FLM films - My Webpage

2003-04-19 06:18:56-07:00 - Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace?

2003-04-19 06:18:56-07:00 - Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace?

2003-04-19 11:16:07-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? The war is not over. There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in Iraq. There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN Charter. Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance at peace in the world.

2003-04-19 11:16:07-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? The war is not over. There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in Iraq. There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN Charter. Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance at peace in the world.

2003-04-19 11:33:57-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > >The war is not over. Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >Iraq. Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet government" the US and out allies may or may not install? Children were jailed and maimed for not joining the Hussein Youth, people were beaten and tortured to death, women raped, all while Hussein was diverting billions from the "oil for food" program set up by the UN. This is where you tell me that Saddam was bad guy and nobody wanted him in power, just nobody should have done anything about it. > >There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. What has been the longest extended period of time throughout the world where there has been no war anywhere? I'm talking about in the last four hundred years? In the last fifty? In the last twenty? There will be war. You're problem is that in this one, the US won it. > >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >Charter. The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us what we can and cannot do. Any organization that allows the country of Libya to be on the humna rights panel is worthless. What did the UN do about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. The UN is an impotent useless entity. The only thing they know how to do is threaten to pass more resolutions. > >Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are conesquences to actions. Iraq was given two weeks to completely disarm themselves of WMD in 1991. During the past twelve years, Husein stole funds from the "oil for food" program, built over a dozen palaces for himself, bought huge amounts of weaponry from Russia, France, and Germany and straved his people. According to the UN you revere so much, 5,000 Iraqi children *a month* were dying from disease and starvation before we libertaing them. Now, the money from the oil for food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > >Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the >US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance >at peace in the world. > You're an idiot.

2003-04-19 11:33:57-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > >The war is not over. Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >Iraq. Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet government" the US and out allies may or may not install? Children were jailed and maimed for not joining the Hussein Youth, people were beaten and tortured to death, women raped, all while Hussein was diverting billions from the "oil for food" program set up by the UN. This is where you tell me that Saddam was bad guy and nobody wanted him in power, just nobody should have done anything about it. > >There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. What has been the longest extended period of time throughout the world where there has been no war anywhere? I'm talking about in the last four hundred years? In the last fifty? In the last twenty? There will be war. You're problem is that in this one, the US won it. > >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >Charter. The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us what we can and cannot do. Any organization that allows the country of Libya to be on the humna rights panel is worthless. What did the UN do about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. The UN is an impotent useless entity. The only thing they know how to do is threaten to pass more resolutions. > >Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are conesquences to actions. Iraq was given two weeks to completely disarm themselves of WMD in 1991. During the past twelve years, Husein stole funds from the "oil for food" program, built over a dozen palaces for himself, bought huge amounts of weaponry from Russia, France, and Germany and straved his people. According to the UN you revere so much, 5,000 Iraqi children *a month* were dying from disease and starvation before we libertaing them. Now, the money from the oil for food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > >Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the >US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance >at peace in the world. > You're an idiot.

2003-04-19 11:38:50-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >Charter. UN CHARTER: Sit around arguing about the way things *ought* to be. When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has absolutely no teeth whatsoever. When they ignore it, pass another one. Repeat as needed.

2003-04-19 11:38:50-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >Charter. UN CHARTER: Sit around arguing about the way things *ought* to be. When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has absolutely no teeth whatsoever. When they ignore it, pass another one. Repeat as needed.

2003-04-19 12:16:16-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:s9r2avk51d0i5o9kq3ig5cui8348gsduqs@4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > >Charter. > > UN CHARTER: > Sit around arguing about the way things *ought* to be. > > When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has > absolutely no teeth whatsoever. > > When they ignore it, pass another one. > > Repeat as needed. You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL

2003-04-19 12:16:16-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:s9r2avk51d0i5o9kq3ig5cui8348gsduqs@4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > >Charter. > > UN CHARTER: > Sit around arguing about the way things *ought* to be. > > When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has > absolutely no teeth whatsoever. > > When they ignore it, pass another one. > > Repeat as needed. You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL

2003-04-19 12:38:29-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:16:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has >> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. >> >> When they ignore it, pass another one. >> >> Repeat as needed. > >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL The US isn't always right either.

2003-04-19 12:38:29-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:16:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has >> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. >> >> When they ignore it, pass another one. >> >> Repeat as needed. > >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL The US isn't always right either.

2003-04-19 12:57:58-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:40:17 +1000, "brad" <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wrote: >i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that >involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new >government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most >anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no >one in their right mind supports him. >but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. Other options like what? Give the UN another twelve years to pass meaningless resolution after meaningless resolution? Give sanctions another twelve years to work? All the time, Iraqis are systematically being tortured, beaten, jailed, raped and starved. When it was obvious that the US was going to removed Saddam from power, the Sauds attempted to get Saddam to go into exile, an option that we tacilty endorsed. But Hussein would be giving up not only his country, but the source of the biilions of dollars he has amassed over the past twelve years. Really, tell me what other options did we have. We gave peace a chance for twelve years, that didn't work, we tried the exhile route, Saddam wanted not part of it. And we did not bomb the shit out of Iraq. If you want to see what a country looks like when it has the shit bombed out of it, look at Germany, the city of Dresden in particular after WWII. Something like 80,000 civilains were killed in that city alone. Had we wanted merely to level Iraq, we could have. The killing of Hussein was never a stated purpose of the war, just his removal from power. Killing him would have been (and might have been) a bonus.

2003-04-19 12:57:58-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:40:17 +1000, "brad" <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wrote: >i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that >involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new >government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most >anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no >one in their right mind supports him. >but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. Other options like what? Give the UN another twelve years to pass meaningless resolution after meaningless resolution? Give sanctions another twelve years to work? All the time, Iraqis are systematically being tortured, beaten, jailed, raped and starved. When it was obvious that the US was going to removed Saddam from power, the Sauds attempted to get Saddam to go into exile, an option that we tacilty endorsed. But Hussein would be giving up not only his country, but the source of the biilions of dollars he has amassed over the past twelve years. Really, tell me what other options did we have. We gave peace a chance for twelve years, that didn't work, we tried the exhile route, Saddam wanted not part of it. And we did not bomb the shit out of Iraq. If you want to see what a country looks like when it has the shit bombed out of it, look at Germany, the city of Dresden in particular after WWII. Something like 80,000 civilains were killed in that city alone. Had we wanted merely to level Iraq, we could have. The killing of Hussein was never a stated purpose of the war, just his removal from power. Killing him would have been (and might have been) a bonus.

2003-04-19 16:00:31+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:38:50 -0400, forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" ><blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >>Charter. > >UN CHARTER: >Sit around arguing about the way things *ought* to be. > >When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has >absolutely no teeth whatsoever. > >When they ignore it, pass another one. > >Repeat as needed. When even a renowned liberal such as yourself can see things like this clearly, it REALLY makes the Sheep look foolish. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-19 16:00:31+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:38:50 -0400, forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" ><blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >>Charter. > >UN CHARTER: >Sit around arguing about the way things *ought* to be. > >When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has >absolutely no teeth whatsoever. > >When they ignore it, pass another one. > >Repeat as needed. When even a renowned liberal such as yourself can see things like this clearly, it REALLY makes the Sheep look foolish. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-19 16:22:23-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:59:38 GMT, "JustMe" <whome@nospam.com> wrote: >> >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security >> >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 >> >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL >> >> The US isn't always right either. >> > >REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it.. CNN? What about FoxNews??

2003-04-19 16:22:23-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:59:38 GMT, "JustMe" <whome@nospam.com> wrote: >> >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security >> >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 >> >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL >> >> The US isn't always right either. >> > >REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it.. CNN? What about FoxNews??

2003-04-19 17:01:34+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > The war is not over. > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > Iraq. There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > Charter. We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the world? > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > at peace in the world. That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice and find some deserted island now because we are coming!

2003-04-19 17:01:34+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > The war is not over. > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > Iraq. There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > Charter. We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the world? > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > at peace in the world. That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice and find some deserted island now because we are coming!

2003-04-19 17:33:59+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com: > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >>news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >>> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >> >>The war is not over. > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >>Iraq. We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, and then the democracies do whatever the hell they want. Hell, Hamid Karzai was supposed to be a puppet, but he wouldn't join the Coalition, and he keeps US troops out of Kabul. But, everybody says he's a puppet. Go figure. > >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > What has been the longest extended period of time throughout the world > where there has been no war anywhere? I'm talking about in the last > four hundred years? In the last fifty? In the last twenty? There will > be war. You're problem is that in this one, the US won it. Excellent observation. > >> >>Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >>decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. WW III started on 9/11, but for some reason, not everybody has figured it out yet. Mike

2003-04-19 17:33:59+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com: > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >>news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >>> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >> >>The war is not over. > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >>Iraq. We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, and then the democracies do whatever the hell they want. Hell, Hamid Karzai was supposed to be a puppet, but he wouldn't join the Coalition, and he keeps US troops out of Kabul. But, everybody says he's a puppet. Go figure. > >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > What has been the longest extended period of time throughout the world > where there has been no war anywhere? I'm talking about in the last > four hundred years? In the last fifty? In the last twenty? There will > be war. You're problem is that in this one, the US won it. Excellent observation. > >> >>Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >>decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. WW III started on 9/11, but for some reason, not everybody has figured it out yet. Mike

2003-04-19 17:42:17+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>)


-- On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 06:18:56 -0700, Tim Bruening > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? The plan is to bring together all acceptable political tendencies (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based government, which will then hold elections. In the vacuum, lots of unpleasant people are grabbing for despotic power. However the coalition forces hold the oil, and therefore only a government that they approve can pay salaries. Expect a long fairly bloody contest between the approved government, which can pay people to work for it, and various unapproved would be governments, which can kill people who refuse to work for them. The plan is that during this long bloody contest, the coalition approved government will gain in popularity and military power, until it can crush its enemies with minimal coalition assistance. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG YNSmAROTnwkxEj7W/Vm6CJBmUiVHduKEnNj4sE9p 4bW9H4vrnEg9lr9QEqZZna0WSw+lrPC0aPR2KHuXR

2003-04-19 17:42:17+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>)


-- On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 06:18:56 -0700, Tim Bruening > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? The plan is to bring together all acceptable political tendencies (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based government, which will then hold elections. In the vacuum, lots of unpleasant people are grabbing for despotic power. However the coalition forces hold the oil, and therefore only a government that they approve can pay salaries. Expect a long fairly bloody contest between the approved government, which can pay people to work for it, and various unapproved would be governments, which can kill people who refuse to work for them. The plan is that during this long bloody contest, the coalition approved government will gain in popularity and military power, until it can crush its enemies with minimal coalition assistance. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG YNSmAROTnwkxEj7W/Vm6CJBmUiVHduKEnNj4sE9p 4bW9H4vrnEg9lr9QEqZZna0WSw+lrPC0aPR2KHuXR

2003-04-19 17:53:52+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Kathryn <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > The war is not over. > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > Iraq. > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > Charter. > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > world? > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > > at peace in the world. > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > You should have inserted an evil cackle!

2003-04-19 17:53:52+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Kathryn <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > The war is not over. > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > Iraq. > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > Charter. > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > world? > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > > at peace in the world. > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > You should have inserted an evil cackle!

2003-04-19 18:09:07-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? Yes. In the long term, considering the world situation, more people will die or be harmed by this war, at this time, in this way than would have been harmed by Saddam. > The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us > what we can and cannot do. Why, exactly, should we respect the US as a sovereign nation when it shows no respect for the sovereignty of other countries? LOL > ny organization that allows the country of > Libya to be on the humna rights panel is worthless. What did the UN do > about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. The UN is an > impotent useless entity. The only thing they know how to do is > threaten to pass more resolutions. You do realise that you have just commented on several different UN bodies, not all of whom pass resolutions, yet you seem ignorant of the distinction between those bodies. > himself, bought huge amounts of weaponry from Russia, France, and > Germany and straved his people. According to the UN you revere so > much, 5,000 Iraqi children *a month* were dying from disease and > starvation before we libertaing them. Now, the money from the oil for > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. Wrong. The oil-for-food program, which fed about 60% of the Iraqi people, has yet to resume in any meaningful way. Further, under Bush's proposed government, the oil will be privately owned, including foreign (US) ownership, and thus its profits will not benefit the poor in Iraq at all. Based on the lack of information in your response I assume you do not follow world events and rely only on CNN for you news, as such I see no need to educate you by replying further.

2003-04-19 18:09:07-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? Yes. In the long term, considering the world situation, more people will die or be harmed by this war, at this time, in this way than would have been harmed by Saddam. > The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us > what we can and cannot do. Why, exactly, should we respect the US as a sovereign nation when it shows no respect for the sovereignty of other countries? LOL > ny organization that allows the country of > Libya to be on the humna rights panel is worthless. What did the UN do > about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. The UN is an > impotent useless entity. The only thing they know how to do is > threaten to pass more resolutions. You do realise that you have just commented on several different UN bodies, not all of whom pass resolutions, yet you seem ignorant of the distinction between those bodies. > himself, bought huge amounts of weaponry from Russia, France, and > Germany and straved his people. According to the UN you revere so > much, 5,000 Iraqi children *a month* were dying from disease and > starvation before we libertaing them. Now, the money from the oil for > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. Wrong. The oil-for-food program, which fed about 60% of the Iraqi people, has yet to resume in any meaningful way. Further, under Bush's proposed government, the oil will be privately owned, including foreign (US) ownership, and thus its profits will not benefit the poor in Iraq at all. Based on the lack of information in your response I assume you do not follow world events and rely only on CNN for you news, as such I see no need to educate you by replying further.

2003-04-19 18:11:10-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > The war is not over. > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > Iraq. > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > Charter. > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > world? > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > > at peace in the world. > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to do so.

2003-04-19 18:11:10-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > The war is not over. > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > Iraq. > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > Charter. > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > world? > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > > at peace in the world. > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to do so.

2003-04-19 18:13:45-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security > council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and > permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan > genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where > it generally vetoes everything that moves. The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how one-sided public opinion can be! > > Now, the money from the oil for > > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > > No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts > for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. And other Iraq contracts: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/14/iraq_contracts030414 "Canadian companies have been shut out of the bidding for lucrative rebuilding contracts in Iraq, with the biggest going to companies with ties to the Bush administration. "

2003-04-19 18:13:45-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security > council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and > permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan > genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where > it generally vetoes everything that moves. The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how one-sided public opinion can be! > > Now, the money from the oil for > > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > > No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts > for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. And other Iraq contracts: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/14/iraq_contracts030414 "Canadian companies have been shut out of the bidding for lucrative rebuilding contracts in Iraq, with the biggest going to companies with ties to the Bush administration. "

2003-04-19 19:20:34+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us > what we can and cannot do. Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. > What did the UN do > about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where it generally vetoes everything that moves. > No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are > conesquences to actions. No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the reason for invading Iraq from week to week. > Now, the money from the oil for > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 19:20:34+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us > what we can and cannot do. Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. > What did the UN do > about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where it generally vetoes everything that moves. > No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are > conesquences to actions. No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the reason for invading Iraq from week to week. > Now, the money from the oil for > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 19:23:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where 'democracies' were installed by the US. The US has a long and glorious history of funding, and supporting the most heinous dictators and terrorist organisations known to man, and destabilising democratic regimes. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 19:23:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where 'democracies' were installed by the US. The US has a long and glorious history of funding, and supporting the most heinous dictators and terrorist organisations known to man, and destabilising democratic regimes. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 19:28:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


James A. Donald wrote: > -- > (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial > list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based > government, which will then hold elections. And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would trust to install a democratic government. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 19:28:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


James A. Donald wrote: > -- > (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial > list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based > government, which will then hold elections. And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would trust to install a democratic government. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 19:59:38+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (JustMe <whome@nospam.com>)


"forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:fru2avgodgpa3vd3ujp9t2hmiva578fuq8@4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:16:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has > >> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. > >> > >> When they ignore it, pass another one. > >> > >> Repeat as needed. > > > >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security > >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 > >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL > > The US isn't always right either. > REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it..

2003-04-19 19:59:38+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (JustMe <whome@nospam.com>)


"forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:fru2avgodgpa3vd3ujp9t2hmiva578fuq8@4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:16:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has > >> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. > >> > >> When they ignore it, pass another one. > >> > >> Repeat as needed. > > > >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security > >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 > >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL > > The US isn't always right either. > REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it..

2003-04-19 20:09:27-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. One might argue that WWIII started on 9/11. WWIII could well turn out to be the "free agent" war where individuals not connected to particular nations, wage war against countries in the world. The UN, the Geneva Convention, and way wars are fought and treated are based on the notion that wars are fought between identifiable nations and soldiers tied to a particular nation. OBL funds something like 60 terrorist groups throughout the world, many of them operating outside of a legal entity known as a country. I oppose the US going into other countries after Iraq. But will the US have any choice when some of these countries not only harbor terrorists, the offer state sponsorship of terrorists, but also like having terrorists to battle against Isreal. I would point out the first line of the PLO charter still dedicates the organization to the destruction of Isreal. If you were Israel would you want the PLO as a neighbor? -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-19 20:09:27-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. One might argue that WWIII started on 9/11. WWIII could well turn out to be the "free agent" war where individuals not connected to particular nations, wage war against countries in the world. The UN, the Geneva Convention, and way wars are fought and treated are based on the notion that wars are fought between identifiable nations and soldiers tied to a particular nation. OBL funds something like 60 terrorist groups throughout the world, many of them operating outside of a legal entity known as a country. I oppose the US going into other countries after Iraq. But will the US have any choice when some of these countries not only harbor terrorists, the offer state sponsorship of terrorists, but also like having terrorists to battle against Isreal. I would point out the first line of the PLO charter still dedicates the organization to the destruction of Isreal. If you were Israel would you want the PLO as a neighbor? -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-19 20:13:01-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


>UN CHARTER: >Sit around arguing about the way things *ought* to be. The UN is useless. If the UN was investigating a mugging in the City it would condemn the victim for going into the city wearing an expensive watch. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-19 20:13:01-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


>UN CHARTER: >Sit around arguing about the way things *ought* to be. The UN is useless. If the UN was investigating a mugging in the City it would condemn the victim for going into the city wearing an expensive watch. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-19 20:13:31-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >JoAnn Peeler wrote: >> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! > >WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >Saddam. > >Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british soldiers had come back in body bags. You'll also probably be one of the ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to buildings. Well, fuck you too and the horse you road in on. You've said you've lived with terrorism for years. You'd probably much prefer no one do anything about it. Are you descended from Neville Chamberlain perhaps? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 20:13:31-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >JoAnn Peeler wrote: >> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! > >WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >Saddam. > >Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british soldiers had come back in body bags. You'll also probably be one of the ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to buildings. Well, fuck you too and the horse you road in on. You've said you've lived with terrorism for years. You'd probably much prefer no one do anything about it. Are you descended from Neville Chamberlain perhaps? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 20:14:09+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net: > Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >> what we can and cannot do. > > Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN > mandates, or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with > you. > >> What did the UN do >> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. > > If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security > council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and > permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > Rwandan genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security > council, where it generally vetoes everything that moves. > >> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >> conesquences to actions. > > No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing > the reason for invading Iraq from week to week. Actually, I doubt whether Team Bush's reasoning, internally, has changed even once. IMHO, they simply made the mistake of trying to rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled on a regular basis. > >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > > No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the > contracts for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. Cool. Job Creation. Mike

2003-04-19 20:14:09+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net: > Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >> what we can and cannot do. > > Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN > mandates, or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with > you. > >> What did the UN do >> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. > > If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security > council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and > permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > Rwandan genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security > council, where it generally vetoes everything that moves. > >> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >> conesquences to actions. > > No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing > the reason for invading Iraq from week to week. Actually, I doubt whether Team Bush's reasoning, internally, has changed even once. IMHO, they simply made the mistake of trying to rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled on a regular basis. > >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > > No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the > contracts for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. Cool. Job Creation. Mike

