to war over someone else's problems.
And, yeah, this time around it's a Conservative problem. Conservative
Republicans, or those claiming to be, got us into this Iraq hole.

Hi Charlie, regarding that hole, are we there yet?

a more pointed question is should we have gone to war in WWII, it's
interesting how simular the two wars where and at the same time so
different. in Iraq, just like in WWII you had a murdering dictator, who
had goals of expansion, Hitler wanted Europe, Saddam wanted more middle
east oil. both had been in power at the fault of the Europions, Saddam was
left in power after desert storm, at the urging of our Europion allies,
Hitler came to power by economic sanctions placed on Germany in the
Rhineland Pact. Both had the worlds intelligence networks saying they
where working on weapons, and had weapons they shouldn't have had, now
Charlie before you get up set, the Poles found a large cash of mourder
rounds filled with mustard gas, our troops got hit with a road side device
that had a bio agent in it. they may have been pre desert storm, dosn't
matter he shouldn't have had them, add in the long list of other other
things we found long range rockets, etc, HE HAD WEAPONS THAT VIOLATED THE
U.N. RESOLUTIONS.

Hitler violated the Locarno Pact and began to occupy the Rineland while
the League of Nations sat on there thumbs, because the didn't want to think
about the problem, Hitler build up his military and no one did anything,
started invading other countries, nothing. and in that time look at how
many people he butchered.

Saddam was on his way to doing what Hitler did in 1936 when he violated
the Locarno Pact and moved into the Rhineland, he was taking shots at our
plains in the no-fly zone, butchering his people and thumbing his noise at
the U.N.

Both where started when the US was attacked by a different country then we
went after, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11.

here is where the the two become different, we talk about how Hitler was
responsible for the Holocaust, Five million Jews killed, and as many others
as well, Saddam killed around 500,000 that we know of with only 41 of the
270 suspected mass graves inspected that right there puts him in the same
league as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao for mass murderers, and stain was the
only other one to use WMD on his own people. So when Saddam started getting
uppity, when we had a President with some balls, we took action, assembled
a group 32 nations (there wasn't that many in WWII) and enforced the U.N.
resolutions they wouldn't. Iraqi Freedom was a well planed and surgical
with Collateral damage in the low hundreds, Unlike WWII where it was in
the hundreds of thousands. Iraqi freedom was also the fastest and most
effective military campaign in known World history surpassing the German
BlitzKrieg of WWII when you look at size of forces involved, and we where
very carful about hurting non-combatants, the Germans almost went out of
there way too. WWII was a constant blunder after blunder, to there credit
this had never been done before, the where making it up as they went along,
it was bloody and horrible, but it needed done and so they stayed to the
end. if you think the Iraqi insurgency is bad, look at the German
insurgency after WWII, the death toll was horrific on allied troops and
German citizens alike. the Iraqi insurgency is nothing compared it post
WWII Germany, add on top of that it took 6 years before the allies even
came up with a plan to put Germany back together again (the marshal plan),
how long has it been seance the end of major combat? and Iraqi now has an
elected government. add on what is going on in Lebanon, Libya (he did have
WMD), Iran is looking to have a massive Civil war to oust there opresive
government, Egypt is going to have it's first real election with multiple
parties, Afghanistan has an elected government. and even the Palistianians
are starting to calm down, more to the fact of Yasser Arifat's death, than
our action but there is finally going to be some stability in the middle
east.

with stability in the middle east the US is safer



Ned wrote:

On 11 Mar 2005 14:20:18 -0800, "Charlie Self"
wrote:

Not what I said. We should not go to war over someone else's problems.
And, yeah, this time around it's a Conservative problem. Conservative
Republicans, or those claiming to be, got us into this Iraq hole.

Hi Charlie, regarding that hole, are we there yet?

I may disagree you you politicoly but I freely admit you are a far better
craftsman than I, and would find it a privilege to hold your tape measure
or sweep your shop, you can't be good at everything, so no hard feelings?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article 01,
Nate Perkins wrote:


What I said was that Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to Al Qaeda, and
therefore the primary stated reasons for war have been debunked.


Those were not the "primary stated reasons" for the war, as you
continue to
falsely claim; rather, they were two reasons among many. And neither
one has
been "debunked" as you falsely claim: It's not proven that Iraq had
no WMDs,
and they definitely *did* have ties to al Qaida and numerous other
terror
organizations.

By your own count Bush devoted more than twice as much of the
speech previously discussed to those two issue than to all other
issues combined. Surely one may reasonably infer that those
two issues were primary.

As to it not being proven that Iraq had no WMD that is and will
always be true. Bush knew that was a demand that could never
be met. It will never be proven that the Vatican had no WMD,
nor you nor I.

As to having ties to Al Queda that is at best an exaggeration.
There is evidence of at most a couple of meetings between Iraqi
officials and members of Al Queda. Meanwhile, the State Department
publihsed a list of about 30 nations in which Al Queda operated.
Iraq was not on the list.

--

FF

Richard Clements wrote:
a more pointed question is should we have gone to war in WWII, it's
interesting how simular the two wars where and at the same time so
different. in Iraq, just like in WWII you had a murdering dictator,
who
had goals of expansion, Hitler wanted Europe, Saddam wanted more
middle
east oil.