2003-04-19 20:19:18-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: >What has been the longest extended period of time throughout the world >where there has been no war anywhere? I'm talking about in the last >four hundred years? In the last fifty? In the last twenty? There will >be war. You're problem is that in this one, the US won it. I don't believe there has been any period has there? Right now as we speak there are what 70 wars going on around the planet earth? -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-19 20:19:18-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: >What has been the longest extended period of time throughout the world >where there has been no war anywhere? I'm talking about in the last >four hundred years? In the last fifty? In the last twenty? There will >be war. You're problem is that in this one, the US won it. I don't believe there has been any period has there? Right now as we speak there are what 70 wars going on around the planet earth? -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-19 20:24:25-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:09:27 -0400, NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >On "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >>decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. >One might argue that WWIII started on 9/11. WWIII could >well turn out to be the "free agent" war where individuals >not connected to particular nations, wage war against >countries in the world. People seem to want to forget that day or think the US should just get over it. >The UN, the Geneva Convention, and way >wars are fought and treated are based on the >notion that wars are fought between identifiable >nations and soldiers tied to a particular nation. >OBL funds something like 60 terrorist groups >throughout the world, many of them >operating outside of a legal entity known >as a country. > >I oppose the US going into other countries >after Iraq. But will the US have any choice >when some of these countries not only harbor >terrorists, the offer state sponsorship of >terrorists, but also like having terrorists >to battle against Isreal. People also forget that George Bush stood up after 9/11 and declared a war on terrorism AND a war against those countries who harbor them. Iraq was simply #1 on the hit parade. It doesn't mean we have to use the military to attack countries we know harbor terrorists. It does mean we can use whatever means necessary. >I would point out the first line of the PLO charter >still dedicates the organization to >the destruction of Isreal. If you >were Israel would you want the PLO as a >neighbor? This is why the US leads the way in number of vetoes in the UN. If Israel had the oil instead of the arab countries, the rest of the world wouldn't be bending over backwards to condemn Israel at every turn and pacify the other countries in the middle east. It makes me laugh when I hear people talk about how the US is only in Iraq for oil. What the hell basis do they think the rest of the industrialized world are making decisions on? If not for oil, no one would give a shit about the middle east. If not for oil money funding them, the terrorists wouldn't exist on the level they do either. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 20:24:25-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:09:27 -0400, NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >On "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >>decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. >One might argue that WWIII started on 9/11. WWIII could >well turn out to be the "free agent" war where individuals >not connected to particular nations, wage war against >countries in the world. People seem to want to forget that day or think the US should just get over it. >The UN, the Geneva Convention, and way >wars are fought and treated are based on the >notion that wars are fought between identifiable >nations and soldiers tied to a particular nation. >OBL funds something like 60 terrorist groups >throughout the world, many of them >operating outside of a legal entity known >as a country. > >I oppose the US going into other countries >after Iraq. But will the US have any choice >when some of these countries not only harbor >terrorists, the offer state sponsorship of >terrorists, but also like having terrorists >to battle against Isreal. People also forget that George Bush stood up after 9/11 and declared a war on terrorism AND a war against those countries who harbor them. Iraq was simply #1 on the hit parade. It doesn't mean we have to use the military to attack countries we know harbor terrorists. It does mean we can use whatever means necessary. >I would point out the first line of the PLO charter >still dedicates the organization to >the destruction of Isreal. If you >were Israel would you want the PLO as a >neighbor? This is why the US leads the way in number of vetoes in the UN. If Israel had the oil instead of the arab countries, the rest of the world wouldn't be bending over backwards to condemn Israel at every turn and pacify the other countries in the middle east. It makes me laugh when I hear people talk about how the US is only in Iraq for oil. What the hell basis do they think the rest of the industrialized world are making decisions on? If not for oil, no one would give a shit about the middle east. If not for oil money funding them, the terrorists wouldn't exist on the level they do either. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 20:26:51-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: >Other options like what? Give the UN another twelve years to pass >meaningless resolution after meaningless resolution? Give sanctions >another twelve years to work? Sanctions worked so well in Iraq. In order for Sanctions to work nobody can trade with Iraq. France, Germany and other countries were tripping over themselves to trade with Iraq. Wonder why France was so opposed to this war? Take a look at how much SH owed France. >And we did not bomb the shit out of Iraq. If you want to see what a >country looks like when it has the shit bombed out of it, look at >Germany, the city of Dresden in particular after WWII. Something like >80,000 civilains were killed in that city alone. Had we wanted merely >to level Iraq, we could have. Take a look at Baghdad now. Notice all the buildings still standing, much of the infrastructure that still remains, >The killing of Hussein was never a stated purpose of the war, just his >removal from power. Killing him would have been (and might have been) >a bonus. We may not know for many years what really happened to SH. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-19 20:26:51-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: >Other options like what? Give the UN another twelve years to pass >meaningless resolution after meaningless resolution? Give sanctions >another twelve years to work? Sanctions worked so well in Iraq. In order for Sanctions to work nobody can trade with Iraq. France, Germany and other countries were tripping over themselves to trade with Iraq. Wonder why France was so opposed to this war? Take a look at how much SH owed France. >And we did not bomb the shit out of Iraq. If you want to see what a >country looks like when it has the shit bombed out of it, look at >Germany, the city of Dresden in particular after WWII. Something like >80,000 civilains were killed in that city alone. Had we wanted merely >to level Iraq, we could have. Take a look at Baghdad now. Notice all the buildings still standing, much of the infrastructure that still remains, >The killing of Hussein was never a stated purpose of the war, just his >removal from power. Killing him would have been (and might have been) >a bonus. We may not know for many years what really happened to SH. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-19 21:06:42-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 00:53:48 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: "Guig" guig@home >>Date: 4/19/2003 11:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net> >> >>James A. Donald wrote: >>> -- >>> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >>> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >>> government, which will then hold elections. >> >>And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >>hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing >>of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would >>trust to install a democratic government. >> > >The US government's glowing support for Saddam while he was slaughtering people >with chemical weapons never happened. I'm sure it didn't, because the Bushes >have never brought it up. After all, it was revered members of their own party >who supposedly supported Saddam. Impossible that the sainted Ronald Reagan >could have pursued such a policy. Excuse me while I put my head back in the >sand. Does everyone you support and vote for do exactly what you want them do once in office? Every country on the face of the earth supports those who they think are most beneficial to them. Often it's just like voting. You choose who you think is the lesser of two evils. At the time we supported Saddam Hussein, we thought that was Iran and probably rightfully so. If you want to be a self-hating american because of past mistakes our government has made, that's your business. The US and it's government has been far from perfect and i'm the first to admit that. On the other hand, I think our record has many more pluses then minuses. Personally, i wish we could say a big hearty fuck you to the rest of the world and next time they come knocking on our door begging for handouts we kindly tell them to start solving their own problems for a change and quit looking to us for answers. They never like the ones they get anyway. Even the color of our money isn't satisfactory because it never seems to be enough. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 21:06:42-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 00:53:48 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: "Guig" guig@home >>Date: 4/19/2003 11:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net> >> >>James A. Donald wrote: >>> -- >>> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >>> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >>> government, which will then hold elections. >> >>And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >>hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing >>of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would >>trust to install a democratic government. >> > >The US government's glowing support for Saddam while he was slaughtering people >with chemical weapons never happened. I'm sure it didn't, because the Bushes >have never brought it up. After all, it was revered members of their own party >who supposedly supported Saddam. Impossible that the sainted Ronald Reagan >could have pursued such a policy. Excuse me while I put my head back in the >sand. Does everyone you support and vote for do exactly what you want them do once in office? Every country on the face of the earth supports those who they think are most beneficial to them. Often it's just like voting. You choose who you think is the lesser of two evils. At the time we supported Saddam Hussein, we thought that was Iran and probably rightfully so. If you want to be a self-hating american because of past mistakes our government has made, that's your business. The US and it's government has been far from perfect and i'm the first to admit that. On the other hand, I think our record has many more pluses then minuses. Personally, i wish we could say a big hearty fuck you to the rest of the world and next time they come knocking on our door begging for handouts we kindly tell them to start solving their own problems for a change and quit looking to us for answers. They never like the ones they get anyway. Even the color of our money isn't satisfactory because it never seems to be enough. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 21:11:52-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 00:57:07 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>Date: 4/19/2003 5:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <jcp3av46n1vsci61hjmf3aa1f1oinbbkp2@4ax.com> >> >>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >> >>>JoAnn Peeler wrote: >>>> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >>>> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! >>> >>>WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >>>steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >>>Saddam. >>> >>>Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >>>concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. >> >>I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been >>cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british >>soldiers had come back in body bags. > >That's absolutely not how he comes across. He comes across as cynical about US >and British motives, and with the US and Britain's track record, he has good >reason to be. I hope this time we really mean what we say and we do all the >good things we claim to want to do. If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to you? :) I have no doubt whatsover that many of the people criticizing the war effort in Iraq are disappointed there weren't many more lives lost. Lives aren't worth all that much for some people who want to be proven right. I also have no doubt whatsover that any terrorist activity for at least the next 50 years will be blamed on George Bush. By the same people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 21:11:52-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 00:57:07 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>Date: 4/19/2003 5:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <jcp3av46n1vsci61hjmf3aa1f1oinbbkp2@4ax.com> >> >>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >> >>>JoAnn Peeler wrote: >>>> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >>>> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! >>> >>>WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >>>steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >>>Saddam. >>> >>>Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >>>concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. >> >>I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been >>cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british >>soldiers had come back in body bags. > >That's absolutely not how he comes across. He comes across as cynical about US >and British motives, and with the US and Britain's track record, he has good >reason to be. I hope this time we really mean what we say and we do all the >good things we claim to want to do. If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to you? :) I have no doubt whatsover that many of the people criticizing the war effort in Iraq are disappointed there weren't many more lives lost. Lives aren't worth all that much for some people who want to be proven right. I also have no doubt whatsover that any terrorist activity for at least the next 50 years will be blamed on George Bush. By the same people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 21:37:35-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:23:57 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:11:52 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>On 20 Apr 2003 00:57:07 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >> >>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>>Date: 4/19/2003 5:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>>Message-id: <jcp3av46n1vsci61hjmf3aa1f1oinbbkp2@4ax.com> >>>> >>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >>>> >>>>>JoAnn Peeler wrote: >>>>>> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >>>>>> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! >>>>> >>>>>WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >>>>>steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >>>>>Saddam. >>>>> >>>>>Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >>>>>concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. >>>> >>>>I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been >>>>cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british >>>>soldiers had come back in body bags. >>> >>>That's absolutely not how he comes across. He comes across as cynical about US >>>and British motives, and with the US and Britain's track record, he has good >>>reason to be. I hope this time we really mean what we say and we do all the >>>good things we claim to want to do. >> >>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>you? :) > >It depends on which side of the war argument you are on. Not entirely. It wasn't just this reply I based my opinion of hiim on. He may have been against the war in Iraq but he proved in another masterful post how he isn't against using force when it suits his own needs. It was his post about the situation in Northern Ireland that he replied to. He apparently thinks that's the US's fault too. If he doesn't support Saddam Hussein, I think he made it quite clear that he does support the tactics of Saddam. At least when it comes to Northern Ireland. And then he talks about the US being a country of hypocrites. Too funny. Guig wrote: >Mike Craney wrote: >> And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. > >We did not put up with terrorists you stupid twat. We dealt with them in the >only way they understood, and we were winning - however. When we locked them >up without trial we were told it was against their human rights. When we >shot the fuckers before they killed innocent civilians we were told it was >against their human rights. And we were told this by the US, a country which >allowed fundraising for these terrorists to go on on unchecked for over 30 >years and still turns a blind eye to it. We were told this by US politicians >who gave solace, money, and support to a bunch of gutless murdering scum. >Aye, fucking great help you lot were. How many people died because you lot >couldn't keep your noses out of other peoples business. > >> We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). > >What? Rather than give the wanks guns and money? Bit of a change for you lot >isn't it? Usually you give these killers everything they need. You and your >government are fucking hypocrites. Terrorism - all you know about terrorism >is how to support it. Sheesh, one act of terror on your shores and suddenly >you're fekkin experts - don't make me laugh. > >Try getting some education about events from around the world before you >start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 21:37:35-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:23:57 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:11:52 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>On 20 Apr 2003 00:57:07 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >> >>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>>Date: 4/19/2003 5:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>>Message-id: <jcp3av46n1vsci61hjmf3aa1f1oinbbkp2@4ax.com> >>>> >>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >>>> >>>>>JoAnn Peeler wrote: >>>>>> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >>>>>> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! >>>>> >>>>>WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >>>>>steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >>>>>Saddam. >>>>> >>>>>Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >>>>>concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. >>>> >>>>I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been >>>>cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british >>>>soldiers had come back in body bags. >>> >>>That's absolutely not how he comes across. He comes across as cynical about US >>>and British motives, and with the US and Britain's track record, he has good >>>reason to be. I hope this time we really mean what we say and we do all the >>>good things we claim to want to do. >> >>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>you? :) > >It depends on which side of the war argument you are on. Not entirely. It wasn't just this reply I based my opinion of hiim on. He may have been against the war in Iraq but he proved in another masterful post how he isn't against using force when it suits his own needs. It was his post about the situation in Northern Ireland that he replied to. He apparently thinks that's the US's fault too. If he doesn't support Saddam Hussein, I think he made it quite clear that he does support the tactics of Saddam. At least when it comes to Northern Ireland. And then he talks about the US being a country of hypocrites. Too funny. Guig wrote: >Mike Craney wrote: >> And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. > >We did not put up with terrorists you stupid twat. We dealt with them in the >only way they understood, and we were winning - however. When we locked them >up without trial we were told it was against their human rights. When we >shot the fuckers before they killed innocent civilians we were told it was >against their human rights. And we were told this by the US, a country which >allowed fundraising for these terrorists to go on on unchecked for over 30 >years and still turns a blind eye to it. We were told this by US politicians >who gave solace, money, and support to a bunch of gutless murdering scum. >Aye, fucking great help you lot were. How many people died because you lot >couldn't keep your noses out of other peoples business. > >> We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). > >What? Rather than give the wanks guns and money? Bit of a change for you lot >isn't it? Usually you give these killers everything they need. You and your >government are fucking hypocrites. Terrorism - all you know about terrorism >is how to support it. Sheesh, one act of terror on your shores and suddenly >you're fekkin experts - don't make me laugh. > >Try getting some education about events from around the world before you >start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 21:51:52-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >> > >> >>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>you? :) >> > >She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. Did you read his post about the situation in Northern Ireland which he apparently also thinks is the US's fault? If he doesn't support Saddam, he made it quite clear he does support Saddam's tactics. At least when it suits his own needs. I just made another post where I pasted it. I think it speaks for itself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 21:51:52-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >> > >> >>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>you? :) >> > >She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. Did you read his post about the situation in Northern Ireland which he apparently also thinks is the US's fault? If he doesn't support Saddam, he made it quite clear he does support Saddam's tactics. At least when it suits his own needs. I just made another post where I pasted it. I think it speaks for itself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 21:54:43-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:46:46 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >>> >> >>> >>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>you? :) >>> >> >>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. >I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then. Not to mention the fact that she didn't reply to Guig at all. She replied to Tim. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 21:54:43-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:46:46 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >>> >> >>> >>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>you? :) >>> >> >>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. >I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then. Not to mention the fact that she didn't reply to Guig at all. She replied to Tim. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 22:01:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Guig wrote in message <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net>... >James A. Donald wrote: >> -- >> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >> government, which will then hold elections. > >And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing >of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would >trust to install a democratic government. It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't be worth the bother. As far as I can see the ONLY evidence the USA has for Iraq having biological and chemical weapons is that the US sold biological agents to Iraq together with the technology to brew them up and put them into weapons. Same thing with chemical weapons. The US didn't really complain about their use on Iran or Iraqi citizens until George W decided to go to war. Bu those sales were 20 years ago and more, and that sort of equipment doesn't last long given the stress of heat and so on that it has to take, and the 100% level of containment that is essential. When a seal leaks you don't just put some gasket sealer on and bolt the parts together.

2003-04-19 22:01:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Guig wrote in message <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net>... >James A. Donald wrote: >> -- >> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >> government, which will then hold elections. > >And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing >of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would >trust to install a democratic government. It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't be worth the bother. As far as I can see the ONLY evidence the USA has for Iraq having biological and chemical weapons is that the US sold biological agents to Iraq together with the technology to brew them up and put them into weapons. Same thing with chemical weapons. The US didn't really complain about their use on Iran or Iraqi citizens until George W decided to go to war. Bu those sales were 20 years ago and more, and that sort of equipment doesn't last long given the stress of heat and so on that it has to take, and the 100% level of containment that is essential. When a seal leaks you don't just put some gasket sealer on and bolt the parts together.

2003-04-19 22:21:52+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (JoAnn Peeler <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com>)


"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! -- JoAnn Peeler

2003-04-19 22:21:52+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (JoAnn Peeler <jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com>)


"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! -- JoAnn Peeler

2003-04-19 22:26:59-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 01:55:38 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>Date: 4/19/2003 6:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <s0s3avoll334rnpsb2e60nqjm7u7gon5og@4ax.com> >> >. Often it's just like voting. You choose >>who you think is the lesser of two evils. At the time we supported Saddam >>Hussein, we thought that was Iran and probably rightfully so. >> > >Now, what if someone thinks tolerating (as opposed to providing weapons to) >Saddam is a lesser evil than dropping bombs? Can that person be justified, or >is that person a reprobate who lurves Saddam Hussein? > >>If you want to be a self-hating american because of past mistakes our >>government has made, that's your >business. > >Straw man. I didn't say you hate america. I said if you wanted to that's your business. I believe many liberals to be just that but that's just my opinion. I forget her name now, (thank god) but one rock singer actually came out saying she hoped we'd lose the war. Many others spoke about how they were ashamed to be Americans. >I am giving you my reasons for being cynical about this administration, not >saying I hate America. (Not being a W. fan does not = hating America.) I think >it is highly hypocritical to attack people who didn't want war, or who wanted >to wait longer before going to war, as supporting an madman who gassed his own >people..and yet not condemn the Americans who actually, overtly, DID support >the madman who gassed his own people. If supporting Saddam, knowing his most >evil deeds, is reprehensible now, it was equally reprehensible in the 1980s, >yet the current government doesn't utter a word of criticism of past policy. I was talking about your need to bash American policy by using mistakes from the past while making sarcastic references to "Saint Reagan". It's fashionable to allude to that mistake being responsible for everything Hussein did as if he were merely a US puppet. Hell, it's fashionable in some liberal circles to blame the US for everything, everywhere. In that regard it's no different from you're complaint about people thinking those against the war are Saddam sympathizers. Peter Arnett went on Iraqi tv and said that war protesters helped the Iraqi government (Saddam) and he encouraged it. I'm old enough to remember Vietnam Veterans coming home and being cursed and spit on by fellow citizens. I'm sorry but this day it makes my blood boil. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 22:26:59-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 01:55:38 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>Date: 4/19/2003 6:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <s0s3avoll334rnpsb2e60nqjm7u7gon5og@4ax.com> >> >. Often it's just like voting. You choose >>who you think is the lesser of two evils. At the time we supported Saddam >>Hussein, we thought that was Iran and probably rightfully so. >> > >Now, what if someone thinks tolerating (as opposed to providing weapons to) >Saddam is a lesser evil than dropping bombs? Can that person be justified, or >is that person a reprobate who lurves Saddam Hussein? > >>If you want to be a self-hating american because of past mistakes our >>government has made, that's your >business. > >Straw man. I didn't say you hate america. I said if you wanted to that's your business. I believe many liberals to be just that but that's just my opinion. I forget her name now, (thank god) but one rock singer actually came out saying she hoped we'd lose the war. Many others spoke about how they were ashamed to be Americans. >I am giving you my reasons for being cynical about this administration, not >saying I hate America. (Not being a W. fan does not = hating America.) I think >it is highly hypocritical to attack people who didn't want war, or who wanted >to wait longer before going to war, as supporting an madman who gassed his own >people..and yet not condemn the Americans who actually, overtly, DID support >the madman who gassed his own people. If supporting Saddam, knowing his most >evil deeds, is reprehensible now, it was equally reprehensible in the 1980s, >yet the current government doesn't utter a word of criticism of past policy. I was talking about your need to bash American policy by using mistakes from the past while making sarcastic references to "Saint Reagan". It's fashionable to allude to that mistake being responsible for everything Hussein did as if he were merely a US puppet. Hell, it's fashionable in some liberal circles to blame the US for everything, everywhere. In that regard it's no different from you're complaint about people thinking those against the war are Saddam sympathizers. Peter Arnett went on Iraqi tv and said that war protesters helped the Iraqi government (Saddam) and he encouraged it. I'm old enough to remember Vietnam Veterans coming home and being cursed and spit on by fellow citizens. I'm sorry but this day it makes my blood boil. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-19 22:50:36-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:40:17 +1000, "brad" <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wroth: >but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. Name them Like inspections???

2003-04-19 22:50:36-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 02:40:17 +1000, "brad" <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wroth: >but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. Name them Like inspections???

2003-04-19 22:50:37-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


>No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the >reason for invading Iraq from week to week. He never changed it. It was always the same >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > >No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts >for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. Prove it.

2003-04-19 22:50:37-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


>No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the >reason for invading Iraq from week to week. He never changed it. It was always the same >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > >No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts >for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. Prove it.

2003-04-19 22:53:14+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Guig wrote in message <1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>... >Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >> what we can and cannot do. > >Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, >or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by refusing to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to what they call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi invasion. The group is trying to get any elected federal republican who disagrees with them replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote 100% with the president That explains the US attitude right there: they own the world and anyone anywhere who won't agree with US policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows what sort of people get elected by right wing republicans. >> What did the UN do >> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. > >If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security >council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and >permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan >genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where >it generally vetoes everything that moves. The US has ignored every act of slaughter, injustice, mass theft and oppression in Africa as long as it was done by black people. Black politicians and civil rights leaders refuse to admit they happen, since only white people oppress blacks. >> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >> conesquences to actions. > >No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the >reason for invading Iraq from week to week. Even the US media are now commenting on the lack of WMDs and the "sudden" white house/pentagon statements that the bombing and uncontrolled looting of offices and palaces and the burning and scattering of millions of documents may have made it impossible to trace WMDs. Which is interesting in the face of the fact that the first task of US troops was controlling the oilfields and oil production/transport infrastructure and to prevent destruction or looting of offices and other associated buildings. And now we hear that the one government office in Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was protected from looting, is the ministry of petroleum office. My my, such care taken when all but one hospital were looted to bare walls and the national museum was looted by professionals and the power and water and sewage are still out after 2 weeks. Just to save the oil for "The Iraqi People"... To be truly cynical, what's the probabilty that some subsidiary of those white house connected rebuilding corporations has been incorporated abroad and named "The Iraqi People, Inc."? > >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > >No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts >for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. The pipeline into Syria will be cut, and all the oil will be controlled by US oil companies and exported by them through the gulf. The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian aid, reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US saying, as they did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the money to fix it: we got what we came here for. We'll just leave enough occupation troops to keep the free government voting our way". Some coumnist in the local paper today was saying that the US has to "Do it Right" this time and make sure that Iraq has a free democratic government that does things the way the US wants. An end to US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan isn't a likely event: the US occupied Germany for years "to build democracy and freedom", then stayed on during the cold war "to defend Europe". Now the cold war is over but the US is still there after more than 10 years "because we can", and in the US idiots are screaming about how evil Germany won't support Bush's invasion. Apparently even after more than 55 years freedom and democracy still only means "Freedom to do it our way".

2003-04-19 22:53:14+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Guig wrote in message <1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>... >Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >> what we can and cannot do. > >Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, >or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by refusing to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to what they call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi invasion. The group is trying to get any elected federal republican who disagrees with them replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote 100% with the president That explains the US attitude right there: they own the world and anyone anywhere who won't agree with US policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows what sort of people get elected by right wing republicans. >> What did the UN do >> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. > >If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security >council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and >permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan >genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where >it generally vetoes everything that moves. The US has ignored every act of slaughter, injustice, mass theft and oppression in Africa as long as it was done by black people. Black politicians and civil rights leaders refuse to admit they happen, since only white people oppress blacks. >> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >> conesquences to actions. > >No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the >reason for invading Iraq from week to week. Even the US media are now commenting on the lack of WMDs and the "sudden" white house/pentagon statements that the bombing and uncontrolled looting of offices and palaces and the burning and scattering of millions of documents may have made it impossible to trace WMDs. Which is interesting in the face of the fact that the first task of US troops was controlling the oilfields and oil production/transport infrastructure and to prevent destruction or looting of offices and other associated buildings. And now we hear that the one government office in Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was protected from looting, is the ministry of petroleum office. My my, such care taken when all but one hospital were looted to bare walls and the national museum was looted by professionals and the power and water and sewage are still out after 2 weeks. Just to save the oil for "The Iraqi People"... To be truly cynical, what's the probabilty that some subsidiary of those white house connected rebuilding corporations has been incorporated abroad and named "The Iraqi People, Inc."? > >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > >No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts >for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. The pipeline into Syria will be cut, and all the oil will be controlled by US oil companies and exported by them through the gulf. The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian aid, reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US saying, as they did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the money to fix it: we got what we came here for. We'll just leave enough occupation troops to keep the free government voting our way". Some coumnist in the local paper today was saying that the US has to "Do it Right" this time and make sure that Iraq has a free democratic government that does things the way the US wants. An end to US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan isn't a likely event: the US occupied Germany for years "to build democracy and freedom", then stayed on during the cold war "to defend Europe". Now the cold war is over but the US is still there after more than 10 years "because we can", and in the US idiots are screaming about how evil Germany won't support Bush's invasion. Apparently even after more than 55 years freedom and democracy still only means "Freedom to do it our way".

2003-04-19 22:55:30-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 22:53:14 GMT, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wroth: > >Guig wrote in message <1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>... >>Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >>> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >>> what we can and cannot do. >> >>Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, >>or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. > > A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against >Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by refusing >to support Bush's full tax cut. What?! I did not know fascists were big on cutting taxes

2003-04-19 22:55:30-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 22:53:14 GMT, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wroth: > >Guig wrote in message <1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>... >>Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >>> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >>> what we can and cannot do. >> >>Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, >>or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. > > A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against >Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by refusing >to support Bush's full tax cut. What?! I did not know fascists were big on cutting taxes

2003-04-19 22:59:56-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 23:54:25 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >The Black Sheep wrote: >> "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message >> news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... >> The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but >> France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how >> one-sided public opinion can be! > >30?? Try doubling that and you'll be closer. Plus they seem to veto every >resolution pointed at Israel, and IIRC, the resolution ordering Israel out >of the Palestinian lands read exactly the same as the one ordering Saddam >out of Kuwait. But Israel is not in Palestinian land

2003-04-19 22:59:56-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 23:54:25 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >The Black Sheep wrote: >> "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message >> news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... >> The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but >> France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how >> one-sided public opinion can be! > >30?? Try doubling that and you'll be closer. Plus they seem to veto every >resolution pointed at Israel, and IIRC, the resolution ordering Israel out >of the Palestinian lands read exactly the same as the one ordering Saddam >out of Kuwait. But Israel is not in Palestinian land

2003-04-19 22:59:57-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:00:13 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >Aethelrede wrote: >> It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to >> guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be >> secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't >> be worth the bother. > >It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the first 'democratically >elected' Iraqi government turned round and said - "OK, get your troops out >of our country within 4 weeks, and those contracts you 'awarded' prior to >the war are now null and void". What "contracts"? There was no contracts awarded to anybody

2003-04-19 22:59:57-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:00:13 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >Aethelrede wrote: >> It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to >> guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be >> secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't >> be worth the bother. > >It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the first 'democratically >elected' Iraqi government turned round and said - "OK, get your troops out >of our country within 4 weeks, and those contracts you 'awarded' prior to >the war are now null and void". What "contracts"? There was no contracts awarded to anybody

2003-04-19 22:59:58-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >JoAnn Peeler wrote: >> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! > >WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >Saddam. > >Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. Ah! You know when somebody is losing an argument when they make it personal and start with the cussing

2003-04-19 22:59:58-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >JoAnn Peeler wrote: >> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! > >WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >Saddam. > >Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. Ah! You know when somebody is losing an argument when they make it personal and start with the cussing

2003-04-19 23:52:00+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050792182.96624.1@despina.uk.clara.net: > Mike Craney wrote: >> rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who >> really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled >> on a regular basis. > > Actually pal, some of us have been giving a shit about (and living > with) terrorism for more than 30 years, unlike yourselves who were > more than happy to fund and support and kiss the arse of any putrid > terrorist scumbag who came to you with their hands out. We're fixing that, as you may have noticed. No more terrorist ass-kissing. Just terrorist ass-kicking. If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now removing them instead. And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). Mike

2003-04-19 23:52:00+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050792182.96624.1@despina.uk.clara.net: > Mike Craney wrote: >> rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who >> really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled >> on a regular basis. > > Actually pal, some of us have been giving a shit about (and living > with) terrorism for more than 30 years, unlike yourselves who were > more than happy to fund and support and kiss the arse of any putrid > terrorist scumbag who came to you with their hands out. We're fixing that, as you may have noticed. No more terrorist ass-kissing. Just terrorist ass-kicking. If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now removing them instead. And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). Mike

2003-04-19 23:54:25+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


The Black Sheep wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but > France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how > one-sided public opinion can be! 30?? Try doubling that and you'll be closer. Plus they seem to veto every resolution pointed at Israel, and IIRC, the resolution ordering Israel out of the Palestinian lands read exactly the same as the one ordering Saddam out of Kuwait. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 23:54:25+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


The Black Sheep wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but > France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how > one-sided public opinion can be! 30?? Try doubling that and you'll be closer. Plus they seem to veto every resolution pointed at Israel, and IIRC, the resolution ordering Israel out of the Palestinian lands read exactly the same as the one ordering Saddam out of Kuwait. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 23:56:51+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who > really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled > on a regular basis. Actually pal, some of us have been giving a shit about (and living with) terrorism for more than 30 years, unlike yourselves who were more than happy to fund and support and kiss the arse of any putrid terrorist scumbag who came to you with their hands out. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-19 23:56:51+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who > really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled > on a regular basis. Actually pal, some of us have been giving a shit about (and living with) terrorism for more than 30 years, unlike yourselves who were more than happy to fund and support and kiss the arse of any putrid terrorist scumbag who came to you with their hands out. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 00:00:13+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Aethelrede wrote: > It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to > guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be > secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't > be worth the bother. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the first 'democratically elected' Iraqi government turned round and said - "OK, get your troops out of our country within 4 weeks, and those contracts you 'awarded' prior to the war are now null and void". > The US didn't really complain about their use on Iran or > Iraqi citizens until George W decided to go to war. I've been saying that for months now. It was another convenient bit of waffle to convince the sheep. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 00:00:13+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Aethelrede wrote: > It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to > guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be > secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't > be worth the bother. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the first 'democratically elected' Iraqi government turned round and said - "OK, get your troops out of our country within 4 weeks, and those contracts you 'awarded' prior to the war are now null and void". > The US didn't really complain about their use on Iran or > Iraqi citizens until George W decided to go to war. I've been saying that for months now. It was another convenient bit of waffle to convince the sheep. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 00:02:33+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


JoAnn Peeler wrote: > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam > sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of Saddam. Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 00:02:33+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


JoAnn Peeler wrote: > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam > sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of Saddam. Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 00:10:24+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"Kathryn" <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:b7s2fg$ldp$1@titan.btinternet.com... > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > > The war is not over. > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > > Iraq. > > > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > > Charter. > > > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > > > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > > world? > > > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > > > at peace in the world. > > > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > thinking > > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > advice > > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > > > > You should have inserted an evil cackle! > I didn't know how to type out the "Dr. Evil laugh"....

2003-04-20 00:10:24+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"Kathryn" <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:b7s2fg$ldp$1@titan.btinternet.com... > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > > The war is not over. > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > > Iraq. > > > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > > Charter. > > > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > > > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > > world? > > > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > > > at peace in the world. > > > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > thinking > > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > advice > > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > > > > You should have inserted an evil cackle! > I didn't know how to type out the "Dr. Evil laugh"....

2003-04-20 00:15:14+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7shlv$3eh1p$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > > The war is not over. > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government > in > > > Iraq. > > > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all > resistence! > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others > countries. > > > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world > and > > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey > the UN > > > Charter. > > > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the > world. > > > > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over > the > > world? > > > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that > the > > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a > chance > > > at peace in the world. > > > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do > that? > > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters > are > > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > thinking > > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > advice > > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > > > What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, > but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see > the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will > on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades > to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to > do so. > What's funny is that how the world can be so blind to the truth. Other countries are going to see us however they want to see us- no matter our intentions, we can't change that. The sad thing is that our govt *will* probably try to appease the world... but it won't help, and sooner or later our govt will realize that and say to hell with you all. And newsflash- if our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the world would be much different than it is.

2003-04-20 00:15:14+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7shlv$3eh1p$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Ohfoa.30714$ey1.2780995@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b7rpf7$3ru0h$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > > The war is not over. > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government > in > > > Iraq. > > > > There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all > resistence! > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others > countries. > > > > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world > and > > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > > > > > > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey > the UN > > > Charter. > > > > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the > world. > > > > > > > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > > > > > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over > the > > world? > > > > > Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that > the > > > US will follow international law from now on and we may have a > chance > > > at peace in the world. > > > > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do > that? > > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters > are > > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > thinking > > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > advice > > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > > > What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, > but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see > the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will > on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades > to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to > do so. > What's funny is that how the world can be so blind to the truth. Other countries are going to see us however they want to see us- no matter our intentions, we can't change that. The sad thing is that our govt *will* probably try to appease the world... but it won't help, and sooner or later our govt will realize that and say to hell with you all. And newsflash- if our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the world would be much different than it is.

2003-04-20 00:30:40-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >James A. Donald wrote: >> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >> government, which will then hold elections. >And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing >of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would >trust to install a democratic government. Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the face when he met with him? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-20 00:30:40-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >James A. Donald wrote: >> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >> government, which will then hold elections. >And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing >of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would >trust to install a democratic government. Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the face when he met with him? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-20 00:39:04-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:42:49 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >EVERYTHING is the US's fault, whether we are too involved (butting in >and doing something) or not involved enough (sitting back idly while >the world goes to hell in a handbasket). At least that is what I have >learned here. That's what the whole rest of the planet thinks, there's more of them collectively than there are of us, they must be right. (eyeroll)

2003-04-20 00:39:04-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:42:49 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >EVERYTHING is the US's fault, whether we are too involved (butting in >and doing something) or not involved enough (sitting back idly while >the world goes to hell in a handbasket). At least that is what I have >learned here. That's what the whole rest of the planet thinks, there's more of them collectively than there are of us, they must be right. (eyeroll)

2003-04-20 00:41:27+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "JustMe" whome@nospam.com >Date: 4/19/2003 12:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <KUhoa.11549$UA6.1192333@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> > > >"forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message >news:fru2avgodgpa3vd3ujp9t2hmiva578fuq8@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:16:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has >> >> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. >> >> >> >> When they ignore it, pass another one. >> >> >> >> Repeat as needed. >> > >> >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security >> >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 >> >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL >> >> The US isn't always right either. >> > >REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it.. > CNN is the most balanced of the major cable networks right now. It shows the pro-US people and the anti-US people. It discusses the positive side and negative side of what the US is doing. For all positive, there's Fox and for all negative, there's Radio Pacifica. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:41:27+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "JustMe" whome@nospam.com >Date: 4/19/2003 12:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <KUhoa.11549$UA6.1192333@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> > > >"forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message >news:fru2avgodgpa3vd3ujp9t2hmiva578fuq8@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:16:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has >> >> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. >> >> >> >> When they ignore it, pass another one. >> >> >> >> Repeat as needed. >> > >> >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security >> >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 >> >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL >> >> The US isn't always right either. >> > >REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it.. > CNN is the most balanced of the major cable networks right now. It shows the pro-US people and the anti-US people. It discusses the positive side and negative side of what the US is doing. For all positive, there's Fox and for all negative, there's Radio Pacifica. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:46:45+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "Guig" guig@home >Date: 4/19/2003 11:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <1050776233.21985.1@demeter.uk.clara.net> > >Mike Craney wrote: >> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, > >BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! > >Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >'democracies' were installed by the US. > >The US has a long and glorious history of funding, and supporting the most >heinous dictators and terrorist organisations known to man, and >destabilising democratic regimes. > Chile leaps to mind. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:46:45+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "Guig" guig@home >Date: 4/19/2003 11:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <1050776233.21985.1@demeter.uk.clara.net> > >Mike Craney wrote: >> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, > >BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! > >Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >'democracies' were installed by the US. > >The US has a long and glorious history of funding, and supporting the most >heinous dictators and terrorist organisations known to man, and >destabilising democratic regimes. > Chile leaps to mind. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:47:32+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "The Black Sheep" blacksheep667@hotmail.com >Date: 4/19/2003 3:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <b7sht9$435sh$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de> > > >"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message >news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > >> If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole >security >> council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources >and >> permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the >Rwandan >> genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, >where >> it generally vetoes everything that moves. > >The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but >France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how >one-sided public opinion can be! > >> > Now, the money from the oil for >> > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. >> >> No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the >contracts >> for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. > >And other Iraq contracts: > >http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/14/iraq_contracts030414 >"Canadian companies have been shut out of the bidding for lucrative >rebuilding contracts in Iraq, with the biggest going to companies with >ties to the Bush administration. " > > I want to know why Iraqi construction companies aren't going to rebuild Iraq. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:47:32+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "The Black Sheep" blacksheep667@hotmail.com >Date: 4/19/2003 3:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <b7sht9$435sh$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de> > > >"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message >news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > >> If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole >security >> council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources >and >> permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the >Rwandan >> genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, >where >> it generally vetoes everything that moves. > >The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but >France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how >one-sided public opinion can be! > >> > Now, the money from the oil for >> > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. >> >> No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the >contracts >> for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. > >And other Iraq contracts: > >http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/14/iraq_contracts030414 >"Canadian companies have been shut out of the bidding for lucrative >rebuilding contracts in Iraq, with the biggest going to companies with >ties to the Bush administration. " > > I want to know why Iraqi construction companies aren't going to rebuild Iraq. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:49:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Buckaroo Banzai wrote: > And newsflash- if >our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the world would >be much different than it is. A post-nuclear wasteland? Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:49:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Buckaroo Banzai wrote: > And newsflash- if >our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the world would >be much different than it is. A post-nuclear wasteland? Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:53:48+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "Guig" guig@home >Date: 4/19/2003 11:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net> > >James A. Donald wrote: >> -- >> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >> government, which will then hold elections. > >And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing >of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would >trust to install a democratic government. > The US government's glowing support for Saddam while he was slaughtering people with chemical weapons never happened. I'm sure it didn't, because the Bushes have never brought it up. After all, it was revered members of their own party who supposedly supported Saddam. Impossible that the sainted Ronald Reagan could have pursued such a policy. Excuse me while I put my head back in the sand. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:53:48+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "Guig" guig@home >Date: 4/19/2003 11:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net> > >James A. Donald wrote: >> -- >> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >> government, which will then hold elections. > >And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the gassing >of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I would >trust to install a democratic government. > The US government's glowing support for Saddam while he was slaughtering people with chemical weapons never happened. I'm sure it didn't, because the Bushes have never brought it up. After all, it was revered members of their own party who supposedly supported Saddam. Impossible that the sainted Ronald Reagan could have pursued such a policy. Excuse me while I put my head back in the sand. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:55:34+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "JoAnn Peeler" jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com >Date: 4/19/2003 3:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <4_joa.52364$D15.1531663@twister.tampabay.rr.com> > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >> >Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam sympathizers >so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! > I'm cynical about the US's motives for going to war, and the government's claim to want the Iraqis to pick their own government. I'm sure not a Saddam sympathizer. I'm very glad he's gone. (Theoretically.) >-- >JoAnn Peeler > > > > > > > > Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:55:34+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "JoAnn Peeler" jpeeler@tampabay.rr.com >Date: 4/19/2003 3:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <4_joa.52364$D15.1531663@twister.tampabay.rr.com> > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >> >Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam sympathizers >so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! > I'm cynical about the US's motives for going to war, and the government's claim to want the Iraqis to pick their own government. I'm sure not a Saddam sympathizer. I'm very glad he's gone. (Theoretically.) >-- >JoAnn Peeler > > > > > > > > Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:57:07+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 5:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <jcp3av46n1vsci61hjmf3aa1f1oinbbkp2@4ax.com> > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: > >>JoAnn Peeler wrote: >>> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >>> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! >> >>WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >>steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >>Saddam. >> >>Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >>concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. > >I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been >cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british >soldiers had come back in body bags. That's absolutely not how he comes across. He comes across as cynical about US and British motives, and with the US and Britain's track record, he has good reason to be. I hope this time we really mean what we say and we do all the good things we claim to want to do. You'll also probably be one of the >ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to buildings. Well, >fuck you too and the horse you road in on. >You've said you've lived with terrorism for years. You'd probably much >prefer no one do anything about it. Are you descended from Neville >Chamberlain perhaps? > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com > > > > > > Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 00:57:07+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 5:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <jcp3av46n1vsci61hjmf3aa1f1oinbbkp2@4ax.com> > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: > >>JoAnn Peeler wrote: >>> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >>> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! >> >>WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >>steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >>Saddam. >> >>Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >>concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. > >I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been >cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british >soldiers had come back in body bags. That's absolutely not how he comes across. He comes across as cynical about US and British motives, and with the US and Britain's track record, he has good reason to be. I hope this time we really mean what we say and we do all the good things we claim to want to do. You'll also probably be one of the >ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to buildings. Well, >fuck you too and the horse you road in on. >You've said you've lived with terrorism for years. You'd probably much >prefer no one do anything about it. Are you descended from Neville >Chamberlain perhaps? > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com > > > > > > Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 01:23:57+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:11:52 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On 20 Apr 2003 00:57:07 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/19/2003 5:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <jcp3av46n1vsci61hjmf3aa1f1oinbbkp2@4ax.com> >>> >>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >>> >>>>JoAnn Peeler wrote: >>>>> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >>>>> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! >>>> >>>>WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >>>>steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >>>>Saddam. >>>> >>>>Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >>>>concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. >>> >>>I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been >>>cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british >>>soldiers had come back in body bags. >> >>That's absolutely not how he comes across. He comes across as cynical about US >>and British motives, and with the US and Britain's track record, he has good >>reason to be. I hope this time we really mean what we say and we do all the >>good things we claim to want to do. > >If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >you? :) It depends on which side of the war argument you are on. > >I have no doubt whatsover that many of the people criticizing the war effort >in Iraq are disappointed there weren't many more lives lost. Lives aren't >worth all that much for some people who want to be proven right. I also >have no doubt whatsover that any terrorist activity for at least the next 50 >years will be blamed on George Bush. By the same people. > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 01:23:57+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:11:52 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On 20 Apr 2003 00:57:07 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/19/2003 5:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <jcp3av46n1vsci61hjmf3aa1f1oinbbkp2@4ax.com> >>> >>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >>> >>>>JoAnn Peeler wrote: >>>>> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >>>>> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! >>>> >>>>WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >>>>steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >>>>Saddam. >>>> >>>>Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >>>>concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. >>> >>>I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been >>>cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british >>>soldiers had come back in body bags. >> >>That's absolutely not how he comes across. He comes across as cynical about US >>and British motives, and with the US and Britain's track record, he has good >>reason to be. I hope this time we really mean what we say and we do all the >>good things we claim to want to do. > >If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >you? :) It depends on which side of the war argument you are on. > >I have no doubt whatsover that many of the people criticizing the war effort >in Iraq are disappointed there weren't many more lives lost. Lives aren't >worth all that much for some people who want to be proven right. I also >have no doubt whatsover that any terrorist activity for at least the next 50 >years will be blamed on George Bush. By the same people. > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 01:31:18+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030419204949.18912.00000218@mb-m12.aol.com... > Buckaroo Banzai wrote: > > > And newsflash- if > >our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the world would > >be much different than it is. > > A post-nuclear wasteland? > > > No, I'm very confident that we could control the world through economic and conventional warfare... sure, we might have to light off a couple of nukes, but only in the real extreme corners of the world... the more pussified countries would fall right into line, I mean just look at Europe.

2003-04-20 01:31:18+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030419204949.18912.00000218@mb-m12.aol.com... > Buckaroo Banzai wrote: > > > And newsflash- if > >our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the world would > >be much different than it is. > > A post-nuclear wasteland? > > > No, I'm very confident that we could control the world through economic and conventional warfare... sure, we might have to light off a couple of nukes, but only in the real extreme corners of the world... the more pussified countries would fall right into line, I mean just look at Europe.

2003-04-20 01:42:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:37:35 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:23:57 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> >wrote: > >>On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:11:52 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>>On 20 Apr 2003 00:57:07 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>> >>>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>>>Date: 4/19/2003 5:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>>>Message-id: <jcp3av46n1vsci61hjmf3aa1f1oinbbkp2@4ax.com> >>>>> >>>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>JoAnn Peeler wrote: >>>>>>> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >>>>>>> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! >>>>>> >>>>>>WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >>>>>>steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >>>>>>Saddam. >>>>>> >>>>>>Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >>>>>>concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. >>>>> >>>>>I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been >>>>>cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british >>>>>soldiers had come back in body bags. >>>> >>>>That's absolutely not how he comes across. He comes across as cynical about US >>>>and British motives, and with the US and Britain's track record, he has good >>>>reason to be. I hope this time we really mean what we say and we do all the >>>>good things we claim to want to do. >>> >>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>you? :) >> >>It depends on which side of the war argument you are on. > >Not entirely. It wasn't just this reply I based my opinion of hiim on. He >may have been against the war in Iraq but he proved in another masterful >post how he isn't against using force when it suits his own needs. It was >his post about the situation in Northern Ireland that he replied to. He >apparently thinks that's the US's fault too. If he doesn't support Saddam >Hussein, I think he made it quite clear that he does support the tactics of >Saddam. At least when it comes to Northern Ireland. And then he talks >about the US being a country of hypocrites. Too funny. > EVERYTHING is the US's fault, whether we are too involved (butting in and doing something) or not involved enough (sitting back idly while the world goes to hell in a handbasket). At least that is what I have learned here. >Guig wrote: >>Mike Craney wrote: >>> And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. >> >>We did not put up with terrorists you stupid twat. We dealt with them in the >>only way they understood, and we were winning - however. When we locked them >>up without trial we were told it was against their human rights. When we >>shot the fuckers before they killed innocent civilians we were told it was >>against their human rights. And we were told this by the US, a country which >>allowed fundraising for these terrorists to go on on unchecked for over 30 >>years and still turns a blind eye to it. We were told this by US politicians >>who gave solace, money, and support to a bunch of gutless murdering scum. >>Aye, fucking great help you lot were. How many people died because you lot >>couldn't keep your noses out of other peoples business. >> >>> We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). >> >>What? Rather than give the wanks guns and money? Bit of a change for you lot >>isn't it? Usually you give these killers everything they need. You and your >>government are fucking hypocrites. Terrorism - all you know about terrorism >>is how to support it. Sheesh, one act of terror on your shores and suddenly >>you're fekkin experts - don't make me laugh. >> >>Try getting some education about events from around the world before you >>start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 01:42:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:37:35 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:23:57 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> >wrote: > >>On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:11:52 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>>On 20 Apr 2003 00:57:07 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>> >>>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>>>Date: 4/19/2003 5:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>>>Message-id: <jcp3av46n1vsci61hjmf3aa1f1oinbbkp2@4ax.com> >>>>> >>>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:02:33 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>JoAnn Peeler wrote: >>>>>>> Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam >>>>>>> sympathizers so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! >>>>>> >>>>>>WOW!! Another muppet who seems to think that opposing a war designed to >>>>>>steal another countries resources automatically makes you a supporter of >>>>>>Saddam. >>>>>> >>>>>>Fuck, you're thick hen! Still, I doubt you've had much education and the >>>>>>concept of "the world" is a bit too scary for you. >>>>> >>>>>I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have been >>>>>cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own british >>>>>soldiers had come back in body bags. >>>> >>>>That's absolutely not how he comes across. He comes across as cynical about US >>>>and British motives, and with the US and Britain's track record, he has good >>>>reason to be. I hope this time we really mean what we say and we do all the >>>>good things we claim to want to do. >>> >>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>you? :) >> >>It depends on which side of the war argument you are on. > >Not entirely. It wasn't just this reply I based my opinion of hiim on. He >may have been against the war in Iraq but he proved in another masterful >post how he isn't against using force when it suits his own needs. It was >his post about the situation in Northern Ireland that he replied to. He >apparently thinks that's the US's fault too. If he doesn't support Saddam >Hussein, I think he made it quite clear that he does support the tactics of >Saddam. At least when it comes to Northern Ireland. And then he talks >about the US being a country of hypocrites. Too funny. > EVERYTHING is the US's fault, whether we are too involved (butting in and doing something) or not involved enough (sitting back idly while the world goes to hell in a handbasket). At least that is what I have learned here. >Guig wrote: >>Mike Craney wrote: >>> And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. >> >>We did not put up with terrorists you stupid twat. We dealt with them in the >>only way they understood, and we were winning - however. When we locked them >>up without trial we were told it was against their human rights. When we >>shot the fuckers before they killed innocent civilians we were told it was >>against their human rights. And we were told this by the US, a country which >>allowed fundraising for these terrorists to go on on unchecked for over 30 >>years and still turns a blind eye to it. We were told this by US politicians >>who gave solace, money, and support to a bunch of gutless murdering scum. >>Aye, fucking great help you lot were. How many people died because you lot >>couldn't keep your noses out of other peoples business. >> >>> We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). >> >>What? Rather than give the wanks guns and money? Bit of a change for you lot >>isn't it? Usually you give these killers everything they need. You and your >>government are fucking hypocrites. Terrorism - all you know about terrorism >>is how to support it. Sheesh, one act of terror on your shores and suddenly >>you're fekkin experts - don't make me laugh. >> >>Try getting some education about events from around the world before you >>start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 01:43:08+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. We did not put up with terrorists you stupid twat. We dealt with them in the only way they understood, and we were winning - however. When we locked them up without trial we were told it was against their human rights. When we shot the fuckers before they killed innocent civilians we were told it was against their human rights. And we were told this by the US, a country which allowed fundraising for these terrorists to go on on unchecked for over 30 years and still turns a blind eye to it. We were told this by US politicians who gave solace, money, and support to a bunch of gutless murdering scum. Aye, fucking great help you lot were. How many people died because you lot couldn't keep your noses out of other peoples business. > We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). What? Rather than give the wanks guns and money? Bit of a change for you lot isn't it? Usually you give these killers everything they need. You and your government are fucking hypocrites. Terrorism - all you know about terrorism is how to support it. Sheesh, one act of terror on your shores and suddenly you're fekkin experts - don't make me laugh. Try getting some education about events from around the world before you start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 01:43:08+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. We did not put up with terrorists you stupid twat. We dealt with them in the only way they understood, and we were winning - however. When we locked them up without trial we were told it was against their human rights. When we shot the fuckers before they killed innocent civilians we were told it was against their human rights. And we were told this by the US, a country which allowed fundraising for these terrorists to go on on unchecked for over 30 years and still turns a blind eye to it. We were told this by US politicians who gave solace, money, and support to a bunch of gutless murdering scum. Aye, fucking great help you lot were. How many people died because you lot couldn't keep your noses out of other peoples business. > We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). What? Rather than give the wanks guns and money? Bit of a change for you lot isn't it? Usually you give these killers everything they need. You and your government are fucking hypocrites. Terrorism - all you know about terrorism is how to support it. Sheesh, one act of terror on your shores and suddenly you're fekkin experts - don't make me laugh. Try getting some education about events from around the world before you start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 01:46:46+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >> > >> >>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>you? :) >> > >She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. > > >Rose >between sigs > > > I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then.

2003-04-20 01:46:46+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >> > >> >>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>you? :) >> > >She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. > > >Rose >between sigs > > > I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then.

2003-04-20 01:46:50+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> > > >If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >you? :) > She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 01:46:50+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> > > >If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >you? :) > She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 01:55:38+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 6:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <s0s3avoll334rnpsb2e60nqjm7u7gon5og@4ax.com> > . Often it's just like voting. You choose >who you think is the lesser of two evils. At the time we supported Saddam >Hussein, we thought that was Iran and probably rightfully so. > Now, what if someone thinks tolerating (as opposed to providing weapons to) Saddam is a lesser evil than dropping bombs? Can that person be justified, or is that person a reprobate who lurves Saddam Hussein? >If you want to be a self-hating american because of past mistakes our >government has made, that's your >business. Straw man. I am giving you my reasons for being cynical about this administration, not saying I hate America. (Not being a W. fan does not = hating America.) I think it is highly hypocritical to attack people who didn't want war, or who wanted to wait longer before going to war, as supporting an madman who gassed his own people..and yet not condemn the Americans who actually, overtly, DID support the madman who gassed his own people. If supporting Saddam, knowing his most evil deeds, is reprehensible now, it was equally reprehensible in the 1980s, yet the current government doesn't utter a word of criticism of past policy. To their credit, some very hawkish commentators HAVE criticized or even spoken snidely of this country's past support for Saddam, and George H.W. Bush's abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991. But this administration has never done that. Since this administration is the one promoting the war effort, I am very cynical about its horror over what Saddam did in the 1980s when they do not have the inclination or guts to deplore Reagan's Iraq policy. That said, I think the troops I've seen and heard on TV have clearly had noble motivations of helping Iraqis and I feel great affection for them. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 01:55:38+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 6:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <s0s3avoll334rnpsb2e60nqjm7u7gon5og@4ax.com> > . Often it's just like voting. You choose >who you think is the lesser of two evils. At the time we supported Saddam >Hussein, we thought that was Iran and probably rightfully so. > Now, what if someone thinks tolerating (as opposed to providing weapons to) Saddam is a lesser evil than dropping bombs? Can that person be justified, or is that person a reprobate who lurves Saddam Hussein? >If you want to be a self-hating american because of past mistakes our >government has made, that's your >business. Straw man. I am giving you my reasons for being cynical about this administration, not saying I hate America. (Not being a W. fan does not = hating America.) I think it is highly hypocritical to attack people who didn't want war, or who wanted to wait longer before going to war, as supporting an madman who gassed his own people..and yet not condemn the Americans who actually, overtly, DID support the madman who gassed his own people. If supporting Saddam, knowing his most evil deeds, is reprehensible now, it was equally reprehensible in the 1980s, yet the current government doesn't utter a word of criticism of past policy. To their credit, some very hawkish commentators HAVE criticized or even spoken snidely of this country's past support for Saddam, and George H.W. Bush's abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991. But this administration has never done that. Since this administration is the one promoting the war effort, I am very cynical about its horror over what Saddam did in the 1980s when they do not have the inclination or guts to deplore Reagan's Iraq policy. That said, I think the troops I've seen and heard on TV have clearly had noble motivations of helping Iraqis and I feel great affection for them. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 02:35:19+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050799198.34690.0@iris.uk.clara.net: > Mike Craney wrote: >> And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. > > We did not put up with terrorists you stupid twat. Just taking you at your word. I guess you should have phrased it better, eh? > We dealt with them > in the only way they understood, and we were winning - however. When > we locked them up without trial we were told it was against their > human rights. When we shot the fuckers before they killed innocent > civilians we were told it was against their human rights. And we were > told this by the US, a country which allowed fundraising for these > terrorists to go on on unchecked for over 30 years and still turns a > blind eye to it. We were told this by US politicians who gave solace, > money, and support to a bunch of gutless murdering scum. Aye, fucking > great help you lot were. How many people died because you lot couldn't > keep your noses out of other peoples business. Personally, I'd be glad to crack down on the money flow from Boston. Sorry about that. > >> We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). > > What? Rather than give the wanks guns and money? Bit of a change for > you lot isn't it? Yep, it's a whole new deal out there, right now. That's the great thing about term limited presidents -- every 8 (sometimes 4) you throw the lot of them out, and the new guys blame every policy they don't want to continue on the old guys. >Usually you give these killers everything they need. > You and your government are fucking hypocrites. Times change. > Terrorism - all you > know about terrorism is how to support it. Sheesh, one act of terror > on your shores and suddenly you're fekkin experts - don't make me > laugh. We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of Baghdad, and they're still not done. > > Try getting some education about events from around the world before > you start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with > terrorists. Ah, yes, the "Yanks don't know squat" myth. Makes you feel good, doesn't it? Makes you feel like a real MAN, to have something nasty to say like that. Jerkoff. Go back to your blow up doll. Talk is cheap. Notice, we're doing more than talking, these days. Glad to have you Brits along, by the way. Nobody I'd rather have watching my back than the Royal Marines. Mike

2003-04-20 02:35:19+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050799198.34690.0@iris.uk.clara.net: > Mike Craney wrote: >> And, if you want to put up with terrorism, that's your business. > > We did not put up with terrorists you stupid twat. Just taking you at your word. I guess you should have phrased it better, eh? > We dealt with them > in the only way they understood, and we were winning - however. When > we locked them up without trial we were told it was against their > human rights. When we shot the fuckers before they killed innocent > civilians we were told it was against their human rights. And we were > told this by the US, a country which allowed fundraising for these > terrorists to go on on unchecked for over 30 years and still turns a > blind eye to it. We were told this by US politicians who gave solace, > money, and support to a bunch of gutless murdering scum. Aye, fucking > great help you lot were. How many people died because you lot couldn't > keep your noses out of other peoples business. Personally, I'd be glad to crack down on the money flow from Boston. Sorry about that. > >> We're not interested. We'd rather remove it at the source(s). > > What? Rather than give the wanks guns and money? Bit of a change for > you lot isn't it? Yep, it's a whole new deal out there, right now. That's the great thing about term limited presidents -- every 8 (sometimes 4) you throw the lot of them out, and the new guys blame every policy they don't want to continue on the old guys. >Usually you give these killers everything they need. > You and your government are fucking hypocrites. Times change. > Terrorism - all you > know about terrorism is how to support it. Sheesh, one act of terror > on your shores and suddenly you're fekkin experts - don't make me > laugh. We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of Baghdad, and they're still not done. > > Try getting some education about events from around the world before > you start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with > terrorists. Ah, yes, the "Yanks don't know squat" myth. Makes you feel good, doesn't it? Makes you feel like a real MAN, to have something nasty to say like that. Jerkoff. Go back to your blow up doll. Talk is cheap. Notice, we're doing more than talking, these days. Glad to have you Brits along, by the way. Nobody I'd rather have watching my back than the Royal Marines. Mike

2003-04-20 02:40:17+10:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (brad <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com>)


-- brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] cheese > sausages "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > >The war is not over. > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > >Iraq. > > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no one in their right mind supports him. but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even been the *correct*) way to kill hussein.

2003-04-20 02:40:17+10:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (brad <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com>)


-- brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] cheese > sausages "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > >The war is not over. > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > >Iraq. > > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no one in their right mind supports him. but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even been the *correct*) way to kill hussein.

2003-04-20 02:40:17+10:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (brad <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com>)


-- brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] cheese > sausages "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > >The war is not over. > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > >Iraq. > > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no one in their right mind supports him. but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even been the *correct*) way to kill hussein.

2003-04-20 02:40:17+10:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (brad <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com>)


-- brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] cheese > sausages "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > >The war is not over. > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > >Iraq. > > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no one in their right mind supports him. but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even been the *correct*) way to kill hussein.