I should just cite Godwin.

But instead I will go to the trouble to point out that even
before annexing Czechoslavakia and Austria Germany was the
most populous nation in Western Europe, and technologically
advanced. By the time the US entered the war Germany had
conquered most of Western Europe and even then it was only
after Germany decalred war on the US that the US reciprocated.

Iraq, OTOH was a much smaller nation that had twice failed
in its attempts to expand its territory by war and by the
time the US invaded had already been reduced to complete
military impotency.

If you want to draw a parallel between WWII and the invasion
of Iraq I suggest you consider the invasion of Abysinia.

--

FF

Richard Clements wrote:

... now
Charlie before you get up set, the Poles found a large cash of
mourder
rounds filled with mustard gas,

No they didn't. They had a false positive test on some rockets.

our troops got hit with a road side device
that had a bio agent in it.

The design of which was a pre-1991 prototype never put into
production. That specific specimen was probably an unexploded
dud recovered from a test range.

they may have been pre desert storm, dosn't
matter

Yes it does matter, no one expected Iraq to comb the desert for
unexploded munitions. Even if he had kept munitions that were
that old they would have decomposed to inefectiveness. Why would
Saddam Hussein stockpile duds, and if he did, why invade to
take them away?

he shouldn't have had them, add in the long list of other other
things we found long range rockets, etc,

He had rockets that barely exceeded the range limit in a zero
payload test. A reasonable interpretation is that with a
payload it would have fallen within the limit. Regardless,
they were decalred to the UN and slated for destruction.
In other words, in reagards to those rockets Iraq complied
with the demand to declare them and allow them to be inspected.
Read that again. He complied with the demand to open up and
permit inspection and complied with the UNMOVIC demand that
they be destoryed and you are citing that COMPLIANCE as evidence
of violation.

HE HAD WEAPONS THAT VIOLATED THE
U.N. RESOLUTIONS.

See above.

--

FF

Fredfigh responds:
Richard Clements wrote:

... now
Charlie before you get up set, the Poles found a large cash of
mourder
rounds filled with mustard gas,



No they didn't. They had a false positive test on some rockets.


our troops got hit with a road side device
that had a bio agent in it.


The design of which was a pre-1991 prototype never put into
production. That specific specimen was probably an unexploded
dud recovered from a test range.


they may have been pre desert storm, dosn't
matter


Yes it does matter, no one expected Iraq to comb the desert for
unexploded munitions. Even if he had kept munitions that were
that old they would have decomposed to inefectiveness. Why would
Saddam Hussein stockpile duds, and if he did, why invade to
take them away?


he shouldn't have had them, add in the long list of other other
things we found long range rockets, etc,


He had rockets that barely exceeded the range limit in a zero
payload test. A reasonable interpretation is that with a
payload it would have fallen within the limit. Regardless,
they were decalred to the UN and slated for destruction.
In other words, in reagards to those rockets Iraq complied
with the demand to declare them and allow them to be inspected.
Read that again. He complied with the demand to open up and
permit inspection and complied with the UNMOVIC demand that
they be destoryed and you are citing that COMPLIANCE as evidence
of violation.


HE HAD WEAPONS THAT VIOLATED THE
U.N. RESOLUTIONS.


See above.

Fred, you can't change their minds. Their leader has admitted to their
being no WMDs, but his--I can't determine whether it was Big Lie or
Chicken Little--earlier act was so effective his followers can't shake
that message.

Joseph would have been proud, if it was the Big Lie, which is most
probable.

In article .com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article 01,
Nate Perkins wrote:


What I said was that Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to Al Qaeda, and
therefore the primary stated reasons for war have been debunked.


Those were not the "primary stated reasons" for the war, as you
continue to
falsely claim; rather, they were two reasons among many. And neither
one has
been "debunked" as you falsely claim: It's not proven that Iraq had
no WMDs,
and they definitely *did* have ties to al Qaida and numerous other
terror
organizations.

By your own count Bush devoted more than twice as much of the
speech previously discussed to those two issue than to all other
issues combined. Surely one may reasonably infer that those
two issues were primary.

Maybe you should go back and read that again...

As to it not being proven that Iraq had no WMD that is and will
always be true. Bush knew that was a demand that could never
be met. It will never be proven that the Vatican had no WMD,
nor you nor I.

The point is not that Iraq was expected to prove a negative, but rather that
the UN required Iraq to open its facilities to free and unfettered inspection,
and to destroy its prohibited arms under UN supervision so that everyone would
know what they had, and what happened to it. Iraq did neither, and
consequently we are left guessing on both counts.

In any event, it's beginning to look like the administration wasn't as far off
the mark in this respect as many would have us believe:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/in...st/13loot.html

As to having ties to Al Queda that is at best an exaggeration.
There is evidence of at most a couple of meetings between Iraqi
officials and members of Al Queda. Meanwhile, the State Department
publihsed a list of about 30 nations in which Al Queda operated.
Iraq was not on the list.

Obviously Iraq was not nearly as closely tied to al Qaida as the Taliban were;
just the same, it's a falsehood to claim (as some have) that there was no
connection whatever between the two. Iraq's stronger ties with other terror
organizations, and individual terrorists, are well known.

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

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

On 16 Mar 2005 01:01:51 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:

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

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