2003-04-20 02:41:39+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in news:20030419204732.18912.00000217@mb-m12.aol.com: >> >>http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/14/iraq_contracts030414 >>"Canadian companies have been shut out of the bidding for lucrative >>rebuilding contracts in Iraq, with the biggest going to companies with >>ties to the Bush administration. " >> >> > > I want to know why Iraqi construction companies aren't going to > rebuild Iraq. The construction projects they're talking about right now are infrastructure projects. Iraq doesn't have the in house skills for things like major highway projects, bridges, power plants, etc, and usually subs the work out to foreign firms. Not that I care to really refute the CBC story, but Bechtel is *not* the major US contstruction company with the strongest ties to Bush. The primary competitor to Bechtel, with strong administration ties, who got shut out of this deal is Brown and Root, a subsidiary of......Halliburton. Of course, Brown and Root is all over the area right now providing contruction infrastructure support for the US military, so tossing the contract to Bechtel was more of a "spread the wealth" kind of move. Expect a lot of the rebuild and surface-type construction projects to stay in Iraq, or get let to Kuwaiti firms. The Kuwaiti stock market has been flying all year in anticipation of this. They used to get a lot of this Iraqi work before DStorm 1. Mike

2003-04-20 02:41:39+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in news:20030419204732.18912.00000217@mb-m12.aol.com: >> >>http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/14/iraq_contracts030414 >>"Canadian companies have been shut out of the bidding for lucrative >>rebuilding contracts in Iraq, with the biggest going to companies with >>ties to the Bush administration. " >> >> > > I want to know why Iraqi construction companies aren't going to > rebuild Iraq. The construction projects they're talking about right now are infrastructure projects. Iraq doesn't have the in house skills for things like major highway projects, bridges, power plants, etc, and usually subs the work out to foreign firms. Not that I care to really refute the CBC story, but Bechtel is *not* the major US contstruction company with the strongest ties to Bush. The primary competitor to Bechtel, with strong administration ties, who got shut out of this deal is Brown and Root, a subsidiary of......Halliburton. Of course, Brown and Root is all over the area right now providing contruction infrastructure support for the US military, so tossing the contract to Bechtel was more of a "spread the wealth" kind of move. Expect a lot of the rebuild and surface-type construction projects to stay in Iraq, or get let to Kuwaiti firms. The Kuwaiti stock market has been flying all year in anticipation of this. They used to get a lot of this Iraqi work before DStorm 1. Mike

2003-04-20 02:47:25+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:73u3av8r6ls3cr07anthtftv0f3351il90@4ax.com: > Not entirely. It wasn't just this reply I based my opinion of hiim > on. He may have been against the war in Iraq but he proved in another > masterful post how he isn't against using force when it suits his own > needs. It was his post about the situation in Northern Ireland that > he replied to. He apparently thinks that's the US's fault too. If > he doesn't support Saddam Hussein, I think he made it quite clear that > he does support the tactics of Saddam. At least when it comes to > Northern Ireland. And then he talks about the US being a country of > hypocrites. Too funny. Well, I don't really know about this Guig characater, but to me, the height of hypocrisy in criticism of the US is when one simultaneously critcizes (1) our former support of totalitarian regimes when it suited us, and (2) the fact that we are now following a policy of removing totalitarian regimes. Mike

2003-04-20 02:47:25+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:73u3av8r6ls3cr07anthtftv0f3351il90@4ax.com: > Not entirely. It wasn't just this reply I based my opinion of hiim > on. He may have been against the war in Iraq but he proved in another > masterful post how he isn't against using force when it suits his own > needs. It was his post about the situation in Northern Ireland that > he replied to. He apparently thinks that's the US's fault too. If > he doesn't support Saddam Hussein, I think he made it quite clear that > he does support the tactics of Saddam. At least when it comes to > Northern Ireland. And then he talks about the US being a country of > hypocrites. Too funny. Well, I don't really know about this Guig characater, but to me, the height of hypocrisy in criticism of the US is when one simultaneously critcizes (1) our former support of totalitarian regimes when it suited us, and (2) the fact that we are now following a policy of removing totalitarian regimes. Mike

2003-04-20 03:58:24+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (matthew <drwho1963au@yahoo.com.au>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: Hear hear!! > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > >The war is not over. > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >Iraq. > >There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >Charter. > >Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > >Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the >US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance >at peace in the world. >

2003-04-20 03:58:24+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (matthew <drwho1963au@yahoo.com.au>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: Hear hear!! > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > >The war is not over. > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >Iraq. > >There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >Charter. > >Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > >Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the >US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance >at peace in the world. >

2003-04-20 06:42:08+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"matthew" <drwho1963au@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1c776eab1a27978b599c9e85cd7b92ad@news.value-news.net... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hear hear!! > > NO! First of all, it's here, here! Second of all, WE ARE THE U.S. OF A! and we are taking over a world near you!!!!! > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > >The war is not over. > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > >Iraq. > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > >Charter. > > > >Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > >decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > >Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > >US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > >at peace in the world. > > > >

2003-04-20 06:42:08+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"matthew" <drwho1963au@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1c776eab1a27978b599c9e85cd7b92ad@news.value-news.net... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hear hear!! > > NO! First of all, it's here, here! Second of all, WE ARE THE U.S. OF A! and we are taking over a world near you!!!!! > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > >The war is not over. > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > >Iraq. > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > >Charter. > > > >Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > >decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > > >Put Bush on trial as a war criminal and give some assurance that the > >US will follow international law from now on and we may have a chance > >at peace in the world. > > > >

2003-04-20 08:58:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > Personally, I'd be glad to crack down on the money flow from Boston. > Sorry about that. If only US administrations had realised that sooner, for your sake and ours. But if you stick your hand in a barrel of scorpions you should expect to get stung. > We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell > did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to > control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are > going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of > Baghdad, and they're still not done. Main difference being, the Iraqis in general are happy(ish) at what has been done. The Chechens don't want the Russians there at all. > Talk is cheap. Notice, we're doing more than talking, these days. Like I said, we were dealing with murdering scuzzbuckets in the way they deserved but *their* human rights seemed to be of more importance to politicians than the lives of the people in Manchester, Warrington, London Docklands, the Brighton Grand Hotel, and all the other places the fekkers bombed. > > Glad to have you Brits along, by the way. Nobody I'd rather have > watching my back than the Royal Marines. Yes, we're still the best troops you're ever likely to meet. The Army (and other forces) are small now, but perfectly formed. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 08:58:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Mike Craney wrote: > Personally, I'd be glad to crack down on the money flow from Boston. > Sorry about that. If only US administrations had realised that sooner, for your sake and ours. But if you stick your hand in a barrel of scorpions you should expect to get stung. > We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell > did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to > control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are > going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of > Baghdad, and they're still not done. Main difference being, the Iraqis in general are happy(ish) at what has been done. The Chechens don't want the Russians there at all. > Talk is cheap. Notice, we're doing more than talking, these days. Like I said, we were dealing with murdering scuzzbuckets in the way they deserved but *their* human rights seemed to be of more importance to politicians than the lives of the people in Manchester, Warrington, London Docklands, the Brighton Grand Hotel, and all the other places the fekkers bombed. > > Glad to have you Brits along, by the way. Nobody I'd rather have > watching my back than the Royal Marines. Yes, we're still the best troops you're ever likely to meet. The Army (and other forces) are small now, but perfectly formed. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:07:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Aethelrede wrote: > A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against > Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by > refusing to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a > "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to > what they call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi > invasion. The group is trying to get any elected federal republican > who disagrees with them replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote > 100% with the president That explains the US attitude right > there: they own the world and anyone anywhere who won't agree with US > policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows what sort of people get > elected by right wing republicans. There was a country a few years back whose leader used to label anyone who disagreed with him as "anti-<countryname>" and have them pilloried out of office or worse. The answer is at the bottom of the post. All the rhetoric and bleatings of the right-wing politicians, FOX 'News' etc, etc are beginning to sound familiar. > And now we hear > that the one government office in Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was > protected from looting, is the ministry of petroleum office. Yes, I came across that report. Funny that wasn't it. > The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian > aid, reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US > saying, as they did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the > money to fix it: we got what we came here for. We'll just leave > enough occupation troops to keep the free government voting our way". I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place using the companies of his pals. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1 Answer: Nazi Germany

2003-04-20 09:07:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Aethelrede wrote: > A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against > Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by > refusing to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a > "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to > what they call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi > invasion. The group is trying to get any elected federal republican > who disagrees with them replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote > 100% with the president That explains the US attitude right > there: they own the world and anyone anywhere who won't agree with US > policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows what sort of people get > elected by right wing republicans. There was a country a few years back whose leader used to label anyone who disagreed with him as "anti-<countryname>" and have them pilloried out of office or worse. The answer is at the bottom of the post. All the rhetoric and bleatings of the right-wing politicians, FOX 'News' etc, etc are beginning to sound familiar. > And now we hear > that the one government office in Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was > protected from looting, is the ministry of petroleum office. Yes, I came across that report. Funny that wasn't it. > The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian > aid, reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US > saying, as they did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the > money to fix it: we got what we came here for. We'll just leave > enough occupation troops to keep the free government voting our way". I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place using the companies of his pals. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1 Answer: Nazi Germany

2003-04-20 09:20:21-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:35:51 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > >> Try getting some education about events from around the world before you >> start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. > >The US wouldn't want to do that. If they did they'd find that >the causes behind 9/11 lead straight back to Washington. Could you elaborate about this a little? pretty please?? Regards, Stiimpson

2003-04-20 09:20:21-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:35:51 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > >> Try getting some education about events from around the world before you >> start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. > >The US wouldn't want to do that. If they did they'd find that >the causes behind 9/11 lead straight back to Washington. Could you elaborate about this a little? pretty please?? Regards, Stiimpson

2003-04-20 09:24:51+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > Prove it. Enjoy. http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=5929 "Kellogg Brown & Root has already won a government contract to oversee firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any US-led invasion, while the other companies also have strong ties to the US administration, including the construction giant Bechtel, the Fluor Corporation, and the Louis Berger group, already involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan." http://www.srimedia.com/artman/publish/article_471.shtml "The first two of many Iraq re-construction contracts have been awarded to two US companies; one which is still paying US Vice President Dick Cheney after he left as CEO in 2000. The deals have drawn criticism for their apparent conflicts of interest. The first contract was awarded to Halliburton. " Halliburton subsequently withdrew over Cheneys conflict of interest. http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20030330.htm http://www.fortune.com/fortune/washington/0,15704,437274,00.html "One $7 million contract, for personnel support, was already awarded to the International Resources Group on February 21st. " http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,926400,00.html "Only US companies were invited to bid, to the fury of British industrialists and unions, who pointed out that British troops are fighting alongside American soldiers. The five companies also had close ties to the Bush administration, sparking accusations that the White House was returning favours for generous political campaign contributions" http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/iraq_corporate_contracts.html http://dupagepeace.home.att.net/profiteer7.html http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/cohen032803.html I think there's enough for you to be going on with. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:24:51+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > Prove it. Enjoy. http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=5929 "Kellogg Brown & Root has already won a government contract to oversee firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any US-led invasion, while the other companies also have strong ties to the US administration, including the construction giant Bechtel, the Fluor Corporation, and the Louis Berger group, already involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan." http://www.srimedia.com/artman/publish/article_471.shtml "The first two of many Iraq re-construction contracts have been awarded to two US companies; one which is still paying US Vice President Dick Cheney after he left as CEO in 2000. The deals have drawn criticism for their apparent conflicts of interest. The first contract was awarded to Halliburton. " Halliburton subsequently withdrew over Cheneys conflict of interest. http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20030330.htm http://www.fortune.com/fortune/washington/0,15704,437274,00.html "One $7 million contract, for personnel support, was already awarded to the International Resources Group on February 21st. " http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,926400,00.html "Only US companies were invited to bid, to the fury of British industrialists and unions, who pointed out that British troops are fighting alongside American soldiers. The five companies also had close ties to the Bush administration, sparking accusations that the White House was returning favours for generous political campaign contributions" http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/iraq_corporate_contracts.html http://dupagepeace.home.att.net/profiteer7.html http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/cohen032803.html I think there's enough for you to be going on with. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:26:19+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > What "contracts"? There was no contracts awarded to anybody Replied to in another thread. And it should be "there were", not "there was". -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:26:19+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > What "contracts"? There was no contracts awarded to anybody Replied to in another thread. And it should be "there were", not "there was". -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:29:45+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Marc Nieporent wrote: > Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their > government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the > face when he met with him? It would have been a start. Funny how Rumsfeld was extremely flustered over being questioned about his visit in an interview by David Dimbleby, probably the first interview Rumsfeld has ever done without it being in front of a handpicked, arsekissing load of journalists. Strange how you were kissing up to Saddam even after he'd gassed his own folk and the Iranians, and murdered thousands more. Still, I don't suppose much more can be expected when you bow down before the altar of mammon. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:29:45+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Marc Nieporent wrote: > Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their > government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the > face when he met with him? It would have been a start. Funny how Rumsfeld was extremely flustered over being questioned about his visit in an interview by David Dimbleby, probably the first interview Rumsfeld has ever done without it being in front of a handpicked, arsekissing load of journalists. Strange how you were kissing up to Saddam even after he'd gassed his own folk and the Iranians, and murdered thousands more. Still, I don't suppose much more can be expected when you bow down before the altar of mammon. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:34:04+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


EGK wrote: > I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have > been cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own > british soldiers had come back in body bags. What makes you think that? I wanted every one of the troops to get home safely. Objecting to a contrived 'war' does not take away anything from my support for our troops. I still have friends and family serving and they and their colleagues have my 100% support. However, I don't support the liars who sent them there in the first place. > You'll also probably be > one of the ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to > buildings. Well, fuck you too and the horse you road in on. Listen numpty, I fekkin loathe terrorists *and* the cunts who give them solace, support and money. Did you cheer when the terrorists blew up Warrington? Don't judge me (and others) by your own low standards. > You've said you've lived with terrorism for years. You'd probably > much prefer no one do anything about it. Are you descended from > Neville Chamberlain perhaps? Read my other posts *we* were doing something about it until some twattish US politicians stuck their nose into our business. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:34:04+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


EGK wrote: > I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have > been cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own > british soldiers had come back in body bags. What makes you think that? I wanted every one of the troops to get home safely. Objecting to a contrived 'war' does not take away anything from my support for our troops. I still have friends and family serving and they and their colleagues have my 100% support. However, I don't support the liars who sent them there in the first place. > You'll also probably be > one of the ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to > buildings. Well, fuck you too and the horse you road in on. Listen numpty, I fekkin loathe terrorists *and* the cunts who give them solace, support and money. Did you cheer when the terrorists blew up Warrington? Don't judge me (and others) by your own low standards. > You've said you've lived with terrorism for years. You'd probably > much prefer no one do anything about it. Are you descended from > Neville Chamberlain perhaps? Read my other posts *we* were doing something about it until some twattish US politicians stuck their nose into our business. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:39:16+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > Ah! You know when somebody is losing an argument when they make it > personal and start with the cussing No argument to lose pal. Merely dealing with yet another uneducated fool who thinks that anyone who disagrees with the buffoon in the Whitehouse is/was a fervent supporter of Saddam. The "Saddam supporter" jibe is a tactic used by those who don't have the capability to debate an issue, and has been used by those seeking to silence legitimate dissension for years. Thankfully some of us in the world aren't as stupid and sheeplike as JoAnn, and are capable of looking at the subject and making up our own minds instead of being given an opinion by FOX 'News' (the network for the hard of thinking). BTW enjoy the contract post. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:39:16+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > Ah! You know when somebody is losing an argument when they make it > personal and start with the cussing No argument to lose pal. Merely dealing with yet another uneducated fool who thinks that anyone who disagrees with the buffoon in the Whitehouse is/was a fervent supporter of Saddam. The "Saddam supporter" jibe is a tactic used by those who don't have the capability to debate an issue, and has been used by those seeking to silence legitimate dissension for years. Thankfully some of us in the world aren't as stupid and sheeplike as JoAnn, and are capable of looking at the subject and making up our own minds instead of being given an opinion by FOX 'News' (the network for the hard of thinking). BTW enjoy the contract post. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 09:54:57-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


>>but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >>bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >>been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. You mean other options like economic sanctions? Countries like France and others made sure that sanctions wouldn't work. Too many countries were tripping over themselves to violate sanctions and sell to Iraq. Have you looked at figures on how much SH owed France? Gee I wonder why France opposed this war? -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-20 09:54:57-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


>>but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >>bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >>been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. You mean other options like economic sanctions? Countries like France and others made sure that sanctions wouldn't work. Too many countries were tripping over themselves to violate sanctions and sell to Iraq. Have you looked at figures on how much SH owed France? Gee I wonder why France opposed this war? -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-20 09:56:47-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >> bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >> been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. > >Assuming he is actually dead. We may not know for many years what finally happened to SH. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-20 09:56:47-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >> bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >> been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. > >Assuming he is actually dead. We may not know for many years what finally happened to SH. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-20 09:58:29-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. Of course we won't mention that Gore lost his home state because the Republicans spent megabucks there. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-20 09:58:29-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. Of course we won't mention that Gore lost his home state because the Republicans spent megabucks there. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-20 10:03:11-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: >>It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the first 'democratically >>elected' Iraqi government turned round and said - "OK, get your troops out >>of our country within 4 weeks, and those contracts you 'awarded' prior to >>the war are now null and void". > > >What "contracts"? There was no contracts awarded to anybody Bechtel (who did such a wonderful job fleecing the taxpayers in Boston) has been given a contract to rebuilt Iraq. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-20 10:03:11-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: >>It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the first 'democratically >>elected' Iraqi government turned round and said - "OK, get your troops out >>of our country within 4 weeks, and those contracts you 'awarded' prior to >>the war are now null and void". > > >What "contracts"? There was no contracts awarded to anybody Bechtel (who did such a wonderful job fleecing the taxpayers in Boston) has been given a contract to rebuilt Iraq. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-20 10:19:55-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Nick Pietrzak <nickp2@bellsouth.net>)


Woot Guig! Guig > Misner We await your response David. -nick "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050827455.54930.1@iris.uk.clara.net... > David Glenn Misner wrote: > > Prove it. > > Enjoy. > > http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=5929 > > "Kellogg Brown & Root has already won a government contract to oversee > firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any US-led invasion, while > the other companies also have strong ties to the US administration, > including the construction giant Bechtel, the Fluor Corporation, and the > Louis Berger group, already involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan." > > http://www.srimedia.com/artman/publish/article_471.shtml > > "The first two of many Iraq re-construction contracts have been awarded to > two US companies; one which is still paying US Vice President Dick Cheney > after he left as CEO in 2000. The deals have drawn criticism for their > apparent conflicts of interest. The first contract was awarded to > Halliburton. " > > Halliburton subsequently withdrew over Cheneys conflict of interest. > > http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20030330.htm > > http://www.fortune.com/fortune/washington/0,15704,437274,00.html > > "One $7 million contract, for personnel support, was already awarded to the > International Resources Group on February 21st. " > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,926400,00.html > > "Only US companies were invited to bid, to the fury of British > industrialists and unions, who pointed out that British troops are fighting > alongside American soldiers. The five companies also had close ties to the > Bush administration, sparking accusations that the White House was returning > favours for generous political campaign contributions" > > http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/iraq_corporate_contracts.html > http://dupagepeace.home.att.net/profiteer7.html > http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/cohen032803.html > > I think there's enough for you to be going on with. > > -- > Guig > GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. > CBFA #1 > >

2003-04-20 10:19:55-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Nick Pietrzak <nickp2@bellsouth.net>)


Woot Guig! Guig > Misner We await your response David. -nick "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050827455.54930.1@iris.uk.clara.net... > David Glenn Misner wrote: > > Prove it. > > Enjoy. > > http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=5929 > > "Kellogg Brown & Root has already won a government contract to oversee > firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any US-led invasion, while > the other companies also have strong ties to the US administration, > including the construction giant Bechtel, the Fluor Corporation, and the > Louis Berger group, already involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan." > > http://www.srimedia.com/artman/publish/article_471.shtml > > "The first two of many Iraq re-construction contracts have been awarded to > two US companies; one which is still paying US Vice President Dick Cheney > after he left as CEO in 2000. The deals have drawn criticism for their > apparent conflicts of interest. The first contract was awarded to > Halliburton. " > > Halliburton subsequently withdrew over Cheneys conflict of interest. > > http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20030330.htm > > http://www.fortune.com/fortune/washington/0,15704,437274,00.html > > "One $7 million contract, for personnel support, was already awarded to the > International Resources Group on February 21st. " > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,926400,00.html > > "Only US companies were invited to bid, to the fury of British > industrialists and unions, who pointed out that British troops are fighting > alongside American soldiers. The five companies also had close ties to the > Bush administration, sparking accusations that the White House was returning > favours for generous political campaign contributions" > > http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/iraq_corporate_contracts.html > http://dupagepeace.home.att.net/profiteer7.html > http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/cohen032803.html > > I think there's enough for you to be going on with. > > -- > Guig > GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. > CBFA #1 > >

2003-04-20 10:40:42+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >> Mike Craney wrote: >>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, > >> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! > >> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >> 'democracies' were installed by the US. > >There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >the current US president. And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. > >> The US has a long and glorious history of funding, and supporting the most >> heinous dictators and terrorist organisations known to man, and >> destabilising democratic regimes. > >More like completly destroying, then replacing with a US backed >tyrant/oligarchy. e.g. Iran or Chile.

2003-04-20 10:40:42+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >> Mike Craney wrote: >>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, > >> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! > >> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >> 'democracies' were installed by the US. > >There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >the current US president. And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. > >> The US has a long and glorious history of funding, and supporting the most >> heinous dictators and terrorist organisations known to man, and >> destabilising democratic regimes. > >More like completly destroying, then replacing with a US backed >tyrant/oligarchy. e.g. Iran or Chile.

2003-04-20 11:00:22-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:02:14 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:11:52 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>I have no doubt whatsover that many of the people criticizing the war effort >>in Iraq are disappointed there weren't many more lives lost. Lives aren't >>worth all that much for some people who want to be proven right. I also >>have no doubt whatsover that any terrorist activity for at least the next 50 >>years will be blamed on George Bush. By the same people. >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people >> didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" >> - (Calvin and Hobbes) >Hmm, I'm trying to reconcile that callous and vicious first statement >with your sig... :-( I don't think you understand the sig. >As for terrorism, it is absolutely the case that the anger, quite >righteous, of the people of the Middle East at their brethren being >slaughtered by Americans will most definitely lead to waves of new >terrorists willing to avenge their own. I'm not condoning it in any >way, but you only have yourselves to blame. No, it's not absolutely the case but i have no doubt George Bush will be blamed for it. Terrorists are allowed to exist because governments look the other way or often actively support them. If you put a little fear that some of that is going to come back on them, they may decide it's not worth it. In the case of Israel, it's impossible for them to put enough pressure on the countries that harbor terrorists because the rest of the world (including the US) has bowed and scraped to those with the oil. >Sometimes I wonder if people actually think about what happened on >9/11, instead of just reacting to it with all the gung-ho "we are >defending our territory" patriotism. As someone not in the US, the >perspective is a little clearer for some of us... People in the Middle >East didn't suddenly wake up one day and say "What shall we do today >that's evil? Oh, I know, lets hijack some planes..." There is more then one root cause of terrorism in the middle east. It's not just about being poor as some would want you to believe. It's a mindset created from centuries of ideology. Certainly the oil-rich arab countries have enough money where they could fully support a Palestinian state if they so chose to. Why is it they don't do that instead of funneling money to terrorists? If it was just about poor people you wouldn't see countries bent on the destruction of Israel at all costs. The terrorists often use their poor people as weapons. Where do you think they get the suicide bombers from? >The reason those terrorists are there and get funded by many ordinary >people all over the world is that they are sick and fed up of the >colonial, empiristic world-view of the US, and its total ignorance of >and disrespect for anyone with a different culture, religion or >opinion. The sort of disrespect that allows the US to invade countries >that it doesn't like just because it can, because it wants to control >a significant wealth-producing area of the world for its own ends, and >because it knows that a good show of militatry strength is a >vote-winer back home for a dumb-assed president who only got elected >on the technicality of his brother rigging the Florida ballot. Sadly, >that disrespect is alive and well on this ng. yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. Well, I got news, pal. Most in the US would have no problem telling the rest of the world to go fuck themselves but then we'd watch as they started another couple world wars that we have to come in and bale them out of. Then we'd get to hear how we're the bad guys because we didn't get their sooner and besides, we aren't giving them enough money to rebuild their countries. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 11:00:22-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:02:14 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:11:52 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>I have no doubt whatsover that many of the people criticizing the war effort >>in Iraq are disappointed there weren't many more lives lost. Lives aren't >>worth all that much for some people who want to be proven right. I also >>have no doubt whatsover that any terrorist activity for at least the next 50 >>years will be blamed on George Bush. By the same people. >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people >> didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" >> - (Calvin and Hobbes) >Hmm, I'm trying to reconcile that callous and vicious first statement >with your sig... :-( I don't think you understand the sig. >As for terrorism, it is absolutely the case that the anger, quite >righteous, of the people of the Middle East at their brethren being >slaughtered by Americans will most definitely lead to waves of new >terrorists willing to avenge their own. I'm not condoning it in any >way, but you only have yourselves to blame. No, it's not absolutely the case but i have no doubt George Bush will be blamed for it. Terrorists are allowed to exist because governments look the other way or often actively support them. If you put a little fear that some of that is going to come back on them, they may decide it's not worth it. In the case of Israel, it's impossible for them to put enough pressure on the countries that harbor terrorists because the rest of the world (including the US) has bowed and scraped to those with the oil. >Sometimes I wonder if people actually think about what happened on >9/11, instead of just reacting to it with all the gung-ho "we are >defending our territory" patriotism. As someone not in the US, the >perspective is a little clearer for some of us... People in the Middle >East didn't suddenly wake up one day and say "What shall we do today >that's evil? Oh, I know, lets hijack some planes..." There is more then one root cause of terrorism in the middle east. It's not just about being poor as some would want you to believe. It's a mindset created from centuries of ideology. Certainly the oil-rich arab countries have enough money where they could fully support a Palestinian state if they so chose to. Why is it they don't do that instead of funneling money to terrorists? If it was just about poor people you wouldn't see countries bent on the destruction of Israel at all costs. The terrorists often use their poor people as weapons. Where do you think they get the suicide bombers from? >The reason those terrorists are there and get funded by many ordinary >people all over the world is that they are sick and fed up of the >colonial, empiristic world-view of the US, and its total ignorance of >and disrespect for anyone with a different culture, religion or >opinion. The sort of disrespect that allows the US to invade countries >that it doesn't like just because it can, because it wants to control >a significant wealth-producing area of the world for its own ends, and >because it knows that a good show of militatry strength is a >vote-winer back home for a dumb-assed president who only got elected >on the technicality of his brother rigging the Florida ballot. Sadly, >that disrespect is alive and well on this ng. yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. Well, I got news, pal. Most in the US would have no problem telling the rest of the world to go fuck themselves but then we'd watch as they started another couple world wars that we have to come in and bale them out of. Then we'd get to hear how we're the bad guys because we didn't get their sooner and besides, we aren't giving them enough money to rebuild their countries. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 11:03:35+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >>news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >>> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >> >>The war is not over. > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >>Iraq. > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? Children > were jailed and maimed for not joining the Hussein Youth, people were > beaten and tortured to death, women raped, all while Hussein was As opposed to people being bombed, shot, having no running water, food or electricity. Gangs of looters and vandals on the streets with no attempt being made to maintain any order. > diverting billions from the "oil for food" program set up by the UN. > This is where you tell me that Saddam was bad guy and nobody wanted > him in power, just nobody should have done anything about it. Nor do they want people selected by the US in power. Many of whom appear just as bad as Saddam Hussein (who was originally a US endorsed leader anyway) it may even work out as a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > What has been the longest extended period of time throughout the world > where there has been no war anywhere? I'm talking about in the last There is no such time. > four hundred years? In the last fifty? In the last twenty? There will > be war. You're problem is that in this one, the US won it. The problem is that the US government is now looking for its next target... >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >>Charter. > The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us Then maybe the US should stop its whining about Iraq having ignored UN resolutions. Or the French bashing over a threat to veto a resolution which never happened anyway. Maybe even the US should stop vetoing resolutions to protect thugs the US happens to like.

2003-04-20 11:03:35+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >>news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >>> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >> >>The war is not over. > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >>Iraq. > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? Children > were jailed and maimed for not joining the Hussein Youth, people were > beaten and tortured to death, women raped, all while Hussein was As opposed to people being bombed, shot, having no running water, food or electricity. Gangs of looters and vandals on the streets with no attempt being made to maintain any order. > diverting billions from the "oil for food" program set up by the UN. > This is where you tell me that Saddam was bad guy and nobody wanted > him in power, just nobody should have done anything about it. Nor do they want people selected by the US in power. Many of whom appear just as bad as Saddam Hussein (who was originally a US endorsed leader anyway) it may even work out as a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US threatens others countries. > What has been the longest extended period of time throughout the world > where there has been no war anywhere? I'm talking about in the last There is no such time. > four hundred years? In the last fifty? In the last twenty? There will > be war. You're problem is that in this one, the US won it. The problem is that the US government is now looking for its next target... >> >>There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >>Charter. > The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us Then maybe the US should stop its whining about Iraq having ignored UN resolutions. Or the French bashing over a threat to veto a resolution which never happened anyway. Maybe even the US should stop vetoing resolutions to protect thugs the US happens to like.

2003-04-20 11:07:41+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel brad <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wrote: > -- > brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] > cheese > sausages > "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message > news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >> >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >> >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >> > >> >The war is not over. >> >> Nobody in their right mind believes it is. >> >> > >> >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >> >Iraq. >> >> Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet >> government" the US and out allies may or may not install? > i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that > involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new Probably considerably more, since the bombing has been going on since 1991. > government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most > anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no > one in their right mind supports him. > but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - > bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even > been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. Assuming he is actually dead.

2003-04-20 11:07:41+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel brad <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wrote: > -- > brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] > cheese > sausages > "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message > news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >> >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >> >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >> > >> >The war is not over. >> >> Nobody in their right mind believes it is. >> >> > >> >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >> >Iraq. >> >> Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet >> government" the US and out allies may or may not install? > i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that > involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new Probably considerably more, since the bombing has been going on since 1991. > government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most > anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no > one in their right mind supports him. > but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - > bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even > been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. Assuming he is actually dead.

2003-04-20 11:16:18+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in > news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >>>news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >>>> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >>> >>>The war is not over. >> >> Nobody in their right mind believes it is. >> >>> >>>There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >>>Iraq. > We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, and then the Utter nonsense, the US government has never installed a democratic government. By definition an occupying power cannot install a deemocracy. (Even if this were possible the first action of such an "installed democracy" would be tell the occupiers to leave.) On the other hand the US has *destroyed* a number of democratic governments in the last century or so. > democracies do whatever the hell they want. Hell, Hamid Karzai was > supposed to be a puppet, but he wouldn't join the Coalition, and he keeps > US troops out of Kabul. But, everybody says he's a puppet. Go figure. If he had the support of the Afghani people then he wouldn't need or want foreign troops in his capital.

2003-04-20 11:16:18+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in > news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message >>>news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... >>>> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? >>> >>>The war is not over. >> >> Nobody in their right mind believes it is. >> >>> >>>There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in >>>Iraq. > We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, and then the Utter nonsense, the US government has never installed a democratic government. By definition an occupying power cannot install a deemocracy. (Even if this were possible the first action of such an "installed democracy" would be tell the occupiers to leave.) On the other hand the US has *destroyed* a number of democratic governments in the last century or so. > democracies do whatever the hell they want. Hell, Hamid Karzai was > supposed to be a puppet, but he wouldn't join the Coalition, and he keeps > US troops out of Kabul. But, everybody says he's a puppet. Go figure. If he had the support of the Afghani people then he wouldn't need or want foreign troops in his capital.

2003-04-20 11:21:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Mike Craney wrote: >> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, > BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! > Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where > 'democracies' were installed by the US. There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding the current US president. > The US has a long and glorious history of funding, and supporting the most > heinous dictators and terrorist organisations known to man, and > destabilising democratic regimes. More like completly destroying, then replacing with a US backed tyrant/oligarchy. e.g. Iran or Chile.

2003-04-20 11:21:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Mike Craney wrote: >> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, > BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! > Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where > 'democracies' were installed by the US. There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding the current US president. > The US has a long and glorious history of funding, and supporting the most > heinous dictators and terrorist organisations known to man, and > destabilising democratic regimes. More like completly destroying, then replacing with a US backed tyrant/oligarchy. e.g. Iran or Chile.

2003-04-20 11:27:38+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >> what we can and cannot do. > Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, > or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. That's insulting, to children, especially girls. >> What did the UN do >> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. > If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security > council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and > permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan > genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where > it generally vetoes everything that moves. Not quite the US vetos anything which would be against a government the US government happens to like. However brutal and thugish that government might be, even governments which murder US citizens... >> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >> conesquences to actions. > No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the > reason for invading Iraq from week to week. Even from day to day. >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts > for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. The US forces who are apparently unable to stop looting in Iraq's cities were able to boot out some Kuwaiti firefighters who were putting out burning oil wells. Wouldn't want the Arabs getting money which should be going to the US...

2003-04-20 11:27:38+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >> what we can and cannot do. > Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, > or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. That's insulting, to children, especially girls. >> What did the UN do >> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. > If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security > council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and > permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the Rwandan > genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where > it generally vetoes everything that moves. Not quite the US vetos anything which would be against a government the US government happens to like. However brutal and thugish that government might be, even governments which murder US citizens... >> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >> conesquences to actions. > No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the > reason for invading Iraq from week to week. Even from day to day. >> Now, the money from the oil for >> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. > No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts > for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. The US forces who are apparently unable to stop looting in Iraq's cities were able to boot out some Kuwaiti firefighters who were putting out burning oil wells. Wouldn't want the Arabs getting money which should be going to the US...

2003-04-20 11:33:30+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in > news:1050792182.96624.1@despina.uk.clara.net: >> Mike Craney wrote: >>> rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who >>> really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled >>> on a regular basis. >> >> Actually pal, some of us have been giving a shit about (and living >> with) terrorism for more than 30 years, unlike yourselves who were >> more than happy to fund and support and kiss the arse of any putrid >> terrorist scumbag who came to you with their hands out. > We're fixing that, as you may have noticed. No more terrorist ass-kissing. Really, someone needs to tell the US Congress. > Just terrorist ass-kicking. I must have missed the US government being purged of the people who'd been involved in the terrorist ass-kissing. Also odd that the US should be wanting immunity from the ICC. > If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume > you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now removing > them instead. So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos and put on trial?

2003-04-20 11:33:30+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in > news:1050792182.96624.1@despina.uk.clara.net: >> Mike Craney wrote: >>> rationalize the action for the benefit of the rest of the world, who >>> really don't give a shit wether large buildings in the US get leveled >>> on a regular basis. >> >> Actually pal, some of us have been giving a shit about (and living >> with) terrorism for more than 30 years, unlike yourselves who were >> more than happy to fund and support and kiss the arse of any putrid >> terrorist scumbag who came to you with their hands out. > We're fixing that, as you may have noticed. No more terrorist ass-kissing. Really, someone needs to tell the US Congress. > Just terrorist ass-kicking. I must have missed the US government being purged of the people who'd been involved in the terrorist ass-kissing. Also odd that the US should be wanting immunity from the ICC. > If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume > you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now removing > them instead. So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos and put on trial?

2003-04-20 11:35:51+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Try getting some education about events from around the world before you > start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. The US wouldn't want to do that. If they did they'd find that the causes behind 9/11 lead straight back to Washington.

2003-04-20 11:35:51+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Try getting some education about events from around the world before you > start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with terrorists. The US wouldn't want to do that. If they did they'd find that the causes behind 9/11 lead straight back to Washington.

2003-04-20 11:39:07-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On 20 Apr 2003 15:52:29 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >>Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> >> >>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans >><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >>> >>>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >>> >>>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >>> >>>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>>the current US president. >> >>And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >>unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >>whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. >> > >If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if he'd >won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't >have mattered. That sword has two edges. > Want some cheese with that whine? Your guy lost. > > > > >Rose >between sigs > > >

2003-04-20 11:39:07-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On 20 Apr 2003 15:52:29 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >>Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> >> >>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans >><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >>> >>>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >>> >>>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >>> >>>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>>the current US president. >> >>And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >>unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >>whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. >> > >If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if he'd >won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't >have mattered. That sword has two edges. > Want some cheese with that whine? Your guy lost. > > > > >Rose >between sigs > > >

2003-04-20 11:40:04+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Mike Craney wrote: >> We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell >> did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to >> control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are >> going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of >> Baghdad, and they're still not done. > Main difference being, the Iraqis in general are happy(ish) at what has been They are not at all happy about having the Americans staying though. > done. The Chechens don't want the Russians there at all. Maybe the Chechens are happy with the government they have.

2003-04-20 11:40:04+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Mike Craney wrote: >> We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell >> did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to >> control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are >> going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of >> Baghdad, and they're still not done. > Main difference being, the Iraqis in general are happy(ish) at what has been They are not at all happy about having the Americans staying though. > done. The Chechens don't want the Russians there at all. Maybe the Chechens are happy with the government they have.

2003-04-20 11:42:56+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... >> > Now, the money from the oil for >> > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. >> >> No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the > contracts >> for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. > And other Iraq contracts: > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/14/iraq_contracts030414 > "Canadian companies have been shut out of the bidding for lucrative > rebuilding contracts in Iraq, with the biggest going to companies with > ties to the Bush administration. " Wonder if Iranian, Turkish, Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi, Kuwaiti even Iraqi companies are going to even get a look in.

2003-04-20 11:42:56+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... >> > Now, the money from the oil for >> > food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. >> >> No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the > contracts >> for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. > And other Iraq contracts: > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/14/iraq_contracts030414 > "Canadian companies have been shut out of the bidding for lucrative > rebuilding contracts in Iraq, with the biggest going to companies with > ties to the Bush administration. " Wonder if Iranian, Turkish, Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi, Kuwaiti even Iraqi companies are going to even get a look in.

2003-04-20 12:15:15+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Guig wrote in message <1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>... >>Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >>> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >>> what we can and cannot do. >> >>Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, >>or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. > A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against > Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by refusing > to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a > "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to what they > call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi invasion. The group is > trying to get any elected federal republican who disagrees with them > replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote 100% with the president This sounds very similar to the position of the US pro Israel lobby. Any congressman who speaks out against them is a target for replacement. (Thus you are unlikely to find many truely patriotic members of Congress.) If someone is so afraid of even one dissenting voice then it makes you wonder how weak their position actually is. > That explains the US attitude right there: they own the world and anyone > anywhere who won't agree with US policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows > what sort of people get elected by right wing republicans. >>> What did the UN do >>> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. >> >>If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security >>council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and >>permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > Rwandan >>genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where >>it generally vetoes everything that moves. > The US has ignored every act of slaughter, injustice, mass theft and > oppression in Africa as long as it was done by black people. Black Also so long as whatever civil unrest dosn't get in the way of US companies getting whatever they want. Anyway it's probably easier to make off with the mineral wealth of a country in a state of civil war than one with a stable government. > politicians and civil rights leaders refuse to admit they happen, since only > white people oppress blacks. Admitting to this would mean that they would need to find political arguments which are not based on racism. Some African leaders, notably Robert Mugabe, manage to play on these Western stereotypes and assumptions. >>> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >>> conesquences to actions. >> >>No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the >>reason for invading Iraq from week to week. > Even the US media are now commenting on the lack of WMDs and the > "sudden" white house/pentagon statements that the bombing and uncontrolled > looting of offices and palaces and the burning and scattering of millions > of documents may have made it impossible to trace WMDs. Or even discover if they even existed in the first place... > Which is interesting in the face of the fact that the first task of US > troops was controlling the oilfields and oil production/transport > infrastructure and to prevent destruction or looting of offices and other > associated buildings. And now we hear that the one government office in > Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was protected from looting, is the ministry > of petroleum office. > My my, such care taken when all but one hospital were looted to bare > walls and the national museum was looted by professionals and the power and > water and sewage are still out after 2 weeks. Whilst your average Baghdad resident probably cares rather more about having no drinking water or electricity and not being able to walk the streets in safety than the state of Iraq's oil industry. > Just to save the oil for "The Iraqi People"... > To be truly cynical, what's the probabilty that some subsidiary of those > white house connected rebuilding corporations has been incorporated abroad > and named "The Iraqi People, Inc."? Or "The Iraqi People, Plc"... >> >>> Now, the money from the oil for >>> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. >> >>No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts >>for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. > The pipeline into Syria will be cut, and all the oil will be controlled > by US oil companies and exported by them through the gulf. Unless the US goes on to occupy Syria too. In which case Iraqi oil will also be exported through Haifa. > The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian aid, > reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US saying, as they > did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the money to fix it: we I though the idea was the money was going to come from oil and frozen Iraqi assets. > got what we came here for. We'll just leave enough occupation troops to > keep the free government voting our way". > Some coumnist in the local paper today was saying that the US has to "Do > it Right" this time and make sure that Iraq has a free democratic government > that does things the way the US wants. They probably wern't trying to be ironic either.

2003-04-20 12:15:15+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Guig wrote in message <1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>... >>Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >>> The US is a soverign nation and does need the frickin' UN to tell us >>> what we can and cannot do. >> >>Yet you whine like girls if any other country acts outwith the UN mandates, >>or act like a playground bully when someone disagrees with you. > A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against > Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by refusing > to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a > "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to what they > call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi invasion. The group is > trying to get any elected federal republican who disagrees with them > replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote 100% with the president This sounds very similar to the position of the US pro Israel lobby. Any congressman who speaks out against them is a target for replacement. (Thus you are unlikely to find many truely patriotic members of Congress.) If someone is so afraid of even one dissenting voice then it makes you wonder how weak their position actually is. > That explains the US attitude right there: they own the world and anyone > anywhere who won't agree with US policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows > what sort of people get elected by right wing republicans. >>> What did the UN do >>> about the genocide in Rwanda? Not a damned thing. >> >>If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole security >>council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources and >>permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > Rwandan >>genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, where >>it generally vetoes everything that moves. > The US has ignored every act of slaughter, injustice, mass theft and > oppression in Africa as long as it was done by black people. Black Also so long as whatever civil unrest dosn't get in the way of US companies getting whatever they want. Anyway it's probably easier to make off with the mineral wealth of a country in a state of civil war than one with a stable government. > politicians and civil rights leaders refuse to admit they happen, since only > white people oppress blacks. Admitting to this would mean that they would need to find political arguments which are not based on racism. Some African leaders, notably Robert Mugabe, manage to play on these Western stereotypes and assumptions. >>> No, what Bush has done is to show the world that there are >>> conesquences to actions. >> >>No, what Bush has done is to show that he was only capable of changing the >>reason for invading Iraq from week to week. > Even the US media are now commenting on the lack of WMDs and the > "sudden" white house/pentagon statements that the bombing and uncontrolled > looting of offices and palaces and the burning and scattering of millions > of documents may have made it impossible to trace WMDs. Or even discover if they even existed in the first place... > Which is interesting in the face of the fact that the first task of US > troops was controlling the oilfields and oil production/transport > infrastructure and to prevent destruction or looting of offices and other > associated buildings. And now we hear that the one government office in > Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was protected from looting, is the ministry > of petroleum office. > My my, such care taken when all but one hospital were looted to bare > walls and the national museum was looted by professionals and the power and > water and sewage are still out after 2 weeks. Whilst your average Baghdad resident probably cares rather more about having no drinking water or electricity and not being able to walk the streets in safety than the state of Iraq's oil industry. > Just to save the oil for "The Iraqi People"... > To be truly cynical, what's the probabilty that some subsidiary of those > white house connected rebuilding corporations has been incorporated abroad > and named "The Iraqi People, Inc."? Or "The Iraqi People, Plc"... >> >>> Now, the money from the oil for >>> food program is going to the Iraqi people where it belongs. >> >>No, the money from the oil is going to US companies who 'won' the contracts >>for rebuilding the country *BEFORE* the war even started. > The pipeline into Syria will be cut, and all the oil will be controlled > by US oil companies and exported by them through the gulf. Unless the US goes on to occupy Syria too. In which case Iraqi oil will also be exported through Haifa. > The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian aid, > reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US saying, as they > did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the money to fix it: we I though the idea was the money was going to come from oil and frozen Iraqi assets. > got what we came here for. We'll just leave enough occupation troops to > keep the free government voting our way". > Some coumnist in the local paper today was saying that the US has to "Do > it Right" this time and make sure that Iraq has a free democratic government > that does things the way the US wants. They probably wern't trying to be ironic either.

2003-04-20 12:22:06+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050825482.53735.0@iris.uk.clara.net: > Mike Craney wrote: >> Personally, I'd be glad to crack down on the money flow from Boston. >> Sorry about that. > > If only US administrations had realised that sooner, for your sake and > ours. But if you stick your hand in a barrel of scorpions you should > expect to get stung. Agreed. > >> We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell >> did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to >> control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are >> going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of >> Baghdad, and they're still not done. > > Main difference being, the Iraqis in general are happy(ish) at what > has been done. The Chechens don't want the Russians there at all. Yea, but military experts around the globe are still amazed by the feat. It's certainly been talked about by the Brits at their daily briefings. I believe the Brit commander described it as "revolutionary in its skill, speed, and sheer audacity." >> Talk is cheap. Notice, we're doing more than talking, these days. > > Like I said, we were dealing with murdering scuzzbuckets in the way > they deserved but *their* human rights seemed to be of more importance > to politicians than the lives of the people in Manchester, Warrington, > London Docklands, the Brighton Grand Hotel, and all the other places > the fekkers bombed. Agreed. >> Glad to have you Brits along, by the way. Nobody I'd rather have >> watching my back than the Royal Marines. > > Yes, we're still the best troops you're ever likely to meet. The Army > (and other forces) are small now, but perfectly formed. No question. Mike

2003-04-20 12:22:06+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in news:1050825482.53735.0@iris.uk.clara.net: > Mike Craney wrote: >> Personally, I'd be glad to crack down on the money flow from Boston. >> Sorry about that. > > If only US administrations had realised that sooner, for your sake and > ours. But if you stick your hand in a barrel of scorpions you should > expect to get stung. Agreed. > >> We're a quick study. Haven't you noticed? The Russians sure the hell >> did. Lots of questions being asked right now about how we managed to >> control Baghdad in 17 days with 100 dead, while the Russians are >> going on 5,000 dead in Grozny, which is only a quarter the size of >> Baghdad, and they're still not done. > > Main difference being, the Iraqis in general are happy(ish) at what > has been done. The Chechens don't want the Russians there at all. Yea, but military experts around the globe are still amazed by the feat. It's certainly been talked about by the Brits at their daily briefings. I believe the Brit commander described it as "revolutionary in its skill, speed, and sheer audacity." >> Talk is cheap. Notice, we're doing more than talking, these days. > > Like I said, we were dealing with murdering scuzzbuckets in the way > they deserved but *their* human rights seemed to be of more importance > to politicians than the lives of the people in Manchester, Warrington, > London Docklands, the Brighton Grand Hotel, and all the other places > the fekkers bombed. Agreed. >> Glad to have you Brits along, by the way. Nobody I'd rather have >> watching my back than the Royal Marines. > > Yes, we're still the best troops you're ever likely to meet. The Army > (and other forces) are small now, but perfectly formed. No question. Mike

2003-04-20 12:23:18-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:51:13 -0400, KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: > >>On 20 Apr 2003 15:52:29 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >> >>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>>From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >>>>Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>>>Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> >>>> >>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans >>>><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>>>>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>>>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >>>>> >>>>>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >>>>> >>>>>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>>>>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >>>>> >>>>>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>>>>the current US president. >>>> >>>>And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >>>>unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >>>>whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. >>>> >>> >>>If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if he'd >>>won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't >>>have mattered. That sword has two edges. >>> >> >>Want some cheese with that whine? Your guy lost. >> > > >Ahh. But did he, my friend? Did he? > >Ken Damn right he did. Despite his attempts to pick and choose which counties to recount in Florida, despite his attempts to selectively throw out the absentee ballots of military personel serving our country oversees, Gore did not win the electoral vote. Winning the electoral college is how the constitution says that we elect our presidents. That means Gore lost. Get over it. The courts ruled that if Gore wanted a recount, that was okay as long as he asked for a recount statewide, not just in the counties he wanted. Something about equal protection under the law or some such nonsense. And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, Florida would have been moot. Whine and bitch and moan all you want about how the evil nasty Republicans outspent Gore in Tennessee, but the fact remains he lost his home state and he lost the election.

2003-04-20 12:23:18-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:51:13 -0400, KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: > >>On 20 Apr 2003 15:52:29 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >> >>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>>From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >>>>Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>>>Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> >>>> >>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans >>>><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>>>>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>>>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >>>>> >>>>>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >>>>> >>>>>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>>>>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >>>>> >>>>>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>>>>the current US president. >>>> >>>>And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >>>>unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >>>>whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. >>>> >>> >>>If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if he'd >>>won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't >>>have mattered. That sword has two edges. >>> >> >>Want some cheese with that whine? Your guy lost. >> > > >Ahh. But did he, my friend? Did he? > >Ken Damn right he did. Despite his attempts to pick and choose which counties to recount in Florida, despite his attempts to selectively throw out the absentee ballots of military personel serving our country oversees, Gore did not win the electoral vote. Winning the electoral college is how the constitution says that we elect our presidents. That means Gore lost. Get over it. The courts ruled that if Gore wanted a recount, that was okay as long as he asked for a recount statewide, not just in the counties he wanted. Something about equal protection under the law or some such nonsense. And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, Florida would have been moot. Whine and bitch and moan all you want about how the evil nasty Republicans outspent Gore in Tennessee, but the fact remains he lost his home state and he lost the election.

2003-04-20 12:25:48+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:i1st7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > If he had the support of the Afghani people then he wouldn't need or > want foreign troops in his capital. Doesn't work that way. What happened in Paris, for example, after kicking the Nazis out was bloody and lawless, actually worse than anything that's happened in post-fall Baghdad or Kabul. Is that because the people didn't support the restoration of the French government? Hardly. Mike

2003-04-20 12:25:48+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:i1st7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > If he had the support of the Afghani people then he wouldn't need or > want foreign troops in his capital. Doesn't work that way. What happened in Paris, for example, after kicking the Nazis out was bloody and lawless, actually worse than anything that's happened in post-fall Baghdad or Kabul. Is that because the people didn't support the restoration of the French government? Hardly. Mike

2003-04-20 12:26:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Guig wrote in message <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net>... >>James A. Donald wrote: >>> -- >>> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >>> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >>> government, which will then hold elections. >> >>And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >>hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the > gassing >>of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I > would >>trust to install a democratic government. > It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to guard > the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be secular, western It may not be secular, putting religious people into power would divide up the Iraqi population. Effectivly getting rid of secular Arab nationalism, which is disliked both in Washington and Tel Aviv. > and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't be worth the bother. i.e. don't bother standing if you want the US to leave...

2003-04-20 12:26:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Guig wrote in message <1050775699.83491.0@despina.uk.clara.net>... >>James A. Donald wrote: >>> -- >>> (Rumsfeld has repeatedly given an uncontroversial >>> list of what constitutes "acceptable") and form a broadly based >>> government, which will then hold elections. >> >>And Rumsfeld was the man who went to Iraq and shook Saddam warmly by the >>hand when you wanted to do business with him, and this was after the > gassing >>of the Kurds and Iranians that Bush makes so much of. Hardly someone I > would >>trust to install a democratic government. > It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to guard > the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be secular, western It may not be secular, putting religious people into power would divide up the Iraqi population. Effectivly getting rid of secular Arab nationalism, which is disliked both in Washington and Tel Aviv. > and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't be worth the bother. i.e. don't bother standing if you want the US to leave...

2003-04-20 12:29:44+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:i1st7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: >> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, and then >> the > > Utter nonsense, the US government has never installed a democratic > government. By definition an occupying power cannot install a > deemocracy. Obviously. I expected the readers (that's you) to make the obvious derivation that all we can do is support the creation of a democratic framework, defend the framework while it builds a a governmental infrastructure, and hope that the people can take it from there. > On the other hand the US has *destroyed* a number of democratic > governments in the last century or so. Without objection. Finally we've got a government that's turning over a new leaf. You should be happy that we're addressing this shortcoming. Mike

2003-04-20 12:29:44+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:i1st7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: >> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, and then >> the > > Utter nonsense, the US government has never installed a democratic > government. By definition an occupying power cannot install a > deemocracy. Obviously. I expected the readers (that's you) to make the obvious derivation that all we can do is support the creation of a democratic framework, defend the framework while it builds a a governmental infrastructure, and hope that the people can take it from there. > On the other hand the US has *destroyed* a number of democratic > governments in the last century or so. Without objection. Finally we've got a government that's turning over a new leaf. You should be happy that we're addressing this shortcoming. Mike

2003-04-20 12:30:40+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:last7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding > the current US president. Rule of Law. Got a problem with it? Besides, what does that have to do with Iraq? (ANSWER: not one damn thing) > Mike

2003-04-20 12:30:40+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:last7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding > the current US president. Rule of Law. Got a problem with it? Besides, what does that have to do with Iraq? (ANSWER: not one damn thing) > Mike

2003-04-20 12:32:06+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Aethelrede wrote: >> It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to >> guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be >> secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't >> be worth the bother. > It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the first 'democratically > elected' Iraqi government turned round and said - "OK, get your troops out > of our country within 4 weeks, and those contracts you 'awarded' prior to > the war are now null and void". The US would have deployed "independent" election monitors (from Florida) to prevent that happening. If such a government did arise then a "popular uprising" would occur resulting in a coup within 27 days. Also the Iraqi government would probably have extreme difficult communicating with anywhere else on the planet, especially Caracas.

2003-04-20 12:32:06+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > Aethelrede wrote: >> It isn't going to be democratic: enough US troops will stay to >> guard the US oil and keep down rebels. Clearly it's going to be >> secular, western and pro-US. Elections will be so limited they won't >> be worth the bother. > It'd be interesting to see what would happen if the first 'democratically > elected' Iraqi government turned round and said - "OK, get your troops out > of our country within 4 weeks, and those contracts you 'awarded' prior to > the war are now null and void". The US would have deployed "independent" election monitors (from Florida) to prevent that happening. If such a government did arise then a "popular uprising" would occur resulting in a coup within 27 days. Also the Iraqi government would probably have extreme difficult communicating with anywhere else on the planet, especially Caracas.

2003-04-20 12:35:23+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > I must have missed the US government being purged of the people > who'd been involved in the terrorist ass-kissing. You need a purge? Stripping them of their power isn't enough? (Geez, some people are never satisfied.) > > Also odd that the US should be wanting immunity from the ICC. Not odd. Think through the process. You do think, don't you? > >> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume >> you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now >> removing them instead. > > So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos > and put on trial? You don't, because he's not a totalitarian dictator. He serves at the will of his people. They have things there called E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N-S. Mike

2003-04-20 12:35:23+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > I must have missed the US government being purged of the people > who'd been involved in the terrorist ass-kissing. You need a purge? Stripping them of their power isn't enough? (Geez, some people are never satisfied.) > > Also odd that the US should be wanting immunity from the ICC. Not odd. Think through the process. You do think, don't you? > >> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume >> you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now >> removing them instead. > > So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos > and put on trial? You don't, because he's not a totalitarian dictator. He serves at the will of his people. They have things there called E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N-S. Mike

2003-04-20 12:36:21+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:76tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > >> Try getting some education about events from around the world before >> you start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with >> terrorists. > > The US wouldn't want to do that. If they did they'd find that > the causes behind 9/11 lead straight back to Washington. Ah, you're a terror-boy! You're a "the US deserved it" guy. And here, I thought you might actually have a brain! Mike

2003-04-20 12:36:21+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:76tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > >> Try getting some education about events from around the world before >> you start pontificating about how great the US is at dealing with >> terrorists. > > The US wouldn't want to do that. If they did they'd find that > the causes behind 9/11 lead straight back to Washington. Ah, you're a terror-boy! You're a "the US deserved it" guy. And here, I thought you might actually have a brain! Mike

2003-04-20 12:37:17+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > EGK wrote: >> I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have >> been cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own >> british soldiers had come back in body bags. > What makes you think that? I wanted every one of the troops to get home > safely. Objecting to a contrived 'war' does not take away anything from my With the safest place for them being back home. Especially considering the biggest danger appears to "friendly fire". > support for our troops. I still have friends and family serving and they and > their colleagues have my 100% support. However, I don't support the liars > who sent them there in the first place. >> You'll also probably be >> one of the ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to >> buildings. Well, fuck you too and the horse you road in on. > Listen numpty, I fekkin loathe terrorists *and* the cunts who give them > solace, support and money. Did you cheer when the terrorists blew up What would be a laughing matter, were it not so grave, is when some of these very same people claim to be fighting a "war on terrorism". > Warrington? Don't judge me (and others) by your own low standards. So far as we know the IRA was never trained and funded by the British government...

2003-04-20 12:37:17+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: > EGK wrote: >> I think it's pretty easy to tell from your replies that you'd have >> been cheering at the top of your lungs if thousand of US and your own >> british soldiers had come back in body bags. > What makes you think that? I wanted every one of the troops to get home > safely. Objecting to a contrived 'war' does not take away anything from my With the safest place for them being back home. Especially considering the biggest danger appears to "friendly fire". > support for our troops. I still have friends and family serving and they and > their colleagues have my 100% support. However, I don't support the liars > who sent them there in the first place. >> You'll also probably be >> one of the ones cheering if or when terrorists fly more planes in to >> buildings. Well, fuck you too and the horse you road in on. > Listen numpty, I fekkin loathe terrorists *and* the cunts who give them > solace, support and money. Did you cheer when the terrorists blew up What would be a laughing matter, were it not so grave, is when some of these very same people claim to be fighting a "war on terrorism". > Warrington? Don't judge me (and others) by your own low standards. So far as we know the IRA was never trained and funded by the British government...

2003-04-20 12:38:44-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:09:21 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>There is more then one root cause of terrorism in the middle east. It's not >>just about being poor as some would want you to believe. > >I never mentioned poverty in my post. Don't know why you mention this. > >>yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. >Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I >don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible >debate any time. When you resort to silly diatribes blaming the US for all the world's problems, that's all you deserve. >>Then we'd get to hear how we're the bad guys because we didn't get their >>sooner and besides, we aren't giving them enough money to rebuild their >>countries. > >ROFL! Have you seen the state of your own recently? There's as much >social deprivation and dysfunctional education in some areas as in >some "third world" countries. You think you can afford to be so >magnanimous when you're running a budget deficit that will never be >repaid and the administration is still cutting taxes? Maybe if the US >spent a bit more time sorting out its own problems it wouldn't mess up >the rest of the world so much. In any event, it isn't giving any money >TO Iraq, it is using the revenue from the oil it has just "liberated" >to pay fat US corporations to rebuild what it has just bombed. It's >sure as hell not going to lose on the deal. You have no idea how much foreign aid the US spends every year. Here's a webpage I found with a simple search and it's already outdated. We've spent a lot more then this by now. :Since 1946, the United States has given over $146 billion in humanitarian assistance to foreign countries. In 1985, the United States provided over $10 billion in non-military aid abroad, ranging from free food to balance-of-payments support to project-assistance and population-planning programs. AID employs over 4,500 employees to administer these programs, many of which have expanded rapidly under the Reagan administration. ...Us foreign aid has become an opiate for the 3rd world. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa065.html You'd have no arguments from most people in the US who would say screw them and keep all our money right here where it can be used by our own citiziems. Every freaking country in the world has it's hands out to the US in one way or another. We get blamed for doing nothing, we get blamed for doing something. We're gonna get blamed regardless. The rest of the world is pretty much either jealous of the US or hates us because they can't take care of their owns. They hate us for not doing what they want, or they hate us for having to accept that which they aren't providing themselves. It's ironic that so many foreigners still want to enter the US every year to make new lives for themselves. >Has anyone considered: if just a tiny proportion of the millions of >dollars of armaments that has just been dropped on Iraq had been >channelled into decent research projects, by now you would have >alternative energy sources that would mean the US wouldn't NEED oil >from the Middle East, it wouldn't NEED to interfere in the region, it >could get the hell out and leave people in peace there ROFL "Leave them in peace there"? Do you have any inkling about world history at all? They've been at war there since before the US existed. You can blame the US all you want for the problems in the world. It's fashionable. Doesn't change the fact that ethnic and religious differences have practically made genocide a national sport in some places. Europe was doing a real bang-up job in countries like Bosnia for instance. That was probably our fault too though. > Unfortunately, >when you have a presidential family which personally makes shitloads >from the oil business in the US, and is massively supported by others >who depend on oil revenue, it's not really going to ever happen is it? > And what do you think the rest of the world's interest in Iraq or the middle east is? You don't think France and Germany and Russia, aren't guided by their self interests and oil? If not, you're deluding yourself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 12:38:44-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:09:21 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>There is more then one root cause of terrorism in the middle east. It's not >>just about being poor as some would want you to believe. > >I never mentioned poverty in my post. Don't know why you mention this. > >>yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. >Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I >don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible >debate any time. When you resort to silly diatribes blaming the US for all the world's problems, that's all you deserve. >>Then we'd get to hear how we're the bad guys because we didn't get their >>sooner and besides, we aren't giving them enough money to rebuild their >>countries. > >ROFL! Have you seen the state of your own recently? There's as much >social deprivation and dysfunctional education in some areas as in >some "third world" countries. You think you can afford to be so >magnanimous when you're running a budget deficit that will never be >repaid and the administration is still cutting taxes? Maybe if the US >spent a bit more time sorting out its own problems it wouldn't mess up >the rest of the world so much. In any event, it isn't giving any money >TO Iraq, it is using the revenue from the oil it has just "liberated" >to pay fat US corporations to rebuild what it has just bombed. It's >sure as hell not going to lose on the deal. You have no idea how much foreign aid the US spends every year. Here's a webpage I found with a simple search and it's already outdated. We've spent a lot more then this by now. :Since 1946, the United States has given over $146 billion in humanitarian assistance to foreign countries. In 1985, the United States provided over $10 billion in non-military aid abroad, ranging from free food to balance-of-payments support to project-assistance and population-planning programs. AID employs over 4,500 employees to administer these programs, many of which have expanded rapidly under the Reagan administration. ...Us foreign aid has become an opiate for the 3rd world. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa065.html You'd have no arguments from most people in the US who would say screw them and keep all our money right here where it can be used by our own citiziems. Every freaking country in the world has it's hands out to the US in one way or another. We get blamed for doing nothing, we get blamed for doing something. We're gonna get blamed regardless. The rest of the world is pretty much either jealous of the US or hates us because they can't take care of their owns. They hate us for not doing what they want, or they hate us for having to accept that which they aren't providing themselves. It's ironic that so many foreigners still want to enter the US every year to make new lives for themselves. >Has anyone considered: if just a tiny proportion of the millions of >dollars of armaments that has just been dropped on Iraq had been >channelled into decent research projects, by now you would have >alternative energy sources that would mean the US wouldn't NEED oil >from the Middle East, it wouldn't NEED to interfere in the region, it >could get the hell out and leave people in peace there ROFL "Leave them in peace there"? Do you have any inkling about world history at all? They've been at war there since before the US existed. You can blame the US all you want for the problems in the world. It's fashionable. Doesn't change the fact that ethnic and religious differences have practically made genocide a national sport in some places. Europe was doing a real bang-up job in countries like Bosnia for instance. That was probably our fault too though. > Unfortunately, >when you have a presidential family which personally makes shitloads >from the oil business in the US, and is massively supported by others >who depend on oil revenue, it's not really going to ever happen is it? > And what do you think the rest of the world's interest in Iraq or the middle east is? You don't think France and Germany and Russia, aren't guided by their self interests and oil? If not, you're deluding yourself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 12:39:35-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 22:59:56 -0700, David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: >>30?? Try doubling that and you'll be closer. Plus they seem to veto every >>resolution pointed at Israel, and IIRC, the resolution ordering Israel out >>of the Palestinian lands read exactly the same as the one ordering Saddam >>out of Kuwait. > > > >But Israel is not in Palestinian land Actually more of Jordan is on Palestinian land than Israel. Kooky, innit?

2003-04-20 12:39:35-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 22:59:56 -0700, David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: >>30?? Try doubling that and you'll be closer. Plus they seem to veto every >>resolution pointed at Israel, and IIRC, the resolution ordering Israel out >>of the Palestinian lands read exactly the same as the one ordering Saddam >>out of Kuwait. > > > >But Israel is not in Palestinian land Actually more of Jordan is on Palestinian land than Israel. Kooky, innit?

2003-04-20 12:41:27-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 06:42:08 GMT, "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Hear hear!! >> >> >NO! First of all, it's here, here! No it bloody isn't! "Hear" as in "I hear you" or "I hear that (and agree wholeheartedly)." Or are you being ironic?

2003-04-20 12:41:27-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 06:42:08 GMT, "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Hear hear!! >> >> >NO! First of all, it's here, here! No it bloody isn't! "Hear" as in "I hear you" or "I hear that (and agree wholeheartedly)." Or are you being ironic?

2003-04-20 12:44:42-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to kickstart >the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose military isn't >up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then invade and have the >conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place using the companies of his >pals. Good call, but I don't think that's gonna "kickstart the economy." I think it's going to yank cash out of the pockets of the lower classes and stuff it into the bankrolls of Bush and his rich buddies. Or does that just kinda go without saying?

2003-04-20 12:44:42-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to kickstart >the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose military isn't >up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then invade and have the >conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place using the companies of his >pals. Good call, but I don't think that's gonna "kickstart the economy." I think it's going to yank cash out of the pockets of the lower classes and stuff it into the bankrolls of Bush and his rich buddies. Or does that just kinda go without saying?

2003-04-20 12:47:38-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 16:14:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian regimes. > >That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and >still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I would >think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the >position that the US should not do either. The theory of isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction. I have it myself. It sounds good but it's not realistic. We're part of the rest of the world, like it or not. It's just funny to listen all the rants about the US being the big evil around the world. World history was just so damned peaceful before we came along. :) Btw, you mentioned a former friend in another post and how she was part of the "hate america first" crowd. I don't know if the former part had to do with your politics but that's exactly the self-hating americans I was talking about earlier. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 12:47:38-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 16:14:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian regimes. > >That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and >still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I would >think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the >position that the US should not do either. The theory of isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction. I have it myself. It sounds good but it's not realistic. We're part of the rest of the world, like it or not. It's just funny to listen all the rants about the US being the big evil around the world. World history was just so damned peaceful before we came along. :) Btw, you mentioned a former friend in another post and how she was part of the "hate america first" crowd. I don't know if the former part had to do with your politics but that's exactly the self-hating americans I was talking about earlier. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 12:51:13-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com>)


"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: >On 20 Apr 2003 15:52:29 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >>>Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> >>> >>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans >>><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>>>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >>>> >>>>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >>>> >>>>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>>>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >>>> >>>>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>>>the current US president. >>> >>>And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >>>unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >>>whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. >>> >> >>If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if he'd >>won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't >>have mattered. That sword has two edges. >> > >Want some cheese with that whine? Your guy lost. > Ahh. But did he, my friend? Did he? Ken

2003-04-20 12:51:13-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com>)


"Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote: >On 20 Apr 2003 15:52:29 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >>>Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> >>> >>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans >>><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>>>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >>>> >>>>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >>>> >>>>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>>>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >>>> >>>>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>>>the current US president. >>> >>>And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >>>unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >>>whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. >>> >> >>If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if he'd >>won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't >>have mattered. That sword has two edges. >> > >Want some cheese with that whine? Your guy lost. > Ahh. But did he, my friend? Did he? Ken

2003-04-20 13:54:20-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:18:28 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:38:44 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>>>yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. >> >>>Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I >>>don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible >>>debate any time. >> >>When you resort to silly diatribes blaming the US for all the world's >>problems, that's all you deserve. >> > >Please read what I write, not what you think I did. I never blamed the >US for "all" of the world's problems, or even implied that. No? What was this? That was just one of your comments about the US that implied that. >>Maybe if the US >>spent a bit more time sorting out its own problems it wouldn't mess up >>the rest of the world so much >I'm sure though that the US receives some benefit, not just a warm >glowing happy feeling, from that Aid budget - how much of the drugs >and food included in there are sourced in the US? It's humanitarian aid i'm talking about. Mostly we don't even get a thank you very much. And foreign aid doesn't even count the huge amounts of money donated in the US to private charities. Terrorist organizations often use false front charities to fund their operations. It makes people think twice about donating anything. >>ROFL "Leave them in peace there"? Do you have any inkling about world >>history at all? They've been at war there since before the US existed >Maybe, but that's their business, not the US's. If you enter a war >area and suddenly give one side financial support or vastly superior >weapons, you can't be surprised if you alienate yourself from the >other and find yourself a target of their anger. That's just the point. The rest of the world wants the US to stay out of their business but then has their hands out asking for our help when they get themselves in to trouble. Then we get blamed for either not coming to their aid quickly enough or not doing it the way they think we should. >>You can blame the US all you want for the problems in the world. > >Again, I didn't. Yeah, you did. See the example above. >>And what do you think the rest of the world's interest in Iraq or the middle >>east is? You don't think France and Germany and Russia, aren't guided by >>their self interests and oil? If not, you're deluding yourself. > >Of course not, trade is a primary motivation in this. But the US is by >far the biggest oil-guzzling nation. The US is also the economic leader in the world. The state of our economy has a huge effect on the rest of the world. If we stopped guzzling gas tomorrow, the people in the middle east would probably be back living in tents next week and starving to death. It's kinda of hard to eat oil. And they'd STILL be fighting and killing one another. It's great to say the US should become self sufficient. I wish it were so but if we were, the rest of the world would be in even worse shape then it already is because they'd no longer be getting our dollars. >unashamedly so, and continues to >consume as if there will never be any end to the flow, never mind >pooh-poohing anyone who dares to point out that it is this unfettered >consumption that is damaging the planet for the rest of humanity. It >is this over-balanced consumption that causes it to have such a >disproportionate interest in a region on the opposite side of the >world that would not otherwise concern it. I already agreed with this in another post. We're no different then the rest of the world in that regard. The UN routinely lines up to condemn Israel but if Israel had the oil I'm sure the votes would be just the reverse. >The original question in all this was whether it was right to use >military power to further your national interests. However good the >outcome for the Iraqi people, this doesn't stop the US looking like an >international bully, and it will get no more sympathy from the world >after the cynical use of the 9/11 tragedy to take this action under >the spin of a "war on terror". I don't think there's anything cynical about 9/11 at all. We have been at war since that day even though some want to ignore that. It's definitely going to be a different type of war. Our government is going to do whatever it deems necessary to try and keep it from happening again. Whether that's diplomatic or military may change but believe it. >And before you mention it, I also accept my own government's shameless >complicity in this (against the clear wish of the majority here) with >great sadness. Tony Blair seems to be doing quite well in popularly polls now. I'm glad we don't have majority rule here. That's also known as mob rule. We elect officials because they are in a position to know more then the rest of us. Sometimes they will make mistakes but only history can know for sure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 13:54:20-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:18:28 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:38:44 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>>>yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. >> >>>Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I >>>don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible >>>debate any time. >> >>When you resort to silly diatribes blaming the US for all the world's >>problems, that's all you deserve. >> > >Please read what I write, not what you think I did. I never blamed the >US for "all" of the world's problems, or even implied that. No? What was this? That was just one of your comments about the US that implied that. >>Maybe if the US >>spent a bit more time sorting out its own problems it wouldn't mess up >>the rest of the world so much >I'm sure though that the US receives some benefit, not just a warm >glowing happy feeling, from that Aid budget - how much of the drugs >and food included in there are sourced in the US? It's humanitarian aid i'm talking about. Mostly we don't even get a thank you very much. And foreign aid doesn't even count the huge amounts of money donated in the US to private charities. Terrorist organizations often use false front charities to fund their operations. It makes people think twice about donating anything. >>ROFL "Leave them in peace there"? Do you have any inkling about world >>history at all? They've been at war there since before the US existed >Maybe, but that's their business, not the US's. If you enter a war >area and suddenly give one side financial support or vastly superior >weapons, you can't be surprised if you alienate yourself from the >other and find yourself a target of their anger. That's just the point. The rest of the world wants the US to stay out of their business but then has their hands out asking for our help when they get themselves in to trouble. Then we get blamed for either not coming to their aid quickly enough or not doing it the way they think we should. >>You can blame the US all you want for the problems in the world. > >Again, I didn't. Yeah, you did. See the example above. >>And what do you think the rest of the world's interest in Iraq or the middle >>east is? You don't think France and Germany and Russia, aren't guided by >>their self interests and oil? If not, you're deluding yourself. > >Of course not, trade is a primary motivation in this. But the US is by >far the biggest oil-guzzling nation. The US is also the economic leader in the world. The state of our economy has a huge effect on the rest of the world. If we stopped guzzling gas tomorrow, the people in the middle east would probably be back living in tents next week and starving to death. It's kinda of hard to eat oil. And they'd STILL be fighting and killing one another. It's great to say the US should become self sufficient. I wish it were so but if we were, the rest of the world would be in even worse shape then it already is because they'd no longer be getting our dollars. >unashamedly so, and continues to >consume as if there will never be any end to the flow, never mind >pooh-poohing anyone who dares to point out that it is this unfettered >consumption that is damaging the planet for the rest of humanity. It >is this over-balanced consumption that causes it to have such a >disproportionate interest in a region on the opposite side of the >world that would not otherwise concern it. I already agreed with this in another post. We're no different then the rest of the world in that regard. The UN routinely lines up to condemn Israel but if Israel had the oil I'm sure the votes would be just the reverse. >The original question in all this was whether it was right to use >military power to further your national interests. However good the >outcome for the Iraqi people, this doesn't stop the US looking like an >international bully, and it will get no more sympathy from the world >after the cynical use of the 9/11 tragedy to take this action under >the spin of a "war on terror". I don't think there's anything cynical about 9/11 at all. We have been at war since that day even though some want to ignore that. It's definitely going to be a different type of war. Our government is going to do whatever it deems necessary to try and keep it from happening again. Whether that's diplomatic or military may change but believe it. >And before you mention it, I also accept my own government's shameless >complicity in this (against the clear wish of the majority here) with >great sadness. Tony Blair seems to be doing quite well in popularly polls now. I'm glad we don't have majority rule here. That's also known as mob rule. We elect officials because they are in a position to know more then the rest of us. Sometimes they will make mistakes but only history can know for sure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 14:00:20+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:15:15 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >This sounds very similar to the position of the US pro Israel lobby. >Any congressman who speaks out against them is a target for replacement. >(Thus you are unlikely to find many truely patriotic members of Congress.) > >If someone is so afraid of even one dissenting voice then it makes you >wonder how weak their position actually is. > > Ah, Mr. Evans. You want to talk about weak positions? Why don't you tell us again about how those pesky Israelis flew jets into the WTC on 9/11. Maybe you could entertain us with more tales of how NYC police look away when people caught with terrorist materials "flash israeli passports" at JFK airport. Now, I suppose, there is a massive conspiracy afoot to instantly replace any congressman who speaks against Israel. Of course this makes one wonder how there are so many who do exactly that, but than I suppose reason is obviously not your strength. You are so blinded by hatred that you REALLY look foolish. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-20 14:00:20+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:15:15 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >This sounds very similar to the position of the US pro Israel lobby. >Any congressman who speaks out against them is a target for replacement. >(Thus you are unlikely to find many truely patriotic members of Congress.) > >If someone is so afraid of even one dissenting voice then it makes you >wonder how weak their position actually is. > > Ah, Mr. Evans. You want to talk about weak positions? Why don't you tell us again about how those pesky Israelis flew jets into the WTC on 9/11. Maybe you could entertain us with more tales of how NYC police look away when people caught with terrorist materials "flash israeli passports" at JFK airport. Now, I suppose, there is a massive conspiracy afoot to instantly replace any congressman who speaks against Israel. Of course this makes one wonder how there are so many who do exactly that, but than I suppose reason is obviously not your strength. You are so blinded by hatred that you REALLY look foolish. Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-20 14:02:14+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:11:52 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >I have no doubt whatsover that many of the people criticizing the war effort >in Iraq are disappointed there weren't many more lives lost. Lives aren't >worth all that much for some people who want to be proven right. I also >have no doubt whatsover that any terrorist activity for at least the next 50 >years will be blamed on George Bush. By the same people. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com Hmm, I'm trying to reconcile that callous and vicious first statement with your sig... :-( As for terrorism, it is absolutely the case that the anger, quite righteous, of the people of the Middle East at their brethren being slaughtered by Americans will most definitely lead to waves of new terrorists willing to avenge their own. I'm not condoning it in any way, but you only have yourselves to blame. Sometimes I wonder if people actually think about what happened on 9/11, instead of just reacting to it with all the gung-ho "we are defending our territory" patriotism. As someone not in the US, the perspective is a little clearer for some of us... People in the Middle East didn't suddenly wake up one day and say "What shall we do today that's evil? Oh, I know, lets hijack some planes..." The reason those terrorists are there and get funded by many ordinary people all over the world is that they are sick and fed up of the colonial, empiristic world-view of the US, and its total ignorance of and disrespect for anyone with a different culture, religion or opinion. The sort of disrespect that allows the US to invade countries that it doesn't like just because it can, because it wants to control a significant wealth-producing area of the world for its own ends, and because it knows that a good show of militatry strength is a vote-winer back home for a dumb-assed president who only got elected on the technicality of his brother rigging the Florida ballot. Sadly, that disrespect is alive and well on this ng. Actually, one statement in your post was correct: > Lives aren't worth all that much for some people who want to be proven right. Indeed, civilian Iraqi or non-US lives, for anyone in the US administration. Ian

2003-04-20 14:02:14+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 21:11:52 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >I have no doubt whatsover that many of the people criticizing the war effort >in Iraq are disappointed there weren't many more lives lost. Lives aren't >worth all that much for some people who want to be proven right. I also >have no doubt whatsover that any terrorist activity for at least the next 50 >years will be blamed on George Bush. By the same people. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com Hmm, I'm trying to reconcile that callous and vicious first statement with your sig... :-( As for terrorism, it is absolutely the case that the anger, quite righteous, of the people of the Middle East at their brethren being slaughtered by Americans will most definitely lead to waves of new terrorists willing to avenge their own. I'm not condoning it in any way, but you only have yourselves to blame. Sometimes I wonder if people actually think about what happened on 9/11, instead of just reacting to it with all the gung-ho "we are defending our territory" patriotism. As someone not in the US, the perspective is a little clearer for some of us... People in the Middle East didn't suddenly wake up one day and say "What shall we do today that's evil? Oh, I know, lets hijack some planes..." The reason those terrorists are there and get funded by many ordinary people all over the world is that they are sick and fed up of the colonial, empiristic world-view of the US, and its total ignorance of and disrespect for anyone with a different culture, religion or opinion. The sort of disrespect that allows the US to invade countries that it doesn't like just because it can, because it wants to control a significant wealth-producing area of the world for its own ends, and because it knows that a good show of militatry strength is a vote-winer back home for a dumb-assed president who only got elected on the technicality of his brother rigging the Florida ballot. Sadly, that disrespect is alive and well on this ng. Actually, one statement in your post was correct: > Lives aren't worth all that much for some people who want to be proven right. Indeed, civilian Iraqi or non-US lives, for anyone in the US administration. Ian

2003-04-20 14:03:02-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:55:49 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:18:28 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>When you resort to silly diatribes blaming the US for all the world's >>>problems, that's all you deserve. >>> >> >>Please read what I write, not what you think I did. I never blamed the >>US for "all" of the world's problems, or even implied that. > >My apologies... I did write: > >> Maybe if the US spent a bit more time sorting out its own problems >> it wouldn't mess up the rest of the world so much. >In general, there's little point debating when these issues aren't >merely matters of logical opinion, but patriotic faith. Faith can >never be "debated", merely defended against attacks that are usually >seen as personal. Although it wasn't meant that way, you have already >taken that attitude by ridiculing me personally, so it's probably a >good point to stop before the rest of the group gets bored. I didn't ridicule you personally. I ridiculed what you wrote. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 14:03:02-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:55:49 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:18:28 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>When you resort to silly diatribes blaming the US for all the world's >>>problems, that's all you deserve. >>> >> >>Please read what I write, not what you think I did. I never blamed the >>US for "all" of the world's problems, or even implied that. > >My apologies... I did write: > >> Maybe if the US spent a bit more time sorting out its own problems >> it wouldn't mess up the rest of the world so much. >In general, there's little point debating when these issues aren't >merely matters of logical opinion, but patriotic faith. Faith can >never be "debated", merely defended against attacks that are usually >seen as personal. Although it wasn't meant that way, you have already >taken that attitude by ridiculing me personally, so it's probably a >good point to stop before the rest of the group gets bored. I didn't ridicule you personally. I ridiculed what you wrote. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 14:14:19+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:33:30 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >and put on trial? I know you are not a reasonable person, but I have to ask anyway: Do you even acknowledge that Israel has been attacked by Palestinian terrorists? Or is all that just another myth perpetuated by the jews in the media? Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-20 14:14:19+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:33:30 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >and put on trial? I know you are not a reasonable person, but I have to ask anyway: Do you even acknowledge that Israel has been attacked by Palestinian terrorists? Or is all that just another myth perpetuated by the jews in the media? Regards, Stimpson

2003-04-20 14:30:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050825482.53735.0@iris.uk.clara.net... > Like I said, we were dealing with murdering scuzzbuckets in the way they > deserved but *their* human rights seemed to be of more importance to > politicians than the lives of the people in Manchester, Warrington, London > Docklands, the Brighton Grand Hotel, and all the other places the fekkers > bombed. The problem though, was the fact that people were arrested, tried and convicted on very dodgy evidence and as a result, had to be set free. The human rights of the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four, among others, were ignored in the zeal to blame someone, anyone for these atrocities. Because of these human rights abuses, the people who bombed Guilford and Birmingham got away with it and these abuses encouraged people to join paramilitary/terrorist organisations. I'm not some IRA sympathiser and I think the Americans have some awful romanticised notion of freedom fighters when they send over money for guns and bombs. These thugs are no better than the 9/11 killers. They are hateful murdering scum, but arresting and or shooting to kill the first Irish person available only fuels the extremists. I'm Irish by the way! Caroline Chocolate - The Lip Balm of the Gods!

2003-04-20 14:30:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050825482.53735.0@iris.uk.clara.net... > Like I said, we were dealing with murdering scuzzbuckets in the way they > deserved but *their* human rights seemed to be of more importance to > politicians than the lives of the people in Manchester, Warrington, London > Docklands, the Brighton Grand Hotel, and all the other places the fekkers > bombed. The problem though, was the fact that people were arrested, tried and convicted on very dodgy evidence and as a result, had to be set free. The human rights of the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four, among others, were ignored in the zeal to blame someone, anyone for these atrocities. Because of these human rights abuses, the people who bombed Guilford and Birmingham got away with it and these abuses encouraged people to join paramilitary/terrorist organisations. I'm not some IRA sympathiser and I think the Americans have some awful romanticised notion of freedom fighters when they send over money for guns and bombs. These thugs are no better than the 9/11 killers. They are hateful murdering scum, but arresting and or shooting to kill the first Irish person available only fuels the extremists. I'm Irish by the way! Caroline Chocolate - The Lip Balm of the Gods!

2003-04-20 14:33:31-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


JoAnn Peeler wrote: > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam sympathizers > so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! You're welcome!

2003-04-20 14:33:31-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


JoAnn Peeler wrote: > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam sympathizers > so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! You're welcome!

2003-04-20 14:41:27-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Rose wrote: > >Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT > >From: EGK me@privacy.net > >Date: 4/19/2003 6:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <6cv3avgrrb3q0a58pjhkm2tqpsntigd2ov@4ax.com> > > > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:46:46 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> > >wrote: > > > >>On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >> > >>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT > >>>>From: EGK me@privacy.net > >>>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >>>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to > >>>>you? :) > >>>> > >>> > >>>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. > > > >>I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then. > > > >Not to mention the fact that she didn't reply to Guig at all. She replied > >to Tim. > > > > Fair enough, but she was referring to the people who expressed disagreement > with American policy which includes him. I don't recall ever sympathizing with Saddam Hussein, so I assumed that she wasn't referring to me when she said she had plonked the Saddam sympathizers.

2003-04-20 14:41:27-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Rose wrote: > >Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT > >From: EGK me@privacy.net > >Date: 4/19/2003 6:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <6cv3avgrrb3q0a58pjhkm2tqpsntigd2ov@4ax.com> > > > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:46:46 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> > >wrote: > > > >>On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >> > >>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT > >>>>From: EGK me@privacy.net > >>>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >>>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to > >>>>you? :) > >>>> > >>> > >>>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. > > > >>I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then. > > > >Not to mention the fact that she didn't reply to Guig at all. She replied > >to Tim. > > > > Fair enough, but she was referring to the people who expressed disagreement > with American policy which includes him. I don't recall ever sympathizing with Saddam Hussein, so I assumed that she wasn't referring to me when she said she had plonked the Saddam sympathizers.

2003-04-20 14:59:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Caffeine Cal wrote: > The problem though, was the fact that people were arrested, tried and > convicted on very dodgy evidence and as a result, had to be set free. > The human rights of the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four, among > others, were ignored in the zeal to blame someone, anyone for these > atrocities. Because of these human rights abuses, the people who > bombed Guilford and Birmingham got away with it and these abuses > encouraged people to join paramilitary/terrorist organisations. Very true. All very reminiscent of the current state of play at Guantanamo Bay where anyone in Afghanistan who wasn't a WASP was lifted and dumped in tiny cages you wouldn't keep your cat in. > I'm not some IRA sympathiser and I think the Americans have some awful > romanticised notion of freedom fighters when they send over money for > guns and bombs. These thugs are no better than the 9/11 killers. Yes, the US IRA supporters have this lovely notion of the "Old Country" where their distant relatives are some poor downtrodden mass forced to work in slave labour camps by whip-wielding, bowler hatted Brits. The reality is that the people in NI, regardless or sex, or creed, have the same rights of voting, worship, speech, press as everyone else in the UK. > They are hateful murdering scum, but arresting and or shooting to > kill the first Irish person available only fuels the extremists. The SAS "shoot to kill" policy was pretty tightly regulated as they went after the people at the top of the chain rather than the drones. The recent report on the RUC aiding 'loyalist' terrorists however is a different matter and everyone connected with it needs to be brought to justice. > I'm Irish by the way! Long live the Celts!!! -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 14:59:09+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Caffeine Cal wrote: > The problem though, was the fact that people were arrested, tried and > convicted on very dodgy evidence and as a result, had to be set free. > The human rights of the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four, among > others, were ignored in the zeal to blame someone, anyone for these > atrocities. Because of these human rights abuses, the people who > bombed Guilford and Birmingham got away with it and these abuses > encouraged people to join paramilitary/terrorist organisations. Very true. All very reminiscent of the current state of play at Guantanamo Bay where anyone in Afghanistan who wasn't a WASP was lifted and dumped in tiny cages you wouldn't keep your cat in. > I'm not some IRA sympathiser and I think the Americans have some awful > romanticised notion of freedom fighters when they send over money for > guns and bombs. These thugs are no better than the 9/11 killers. Yes, the US IRA supporters have this lovely notion of the "Old Country" where their distant relatives are some poor downtrodden mass forced to work in slave labour camps by whip-wielding, bowler hatted Brits. The reality is that the people in NI, regardless or sex, or creed, have the same rights of voting, worship, speech, press as everyone else in the UK. > They are hateful murdering scum, but arresting and or shooting to > kill the first Irish person available only fuels the extremists. The SAS "shoot to kill" policy was pretty tightly regulated as they went after the people at the top of the chain rather than the drones. The recent report on the RUC aiding 'loyalist' terrorists however is a different matter and everyone connected with it needs to be brought to justice. > I'm Irish by the way! Long live the Celts!!! -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 15:20:35+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


"brad" <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wrote in message news:3ea17bdd_1@news.iprimus.com.au... > > > -- > brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] > cheese > sausages > > > > > "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message > news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > >The war is not over. > > > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > > > > > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > >Iraq. > > > > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? > > i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that > involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new > government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most > anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no > one in their right mind supports him. > > but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - > bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even > been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. > > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. All I hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying that over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years of chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein started using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would you have done to make Hussein step down. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-20 15:20:35+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


"brad" <aprettyfunnyemailaddress@anotherfunnyword.com> wrote in message news:3ea17bdd_1@news.iprimus.com.au... > > > -- > brad [http://callmebetty.blogspot.com] > cheese > sausages > > > > > "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@qhotmail.com> wrote in message > news:7vr2av0cv5771fsfmoujl3l5jqcrctau52@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:16:07 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > >news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > >> Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > >The war is not over. > > > > Nobody in their right mind believes it is. > > > > > > > >There will not be peace as long as the US runs a puppet government in > > >Iraq. > > > > Do you think Saddam Hussein's government is preferable to any "puppet > > government" the US and out allies may or may not install? > > i'll take up the argument here. i guess you've left the other premise (that > involves the murder of 1,000+ iraqi citizens by us bombing *before* the new > government has been put in place) unstated, then. and the point, of most > anti-war protesters, was not to support fucking hussein. as is obvious, no > one in their right mind supports him. > > but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - > bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even > been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. > > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. All I hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying that over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years of chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein started using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would you have done to make Hussein step down. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-20 15:40:35-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:35:15 +0200, "Magie Noire" <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> wrote: > >> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! >> There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and >> remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies >> > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >> > Charter. >> We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. >> > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >> > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. >> Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the >> world? >> That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? >> We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are >> actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into >thinking >> that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my >advice >> and find some deserted island now because we are coming! >> >I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it >,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of >crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you in >my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at >least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some >60years ago and >look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand and >shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward >like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat to >refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should go >wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you can >make a man out of you. >If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless I'll >have to state >that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. >Sofia D Free thinker maybe but apparently not much for discerning sarcasm. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 15:40:35-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:35:15 +0200, "Magie Noire" <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> wrote: > >> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! >> There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and >> remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies >> > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN >> > Charter. >> We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. >> > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for >> > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. >> Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the >> world? >> That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? >> We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are >> actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into >thinking >> that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my >advice >> and find some deserted island now because we are coming! >> >I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it >,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of >crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you in >my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at >least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some >60years ago and >look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand and >shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward >like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat to >refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should go >wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you can >make a man out of you. >If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless I'll >have to state >that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. >Sofia D Free thinker maybe but apparently not much for discerning sarcasm. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 15:41:02-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com>, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > Rick wrote: > > > > >And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, > >Florida would have been moot. > > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the > spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college > because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. > > He lost his home state because he ran a bad campaign. He ran a bad campaign becuase he seemed ashamed of his association with Clinton. His mistake was not using Clinton in the areas where Bubba would have done him the most good.

2003-04-20 15:41:02-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com>, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > Rick wrote: > > > > >And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, > >Florida would have been moot. > > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the > spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college > because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. > > He lost his home state because he ran a bad campaign. He ran a bad campaign becuase he seemed ashamed of his association with Clinton. His mistake was not using Clinton in the areas where Bubba would have done him the most good.

2003-04-20 15:52:29+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans ><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >> >>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >> >>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >> >>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>the current US president. > >And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. > If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if he'd won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. That sword has two edges. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 15:52:29+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans ><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >> >>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >> >>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >> >>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>the current US president. > >And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. > If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if he'd won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. That sword has two edges. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 16:09:21+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >There is more then one root cause of terrorism in the middle east. It's not >just about being poor as some would want you to believe. I never mentioned poverty in my post. Don't know why you mention this. >yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible debate any time. >Then we'd get to hear how we're the bad guys because we didn't get their >sooner and besides, we aren't giving them enough money to rebuild their >countries. ROFL! Have you seen the state of your own recently? There's as much social deprivation and dysfunctional education in some areas as in some "third world" countries. You think you can afford to be so magnanimous when you're running a budget deficit that will never be repaid and the administration is still cutting taxes? Maybe if the US spent a bit more time sorting out its own problems it wouldn't mess up the rest of the world so much. In any event, it isn't giving any money TO Iraq, it is using the revenue from the oil it has just "liberated" to pay fat US corporations to rebuild what it has just bombed. It's sure as hell not going to lose on the deal. Has anyone considered: if just a tiny proportion of the millions of dollars of armaments that has just been dropped on Iraq had been channelled into decent research projects, by now you would have alternative energy sources that would mean the US wouldn't NEED oil from the Middle East, it wouldn't NEED to interfere in the region, it could get the hell out and leave people in peace there. Unfortunately, when you have a presidential family which personally makes shitloads from the oil business in the US, and is massively supported by others who depend on oil revenue, it's not really going to ever happen is it? Ian

2003-04-20 16:09:21+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >There is more then one root cause of terrorism in the middle east. It's not >just about being poor as some would want you to believe. I never mentioned poverty in my post. Don't know why you mention this. >yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible debate any time. >Then we'd get to hear how we're the bad guys because we didn't get their >sooner and besides, we aren't giving them enough money to rebuild their >countries. ROFL! Have you seen the state of your own recently? There's as much social deprivation and dysfunctional education in some areas as in some "third world" countries. You think you can afford to be so magnanimous when you're running a budget deficit that will never be repaid and the administration is still cutting taxes? Maybe if the US spent a bit more time sorting out its own problems it wouldn't mess up the rest of the world so much. In any event, it isn't giving any money TO Iraq, it is using the revenue from the oil it has just "liberated" to pay fat US corporations to rebuild what it has just bombed. It's sure as hell not going to lose on the deal. Has anyone considered: if just a tiny proportion of the millions of dollars of armaments that has just been dropped on Iraq had been channelled into decent research projects, by now you would have alternative energy sources that would mean the US wouldn't NEED oil from the Middle East, it wouldn't NEED to interfere in the region, it could get the hell out and leave people in peace there. Unfortunately, when you have a presidential family which personally makes shitloads from the oil business in the US, and is massively supported by others who depend on oil revenue, it's not really going to ever happen is it? Ian

2003-04-20 16:12:20+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 7:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <h404avg2jsrd2704t4qs1ftab9isfg8hp1@4ax.com> > >I was talking about your need to bash American policy by using mistakes from >the past I think calling it a mistake is rather a euphemism. It wasn't a mistake, it was a very deliberate act. The U.S. knew about the genocidal acts of Hussein and kept supporting him. G.H.W. Bush did not go around comparing him to Hitler until he invaded on of the USA's friends. Hussein's behavior in the 1980s is used as a justification to hate people with an anti-war or "wait-longer-before-going-to-war" stance. Most of the people who have such hate for people who didn't want to go to war either at all or at this time, are conservatives and conservatives in general revere Ronald Reagan. While the "haters" are apparently able to feel Reagan was reasonable to choose Hussein as "a lesser of evils" they do not think a person who doesn't want to go to war, or who wants to wait longer before going to war, is might think tolerating Hussein's presence for awhile longer is "a lesser of evils." The haters insist they are wimpy appeasers or Saddam supporters. But they never say that about the administrations that supported Saddam. That is hypocrisy. It's also hypocrisy for this administration to use Saddam's 1980s behavior (as opposed to current behavior) to justify going to war when it never expresses regret that this country supported Saddam in the 1980s while he was doing this stuff. So yes, I am pretty cynical. while making sarcastic references to "Saint Reagan". It's >fashionable to allude to that mistake being responsible for everything >Hussein did as if he were merely a US puppet. That mistake was not responsible for everything or necessarily even anything Hussein did. What it demonstrates is that the USA's problem with Hussein in 1990 was not that he attacked a country or that he gassed his own people, but that he invaded a U.S. ally. So be straightforward and say that. Saying it's wrong to appease aggression when this country not only appeased but encouraged it against Iran, never expressing outrage about the genocide until Saddam invaded one of the US's allies is unbelievable hypocrisy. Hell, it's fashionable in >some liberal circles to blame the US for everything, everywhere. Yes, it's the "blame America first" syndrome. I used this phrase to a former friend of mine, one of the people of whom you speak, and she laughed and said she liked the phrase and felt it described her well. The "Blame America First" crowd is just as kneejerk and sheepish as the "My Country Can Do No Wrong" crowd. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 16:12:20+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 7:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <h404avg2jsrd2704t4qs1ftab9isfg8hp1@4ax.com> > >I was talking about your need to bash American policy by using mistakes from >the past I think calling it a mistake is rather a euphemism. It wasn't a mistake, it was a very deliberate act. The U.S. knew about the genocidal acts of Hussein and kept supporting him. G.H.W. Bush did not go around comparing him to Hitler until he invaded on of the USA's friends. Hussein's behavior in the 1980s is used as a justification to hate people with an anti-war or "wait-longer-before-going-to-war" stance. Most of the people who have such hate for people who didn't want to go to war either at all or at this time, are conservatives and conservatives in general revere Ronald Reagan. While the "haters" are apparently able to feel Reagan was reasonable to choose Hussein as "a lesser of evils" they do not think a person who doesn't want to go to war, or who wants to wait longer before going to war, is might think tolerating Hussein's presence for awhile longer is "a lesser of evils." The haters insist they are wimpy appeasers or Saddam supporters. But they never say that about the administrations that supported Saddam. That is hypocrisy. It's also hypocrisy for this administration to use Saddam's 1980s behavior (as opposed to current behavior) to justify going to war when it never expresses regret that this country supported Saddam in the 1980s while he was doing this stuff. So yes, I am pretty cynical. while making sarcastic references to "Saint Reagan". It's >fashionable to allude to that mistake being responsible for everything >Hussein did as if he were merely a US puppet. That mistake was not responsible for everything or necessarily even anything Hussein did. What it demonstrates is that the USA's problem with Hussein in 1990 was not that he attacked a country or that he gassed his own people, but that he invaded a U.S. ally. So be straightforward and say that. Saying it's wrong to appease aggression when this country not only appeased but encouraged it against Iran, never expressing outrage about the genocide until Saddam invaded one of the US's allies is unbelievable hypocrisy. Hell, it's fashionable in >some liberal circles to blame the US for everything, everywhere. Yes, it's the "blame America first" syndrome. I used this phrase to a former friend of mine, one of the people of whom you speak, and she laughed and said she liked the phrase and felt it described her well. The "Blame America First" crowd is just as kneejerk and sheepish as the "My Country Can Do No Wrong" crowd. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 16:14:39+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: Mike Craney mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net >Date: 4/19/2003 7:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <Xns9362DDA8F1323mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.42> > >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in >news:73u3av8r6ls3cr07anthtftv0f3351il90@4ax.com: > > >> Not entirely. It wasn't just this reply I based my opinion of hiim >> on. He may have been against the war in Iraq but he proved in another >> masterful post how he isn't against using force when it suits his own >> needs. It was his post about the situation in Northern Ireland that >> he replied to. He apparently thinks that's the US's fault too. If >> he doesn't support Saddam Hussein, I think he made it quite clear that >> he does support the tactics of Saddam. At least when it comes to >> Northern Ireland. And then he talks about the US being a country of >> hypocrites. Too funny. > >Well, I don't really know about this Guig characater, but to me, the height >of hypocrisy in criticism of the US is when one simultaneously critcizes >(1) our former support of totalitarian regimes when it suited us, and (2) >the fact that we are now following a policy of removing totalitarian >regimes. > >Mike First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian regimes. That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I would think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the position that the US should not do either. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 16:14:39+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: Mike Craney mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net >Date: 4/19/2003 7:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <Xns9362DDA8F1323mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.42> > >EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in >news:73u3av8r6ls3cr07anthtftv0f3351il90@4ax.com: > > >> Not entirely. It wasn't just this reply I based my opinion of hiim >> on. He may have been against the war in Iraq but he proved in another >> masterful post how he isn't against using force when it suits his own >> needs. It was his post about the situation in Northern Ireland that >> he replied to. He apparently thinks that's the US's fault too. If >> he doesn't support Saddam Hussein, I think he made it quite clear that >> he does support the tactics of Saddam. At least when it comes to >> Northern Ireland. And then he talks about the US being a country of >> hypocrites. Too funny. > >Well, I don't really know about this Guig characater, but to me, the height >of hypocrisy in criticism of the US is when one simultaneously critcizes >(1) our former support of totalitarian regimes when it suited us, and (2) >the fact that we are now following a policy of removing totalitarian >regimes. > >Mike First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian regimes. That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I would think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the position that the US should not do either. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 16:44:32-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <9526av4smp3kl4uqmmrg8p7gg6q16stu9d@4ax.com>, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:41:02 -0500, Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote: > > >In article <20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com>, > > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > > >> Rick wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, > >> >Florida would have been moot. > >> > >> But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the > >> spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral > >> college > >> because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. > >> > >> > > > >He lost his home state because he ran a bad campaign. He ran a bad > >campaign becuase he seemed ashamed of his association with Clinton. His > >mistake was not using Clinton in the areas where Bubba would have done > >him the most good. > > You mean he lost the Whitehouse intern vote? :P > I'm sure it was large enough..... ;)

2003-04-20 16:44:32-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <9526av4smp3kl4uqmmrg8p7gg6q16stu9d@4ax.com>, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:41:02 -0500, Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote: > > >In article <20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com>, > > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > > >> Rick wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, > >> >Florida would have been moot. > >> > >> But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the > >> spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral > >> college > >> because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. > >> > >> > > > >He lost his home state because he ran a bad campaign. He ran a bad > >campaign becuase he seemed ashamed of his association with Clinton. His > >mistake was not using Clinton in the areas where Bubba would have done > >him the most good. > > You mean he lost the Whitehouse intern vote? :P > I'm sure it was large enough..... ;)

2003-04-20 16:49:23-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 20:30:30 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>Date: 4/20/2003 9:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <2ej5av8cpucjtshhkomm4k8tq10c03hs34@4ax.com> >> >>On 20 Apr 2003 16:14:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >> >> >>>First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian regimes. >>> >>>That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and >>>still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I would >>>think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the >>>position that the US should not do either. >> >>The theory of isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction. I have it myself. It >>sounds good but it's not realistic. We're part of the rest of the world, >>like it or not. It's just funny to listen all the rants about the US being >>the big evil around the world. World history was just so damned peaceful >>before we came along. :) >> >>Btw, you mentioned a former friend in another post and how she was part of >>the "hate america first" crowd. I don't know if the former part had to do >>with your politics but that's exactly the self-hating americans I was >>talking about earlier. >> > >People like that don't hate themselves. Or at least, not necessarily. They >don't even hate Americans. They hate the government. It's their country. They helped elect the government assuming they bothered to vote. I think a lot of people feel guilty about the relatively cushy life they lead here in the US and think someone, somewhere should be doing something about the rest of the world. Very few are willing to give up even a little bit of their own cushy existence to do it though. I don't agree with my own government on lots of things people who blame that monolithic entity for everything are just looking for an easy scapegoat without having to look at themselves. People want free national health care, paid retirement, etc, etc. Some also want the US to pay to help feed and cloth and house the rest of the world also. And oh, btw, don't raise taxes to do it. Basically they want a utopia and if they can't see it, it's the government's fault. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 16:49:23-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 20:30:30 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>Date: 4/20/2003 9:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <2ej5av8cpucjtshhkomm4k8tq10c03hs34@4ax.com> >> >>On 20 Apr 2003 16:14:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >> >> >>>First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian regimes. >>> >>>That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and >>>still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I would >>>think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the >>>position that the US should not do either. >> >>The theory of isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction. I have it myself. It >>sounds good but it's not realistic. We're part of the rest of the world, >>like it or not. It's just funny to listen all the rants about the US being >>the big evil around the world. World history was just so damned peaceful >>before we came along. :) >> >>Btw, you mentioned a former friend in another post and how she was part of >>the "hate america first" crowd. I don't know if the former part had to do >>with your politics but that's exactly the self-hating americans I was >>talking about earlier. >> > >People like that don't hate themselves. Or at least, not necessarily. They >don't even hate Americans. They hate the government. It's their country. They helped elect the government assuming they bothered to vote. I think a lot of people feel guilty about the relatively cushy life they lead here in the US and think someone, somewhere should be doing something about the rest of the world. Very few are willing to give up even a little bit of their own cushy existence to do it though. I don't agree with my own government on lots of things people who blame that monolithic entity for everything are just looking for an easy scapegoat without having to look at themselves. People want free national health care, paid retirement, etc, etc. Some also want the US to pay to help feed and cloth and house the rest of the world also. And oh, btw, don't raise taxes to do it. Basically they want a utopia and if they can't see it, it's the government's fault. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 16:53:26-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:41:02 -0500, Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote: >In article <20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com>, > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >> Rick wrote: >> >> > >> >And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >> >Florida would have been moot. >> >> But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the >> spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college >> because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. >> >> > >He lost his home state because he ran a bad campaign. He ran a bad >campaign becuase he seemed ashamed of his association with Clinton. His >mistake was not using Clinton in the areas where Bubba would have done >him the most good. You mean he lost the Whitehouse intern vote? :P ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 16:53:26-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:41:02 -0500, Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote: >In article <20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com>, > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >> Rick wrote: >> >> > >> >And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >> >Florida would have been moot. >> >> But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the >> spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college >> because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. >> >> > >He lost his home state because he ran a bad campaign. He ran a bad >campaign becuase he seemed ashamed of his association with Clinton. His >mistake was not using Clinton in the areas where Bubba would have done >him the most good. You mean he lost the Whitehouse intern vote? :P ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 17:18:28+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:38:44 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. > >>Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I >>don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible >>debate any time. > >When you resort to silly diatribes blaming the US for all the world's >problems, that's all you deserve. > Please read what I write, not what you think I did. I never blamed the US for "all" of the world's problems, or even implied that. >You'd have no arguments from most people in the US who would say screw them >and keep all our money right here where it can be used by our own citiziems. Many in the UK can empathise with that, actually. We are a net provider to the EEC budget, most of it in huge subsidies to French farmers (and others elsewhere growing tobacco of all things) under an Agriculture Policy that is destroying our own farming and fishing industries. So far we haven't had the guts to pull the plug on this terrible deal. Nor are we ever likely to, there's just too much at stake politically. Every country does unpalatable things out of self-interest, I'm not naive. I'm sure though that the US receives some benefit, not just a warm glowing happy feeling, from that Aid budget - how much of the drugs and food included in there are sourced in the US? >ROFL "Leave them in peace there"? Do you have any inkling about world >history at all? They've been at war there since before the US existed Maybe, but that's their business, not the US's. If you enter a war area and suddenly give one side financial support or vastly superior weapons, you can't be surprised if you alienate yourself from the other and find yourself a target of their anger. >You can blame the US all you want for the problems in the world. Again, I didn't. >And what do you think the rest of the world's interest in Iraq or the middle >east is? You don't think France and Germany and Russia, aren't guided by >their self interests and oil? If not, you're deluding yourself. Of course not, trade is a primary motivation in this. But the US is by far the biggest oil-guzzling nation, unashamedly so, and continues to consume as if there will never be any end to the flow, never mind pooh-poohing anyone who dares to point out that it is this unfettered consumption that is damaging the planet for the rest of humanity. It is this over-balanced consumption that causes it to have such a disproportionate interest in a region on the opposite side of the world that would not otherwise concern it. The original question in all this was whether it was right to use military power to further your national interests. However good the outcome for the Iraqi people, this doesn't stop the US looking like an international bully, and it will get no more sympathy from the world after the cynical use of the 9/11 tragedy to take this action under the spin of a "war on terror". And before you mention it, I also accept my own government's shameless complicity in this (against the clear wish of the majority here) with great sadness. Ian

2003-04-20 17:18:28+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:38:44 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. > >>Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I >>don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible >>debate any time. > >When you resort to silly diatribes blaming the US for all the world's >problems, that's all you deserve. > Please read what I write, not what you think I did. I never blamed the US for "all" of the world's problems, or even implied that. >You'd have no arguments from most people in the US who would say screw them >and keep all our money right here where it can be used by our own citiziems. Many in the UK can empathise with that, actually. We are a net provider to the EEC budget, most of it in huge subsidies to French farmers (and others elsewhere growing tobacco of all things) under an Agriculture Policy that is destroying our own farming and fishing industries. So far we haven't had the guts to pull the plug on this terrible deal. Nor are we ever likely to, there's just too much at stake politically. Every country does unpalatable things out of self-interest, I'm not naive. I'm sure though that the US receives some benefit, not just a warm glowing happy feeling, from that Aid budget - how much of the drugs and food included in there are sourced in the US? >ROFL "Leave them in peace there"? Do you have any inkling about world >history at all? They've been at war there since before the US existed Maybe, but that's their business, not the US's. If you enter a war area and suddenly give one side financial support or vastly superior weapons, you can't be surprised if you alienate yourself from the other and find yourself a target of their anger. >You can blame the US all you want for the problems in the world. Again, I didn't. >And what do you think the rest of the world's interest in Iraq or the middle >east is? You don't think France and Germany and Russia, aren't guided by >their self interests and oil? If not, you're deluding yourself. Of course not, trade is a primary motivation in this. But the US is by far the biggest oil-guzzling nation, unashamedly so, and continues to consume as if there will never be any end to the flow, never mind pooh-poohing anyone who dares to point out that it is this unfettered consumption that is damaging the planet for the rest of humanity. It is this over-balanced consumption that causes it to have such a disproportionate interest in a region on the opposite side of the world that would not otherwise concern it. The original question in all this was whether it was right to use military power to further your national interests. However good the outcome for the Iraqi people, this doesn't stop the US looking like an international bully, and it will get no more sympathy from the world after the cynical use of the 9/11 tragedy to take this action under the spin of a "war on terror". And before you mention it, I also accept my own government's shameless complicity in this (against the clear wish of the majority here) with great sadness. Ian

2003-04-20 17:23:19+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050827455.54930.3@iris.uk.clara.net... > David Marc Nieporent wrote: > > Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their > > government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the > > face when he met with him? > > It would have been a start. Funny how Rumsfeld was extremely flustered over > being questioned about his visit in an interview by David Dimbleby, probably > the first interview Rumsfeld has ever done without it being in front of a > handpicked, arsekissing load of journalists. > > Strange how you were kissing up to Saddam even after he'd gassed his own > folk and the Iranians, and murdered thousands more. Still, I don't suppose > much more can be expected when you bow down before the altar of mammon. This is the same Donald Rumsfeld who along with former Irish Attorney General Peter Sutherland was involved in the sale of $200million worth of nuclear reactors to "Axis of evil" country North Korea http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=958654 (requires registration) Story by Eoghan Williams Here's some of the highlights! General Peter Sutherland and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped sell nuclear reactors worth $200m to North Korea, the Sunday Independent can reveal. The multimillion-dollar reactor deal was struck just a year before President George W Bush branded the reclusive communist state part of an "axis of evil". American nuclear experts warned last week that radioactive components from the reactors could be used to develop powerful nuclear weapons. Now Pyongyang says this is exactly what it intends to do. Mr Sutherland and Mr Rumsfeld, who work together on several high-level projects, were both board members of a Zurich-based energy company, ABB, which sold two light-water nuclear reactors to the communists in 2000. North Korea is thought to already have two nuclear missiles. That could increase to 10, thanks to material plundered from nuclear reactors Mr Rumsfeld used his position as chairman of the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission to warn: "North Korea maintains an active weapons of mass destruction programme, including a nuclear weapons programme." Less than two years later he and Sutherland were openly selling the 'rogue state' $200m worth of nuclear kit. Caroline No support for the Profits of Doom

2003-04-20 17:23:19+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050827455.54930.3@iris.uk.clara.net... > David Marc Nieporent wrote: > > Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their > > government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the > > face when he met with him? > > It would have been a start. Funny how Rumsfeld was extremely flustered over > being questioned about his visit in an interview by David Dimbleby, probably > the first interview Rumsfeld has ever done without it being in front of a > handpicked, arsekissing load of journalists. > > Strange how you were kissing up to Saddam even after he'd gassed his own > folk and the Iranians, and murdered thousands more. Still, I don't suppose > much more can be expected when you bow down before the altar of mammon. This is the same Donald Rumsfeld who along with former Irish Attorney General Peter Sutherland was involved in the sale of $200million worth of nuclear reactors to "Axis of evil" country North Korea http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=958654 (requires registration) Story by Eoghan Williams Here's some of the highlights! General Peter Sutherland and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped sell nuclear reactors worth $200m to North Korea, the Sunday Independent can reveal. The multimillion-dollar reactor deal was struck just a year before President George W Bush branded the reclusive communist state part of an "axis of evil". American nuclear experts warned last week that radioactive components from the reactors could be used to develop powerful nuclear weapons. Now Pyongyang says this is exactly what it intends to do. Mr Sutherland and Mr Rumsfeld, who work together on several high-level projects, were both board members of a Zurich-based energy company, ABB, which sold two light-water nuclear reactors to the communists in 2000. North Korea is thought to already have two nuclear missiles. That could increase to 10, thanks to material plundered from nuclear reactors Mr Rumsfeld used his position as chairman of the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission to warn: "North Korea maintains an active weapons of mass destruction programme, including a nuclear weapons programme." Less than two years later he and Sutherland were openly selling the 'rogue state' $200m worth of nuclear kit. Caroline No support for the Profits of Doom

2003-04-20 17:29:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"JustMe" <whome@nospam.com> wrote in message news:KUhoa.11549$UA6.1192333@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca... > > "forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:fru2avgodgpa3vd3ujp9t2hmiva578fuq8@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:16:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has > > >> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. > > >> > > >> When they ignore it, pass another one. > > >> > > >> Repeat as needed. > > > > > >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security > > >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 > > >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL > > > > The US isn't always right either. > > > > REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it.. I admit I never watch network news so I might have this assbackwards, but isn't CNN the Peter Arnet hiring outfit with view points oriented just a hair to the right of NPR? Isn't it Fox news that is the one that is different from the standard liberal media broadcasters?

2003-04-20 17:29:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"JustMe" <whome@nospam.com> wrote in message news:KUhoa.11549$UA6.1192333@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca... > > "forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:fru2avgodgpa3vd3ujp9t2hmiva578fuq8@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:16:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has > > >> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. > > >> > > >> When they ignore it, pass another one. > > >> > > >> Repeat as needed. > > > > > >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security > > >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 > > >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL > > > > The US isn't always right either. > > > > REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it.. I admit I never watch network news so I might have this assbackwards, but isn't CNN the Peter Arnet hiring outfit with view points oriented just a hair to the right of NPR? Isn't it Fox news that is the one that is different from the standard liberal media broadcasters?

2003-04-20 17:30:19+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Nick Pietrzak wrote: > Woot Guig! > > Guig > Misner > > We await your response David. > I doubt there will be one, and all that info was found in about 5 mins of googling. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 17:30:19+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Nick Pietrzak wrote: > Woot Guig! > > Guig > Misner > > We await your response David. > I doubt there will be one, and all that info was found in about 5 mins of googling. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 17:55:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:18:28 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>When you resort to silly diatribes blaming the US for all the world's >>problems, that's all you deserve. >> > >Please read what I write, not what you think I did. I never blamed the >US for "all" of the world's problems, or even implied that. My apologies... I did write: > Maybe if the US spent a bit more time sorting out its own problems > it wouldn't mess up the rest of the world so much. That was, however, meant in the sense of interfere in/destabilise existing problems rather than cause new ones. But I don't accept my post was a "silly diatribe" any more than yours was for the cause of American self-interest and blinkered self-justification. In general, there's little point debating when these issues aren't merely matters of logical opinion, but patriotic faith. Faith can never be "debated", merely defended against attacks that are usually seen as personal. Although it wasn't meant that way, you have already taken that attitude by ridiculing me personally, so it's probably a good point to stop before the rest of the group gets bored. Ian

2003-04-20 17:55:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:18:28 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>When you resort to silly diatribes blaming the US for all the world's >>problems, that's all you deserve. >> > >Please read what I write, not what you think I did. I never blamed the >US for "all" of the world's problems, or even implied that. My apologies... I did write: > Maybe if the US spent a bit more time sorting out its own problems > it wouldn't mess up the rest of the world so much. That was, however, meant in the sense of interfere in/destabilise existing problems rather than cause new ones. But I don't accept my post was a "silly diatribe" any more than yours was for the cause of American self-interest and blinkered self-justification. In general, there's little point debating when these issues aren't merely matters of logical opinion, but patriotic faith. Faith can never be "debated", merely defended against attacks that are usually seen as personal. Although it wasn't meant that way, you have already taken that attitude by ridiculing me personally, so it's probably a good point to stop before the rest of the group gets bored. Ian

2003-04-20 17:56:23+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, kidmiracleman@netzon.net wrote in article <gjd4avg1cncg9iddr495ik69u45ooh88bf@4ax.com>... > > But Israel is not in Palestinian land > Is that so? Well, if you believe that Israel can annex West Bank territorry with impunity, then you are correct. Since it is annexed then ipso jure Israel is not on Palestinian land. I fear that the Palestinians would beg to differ with out on this point. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-04-20 17:56:23+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, kidmiracleman@netzon.net wrote in article <gjd4avg1cncg9iddr495ik69u45ooh88bf@4ax.com>... > > But Israel is not in Palestinian land > Is that so? Well, if you believe that Israel can annex West Bank territorry with impunity, then you are correct. Since it is annexed then ipso jure Israel is not on Palestinian land. I fear that the Palestinians would beg to differ with out on this point. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-04-20 18:26:37+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:54:20 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>And before you mention it, I also accept my own government's shameless >>complicity in this (against the clear wish of the majority here) with >>great sadness. > >Tony Blair seems to be doing quite well in popularly polls now. I'm glad we >don't have majority rule here. That's also known as mob rule. We elect >officials because they are in a position to know more then the rest of us. >Sometimes they will make mistakes but only history can know for sure. At risk of being flamed for an enormous generalisation... I suspect that the *majority* of the UK is marginally better informed than the *majority* of the US population, given the state and independence of our respective mass medias. I would be as concerned about your concept of "mob rule" here in the UK if that were not the case. However, the US administration actively creates mob opinion through the media, so it merely moulds its own public opinion to suit the actions it wants to take. In that sense, I and many others are much more concerned about the "minority rule" of a very few in power in the US affecting billions of others worldwide who don't directly elect them, and whom they care nothing about. That is the whole issue behind this thread, surely? We certainly don't elect officials because they know more LOL. Whether here in the UK or in the US or anywhere, we elect individuals because they are self-interested enough to put themselves up for election and get groups prepared to back them financially or with respectability to promote them. How many worthy independent candidates, who have high morals and valuable skills and altruistic ideals, get a chance in elections compared to the line-toeing flunkies of the big parties? Only one in recent UK history: Martin Bell. And he only managed it because he was a respected, well-known and well-loved journalist in a particular constituency where there was a huge anti-sleaze vote against the incumbent. I am sure someone here can come up with the exact famous quote, and who made it, but off the top of my head it goes something like: "Anyone wanting to be given power and who is in a position to accept it should **never** be given it." Finally, this comes full-circle back to Buffy doesn't it? A story examining the implications and responsibilities of having power, wanting it and in cases refusing it, knowing the damage that can be done with it. Or did people think it was just a comedy horror show about a blonde teen girl vampire slayer and her friends? Ian

2003-04-20 18:26:37+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:54:20 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>And before you mention it, I also accept my own government's shameless >>complicity in this (against the clear wish of the majority here) with >>great sadness. > >Tony Blair seems to be doing quite well in popularly polls now. I'm glad we >don't have majority rule here. That's also known as mob rule. We elect >officials because they are in a position to know more then the rest of us. >Sometimes they will make mistakes but only history can know for sure. At risk of being flamed for an enormous generalisation... I suspect that the *majority* of the UK is marginally better informed than the *majority* of the US population, given the state and independence of our respective mass medias. I would be as concerned about your concept of "mob rule" here in the UK if that were not the case. However, the US administration actively creates mob opinion through the media, so it merely moulds its own public opinion to suit the actions it wants to take. In that sense, I and many others are much more concerned about the "minority rule" of a very few in power in the US affecting billions of others worldwide who don't directly elect them, and whom they care nothing about. That is the whole issue behind this thread, surely? We certainly don't elect officials because they know more LOL. Whether here in the UK or in the US or anywhere, we elect individuals because they are self-interested enough to put themselves up for election and get groups prepared to back them financially or with respectability to promote them. How many worthy independent candidates, who have high morals and valuable skills and altruistic ideals, get a chance in elections compared to the line-toeing flunkies of the big parties? Only one in recent UK history: Martin Bell. And he only managed it because he was a respected, well-known and well-loved journalist in a particular constituency where there was a huge anti-sleaze vote against the incumbent. I am sure someone here can come up with the exact famous quote, and who made it, but off the top of my head it goes something like: "Anyone wanting to be given power and who is in a position to accept it should **never** be given it." Finally, this comes full-circle back to Buffy doesn't it? A story examining the implications and responsibilities of having power, wanting it and in cases refusing it, knowing the damage that can be done with it. Or did people think it was just a comedy horror show about a blonde teen girl vampire slayer and her friends? Ian

2003-04-20 18:40:22+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Caffeine Cal wrote: > This is the same Donald Rumsfeld who along with former Irish Attorney > General Peter Sutherland was involved in the sale of $200million > worth of nuclear reactors to "Axis of evil" country North Korea He gets around doesn't he. I saw him interviewed by David Dimbley of the Beeb and he was not a happy bunny. Dimbleby pushed him hard to actually get answers from him and he didn't like it, a bit different from his stage managed press conferences with his stooge journos in attendance. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 18:40:22+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Caffeine Cal wrote: > This is the same Donald Rumsfeld who along with former Irish Attorney > General Peter Sutherland was involved in the sale of $200million > worth of nuclear reactors to "Axis of evil" country North Korea He gets around doesn't he. I saw him interviewed by David Dimbley of the Beeb and he was not a happy bunny. Dimbleby pushed him hard to actually get answers from him and he didn't like it, a bit different from his stage managed press conferences with his stooge journos in attendance. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-20 18:51:20+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


> >And before you mention it, I also accept my own government's shameless > >complicity in this (against the clear wish of the majority here) with > >great sadness. > > Tony Blair seems to be doing quite well in popularly polls now. I'm glad we > don't have majority rule here. That's also known as mob rule. We elect > officials because they are in a position to know more then the rest of us. > Sometimes they will make mistakes but only history can know for sure. > I always liked the definition that government was the 'collective irresponsibility of the people'

2003-04-20 18:51:20+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


> >And before you mention it, I also accept my own government's shameless > >complicity in this (against the clear wish of the majority here) with > >great sadness. > > Tony Blair seems to be doing quite well in popularly polls now. I'm glad we > don't have majority rule here. That's also known as mob rule. We elect > officials because they are in a position to know more then the rest of us. > Sometimes they will make mistakes but only history can know for sure. > I always liked the definition that government was the 'collective irresponsibility of the people'

2003-04-20 19:18:53-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mEloa.31252$ey1.2827206@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, > > but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see > > the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will > > on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades > > to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to > > do so. > > > > What's funny is that how the world can be so blind to the truth. Other > countries are going to see us however they want to see us- no matter our > intentions, we can't change that. The sad thing is that our govt *will* > probably try to appease the world... but it won't help, and sooner or later > our govt will realize that and say to hell with you all. And newsflash- if > our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the world would > be much different than it is. Are you really so sure of who is being blind here? And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a great crowd pleaser.

2003-04-20 19:18:53-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mEloa.31252$ey1.2827206@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, > > but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see > > the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will > > on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades > > to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to > > do so. > > > > What's funny is that how the world can be so blind to the truth. Other > countries are going to see us however they want to see us- no matter our > intentions, we can't change that. The sad thing is that our govt *will* > probably try to appease the world... but it won't help, and sooner or later > our govt will realize that and say to hell with you all. And newsflash- if > our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the world would > be much different than it is. Are you really so sure of who is being blind here? And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a great crowd pleaser.

2003-04-20 19:21:31-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. All I > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying that > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years of > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein started > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would you have > done to make Hussein step down. Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess you are only listening to US propaganda.

2003-04-20 19:21:31-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. All I > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying that > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years of > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein started > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would you have > done to make Hussein step down. Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess you are only listening to US propaganda.

2003-04-20 19:23:22-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad with power > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about the only > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based on those > notions. You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used "good = lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about it.

2003-04-20 19:23:22-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad with power > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about the only > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based on those > notions. You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used "good = lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about it.

2003-04-20 19:27:29-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"NickKnight" <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ibp3avk2grd4a5000eedbsfi49n7utanac@4ax.com... > >UN CHARTER: > >Sit around arguing about the way things *ought* to be. > > The UN is useless. If the UN was investigating a > mugging in the City it would condemn the > victim for going into the city wearing an > expensive watch. Like many others, I suspect you think "the UN" = "The UN Security Council".

2003-04-20 19:27:29-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"NickKnight" <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ibp3avk2grd4a5000eedbsfi49n7utanac@4ax.com... > >UN CHARTER: > >Sit around arguing about the way things *ought* to be. > > The UN is useless. If the UN was investigating a > mugging in the City it would condemn the > victim for going into the city wearing an > expensive watch. Like many others, I suspect you think "the UN" = "The UN Security Council".

2003-04-20 19:28:47-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030419204127.18912.00000215@mb-m12.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT > >From: "JustMe" whome@nospam.com > >Date: 4/19/2003 12:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <KUhoa.11549$UA6.1192333@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> > > > > > >"forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message > >news:fru2avgodgpa3vd3ujp9t2hmiva578fuq8@4ax.com... > >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:16:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has > >> >> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. > >> >> > >> >> When they ignore it, pass another one. > >> >> > >> >> Repeat as needed. > >> > > >> >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security > >> >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 > >> >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL > >> > >> The US isn't always right either. > >> > > > >REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it.. > > > > CNN is the most balanced of the major cable networks right now. It shows the > pro-US people and the anti-US people. It discusses the positive side and > negative side of what the US is doing. It may be the most balanced in the US (I hate to think that's true), but its rather pathetic compared to other news sources. Contrast CNN reports to BBC and CBC, for a start. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2929411.stm

2003-04-20 19:28:47-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030419204127.18912.00000215@mb-m12.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT > >From: "JustMe" whome@nospam.com > >Date: 4/19/2003 12:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <KUhoa.11549$UA6.1192333@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> > > > > > >"forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message > >news:fru2avgodgpa3vd3ujp9t2hmiva578fuq8@4ax.com... > >> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:16:16 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> When someone doesn't conform, pass a resolution. Make sure it has > >> >> absolutely no teeth whatsoever. > >> >> > >> >> When they ignore it, pass another one. > >> >> > >> >> Repeat as needed. > >> > > >> >You mistake the UN Charter for the mandate and rules of the Security > >> >Council. The US has used its veto at the Security Council over 30 > >> >times. Ignorance is bliss, right? LOL > >> > >> The US isn't always right either. > >> > > > >REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it.. > > > > CNN is the most balanced of the major cable networks right now. It shows the > pro-US people and the anti-US people. It discusses the positive side and > negative side of what the US is doing. It may be the most balanced in the US (I hate to think that's true), but its rather pathetic compared to other news sources. Contrast CNN reports to BBC and CBC, for a start. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2929411.stm

2003-04-20 19:30:05-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"NickKnight" <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ae95avokc9uma9es0ge5afbafikm0c82pm@4ax.com... > >>but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - > >>bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even > >>been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. > You mean other options like economic sanctions? Countries > like France and others made sure that sanctions wouldn't > work. > > Too many countries were tripping over themselves to > violate sanctions and sell to Iraq. > > Have you looked at figures on how much SH owed France? > Gee I wonder why France opposed this war? They opposed the war for some of the same reasons the US used its veto over 30 times were Israel is concerned. Guess that makes the US 30x as evil then, right? Let's remove the word "American" from food products now, LOL.

2003-04-20 19:30:05-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"NickKnight" <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ae95avokc9uma9es0ge5afbafikm0c82pm@4ax.com... > >>but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - > >>bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even > >>been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. > You mean other options like economic sanctions? Countries > like France and others made sure that sanctions wouldn't > work. > > Too many countries were tripping over themselves to > violate sanctions and sell to Iraq. > > Have you looked at figures on how much SH owed France? > Gee I wonder why France opposed this war? They opposed the war for some of the same reasons the US used its veto over 30 times were Israel is concerned. Guess that makes the US 30x as evil then, right? Let's remove the word "American" from food products now, LOL.

2003-04-20 20:27:03+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >Date: 4/19/2003 6:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <032cb66f02919001c658697092bbb4ab@news.teranews.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >>> >> >>> >>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>you? :) >>> >> >>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. >> >> >>Rose >>between sigs >> >> >> > >I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then. > It's not as bad as "thick hen." Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:27:03+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >Date: 4/19/2003 6:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <032cb66f02919001c658697092bbb4ab@news.teranews.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >>> >> >>> >>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>you? :) >>> >> >>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. >> >> >>Rose >>between sigs >> >> >> > >I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then. > It's not as bad as "thick hen." Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:27:50+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 6:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <6cv3avgrrb3q0a58pjhkm2tqpsntigd2ov@4ax.com> > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:46:46 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> >wrote: > >>On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >> >>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>>you? :) >>>> >>> >>>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. > >>I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then. > >Not to mention the fact that she didn't reply to Guig at all. She replied >to Tim. > Fair enough, but she was referring to the people who expressed disagreement with American policy which includes him. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com > > > > > > Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:27:50+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 6:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <6cv3avgrrb3q0a58pjhkm2tqpsntigd2ov@4ax.com> > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:46:46 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> >wrote: > >>On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >> >>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>>you? :) >>>> >>> >>>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. > >>I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then. > >Not to mention the fact that she didn't reply to Guig at all. She replied >to Tim. > Fair enough, but she was referring to the people who expressed disagreement with American policy which includes him. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com > > > > > > Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:28:08+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 6:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <34v3avgn9nb8tgdbcqcu52ehsmraqohdgm@4ax.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >>> >> >>> >>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>you? :) >>> >> >>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. > >Did you read his post about the situation in Northern Ireland which he >apparently also thinks is the US's fault? No. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:28:08+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/19/2003 6:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <34v3avgn9nb8tgdbcqcu52ehsmraqohdgm@4ax.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >>> >> >>> >>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>you? :) >>> >> >>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. > >Did you read his post about the situation in Northern Ireland which he >apparently also thinks is the US's fault? No. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:29:02+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"Magie Noire" <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> wrote in message news:3ea2f90a$0$11347$ba620e4c@reader0.news.skynet.be... > > EGK <me@privacy.net> a ���crit dans le message : > lrt5avcdslvpfkj6dd9fhsjsfc7ojb5vib@4ax.com... > > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:35:15 +0200, "Magie Noire" > <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all > resistence! > > >> There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world > and > > >> remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > >> > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the > UN > > >> > Charter. > > >> We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > >> > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > >> > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > >> Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > > >> world? > > >> That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do > that? > > >> We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > > >> actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > > >thinking > > >> that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > > >advice > > >> and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > > >> > > >I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it > > >,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of > > >crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you > in > > >my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at > > >least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some > > >60years ago and > > >look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand > and > > >shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward > > >like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat > to > > >refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should > go > > >wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you > can > > >make a man out of you. > > >If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless > I'll > > >have to state > > > > > > >that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. > > >Sofia D > > > > Free thinker maybe but apparently not much for discerning sarcasm. :) > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > > "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > > > > email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com > > > Maybe you are wright but sometimes I just can't help myself of shooting my > mouth in a situation like this. > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad with power and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about the only country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based on those notions.

2003-04-20 20:29:02+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


"Magie Noire" <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> wrote in message news:3ea2f90a$0$11347$ba620e4c@reader0.news.skynet.be... > > EGK <me@privacy.net> a ���crit dans le message : > lrt5avcdslvpfkj6dd9fhsjsfc7ojb5vib@4ax.com... > > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:35:15 +0200, "Magie Noire" > <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all > resistence! > > >> There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world > and > > >> remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > >> > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the > UN > > >> > Charter. > > >> We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > >> > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > >> > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > > >> Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > > >> world? > > >> That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do > that? > > >> We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > > >> actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > > >thinking > > >> that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > > >advice > > >> and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > > >> > > >I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it > > >,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of > > >crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you > in > > >my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at > > >least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some > > >60years ago and > > >look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand > and > > >shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward > > >like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat > to > > >refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should > go > > >wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you > can > > >make a man out of you. > > >If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless > I'll > > >have to state > > > > > > >that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. > > >Sofia D > > > > Free thinker maybe but apparently not much for discerning sarcasm. :) > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > > "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > > > > email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com > > > Maybe you are wright but sometimes I just can't help myself of shooting my > mouth in a situation like this. > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad with power and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about the only country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based on those notions.

2003-04-20 20:30:30+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/20/2003 9:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <2ej5av8cpucjtshhkomm4k8tq10c03hs34@4ax.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 16:14:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > >>First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian regimes. >> >>That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and >>still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I would >>think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the >>position that the US should not do either. > >The theory of isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction. I have it myself. It >sounds good but it's not realistic. We're part of the rest of the world, >like it or not. It's just funny to listen all the rants about the US being >the big evil around the world. World history was just so damned peaceful >before we came along. :) > >Btw, you mentioned a former friend in another post and how she was part of >the "hate america first" crowd. I don't know if the former part had to do >with your politics but that's exactly the self-hating americans I was >talking about earlier. > People like that don't hate themselves. Or at least, not necessarily. They don't even hate Americans. They hate the government. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:30:30+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/20/2003 9:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <2ej5av8cpucjtshhkomm4k8tq10c03hs34@4ax.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 16:14:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > >>First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian regimes. >> >>That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and >>still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I would >>think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the >>position that the US should not do either. > >The theory of isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction. I have it myself. It >sounds good but it's not realistic. We're part of the rest of the world, >like it or not. It's just funny to listen all the rants about the US being >the big evil around the world. World history was just so damned peaceful >before we came along. :) > >Btw, you mentioned a former friend in another post and how she was part of >the "hate america first" crowd. I don't know if the former part had to do >with your politics but that's exactly the self-hating americans I was >talking about earlier. > People like that don't hate themselves. Or at least, not necessarily. They don't even hate Americans. They hate the government. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:33:35+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" rickramey@qhotmail.com >Date: 4/20/2003 9:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <i6j5avskq2ubq1p3v6cbbae1bnef8muign@4ax.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 15:52:29 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >>>Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> >>> >>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans >>><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>>>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >>>> >>>>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >>>> >>>>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>>>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >>>> >>>>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>>>the current US president. >>> >>>And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >>>unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >>>whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. >>> >> >>If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if >he'd >>won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida >wouldn't >>have mattered. That sword has two edges. >> > >Want some cheese with that whine? Er, hun-bun, I wasn't whining. I was giving the converse of your statement to show that that way of looking at things cuts both ways. The election was as close to a tie as it gets. We will never know who really won. That would require recounts in every extremely close state, identifying voter fraud, etc. >Your guy lost. Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't matter, the election had to be settled somehow. I'm glad it was settled peacefully. > >> >> >> >> >>Rose >>between sigs >> >> >> > > > > > > > Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:33:35+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" rickramey@qhotmail.com >Date: 4/20/2003 9:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <i6j5avskq2ubq1p3v6cbbae1bnef8muign@4ax.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 15:52:29 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >>>Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> >>> >>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans >>><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>>>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >>>> >>>>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >>>> >>>>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>>>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >>>> >>>>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>>>the current US president. >>> >>>And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >>>unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >>>whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. >>> >> >>If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if >he'd >>won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida >wouldn't >>have mattered. That sword has two edges. >> > >Want some cheese with that whine? Er, hun-bun, I wasn't whining. I was giving the converse of your statement to show that that way of looking at things cuts both ways. The election was as close to a tie as it gets. We will never know who really won. That would require recounts in every extremely close state, identifying voter fraud, etc. >Your guy lost. Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't matter, the election had to be settled somehow. I'm glad it was settled peacefully. > >> >> >> >> >>Rose >>between sigs >> >> >> > > > > > > > Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:35:23+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Rick wrote: > >And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >Florida would have been moot. But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:35:23+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Rick wrote: > >And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >Florida would have been moot. But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. Rose between sigs

2003-04-20 20:59:55+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


> > > >People like that don't hate themselves. Or at least, not necessarily. They > >don't even hate Americans. They hate the government. > > It's their country. They helped elect the government assuming they bothered > to vote. And even more so if they didn't.

2003-04-20 20:59:55+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


> > > >People like that don't hate themselves. Or at least, not necessarily. They > >don't even hate Americans. They hate the government. > > It's their country. They helped elect the government assuming they bothered > to vote. And even more so if they didn't.

2003-04-20 21:01:11+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com... > Rick wrote: > > > > >And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, > >Florida would have been moot. > > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the > spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college > because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. Or to put it another way, there is only so much you can dress up Al Gore. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-20 21:01:11+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com... > Rick wrote: > > > > >And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, > >Florida would have been moot. > > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the > spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college > because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. Or to put it another way, there is only so much you can dress up Al Gore. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-20 21:28:23+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 20 Apr 2003 20:35:23 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >Rick wrote: > >> >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>Florida would have been moot. > >But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the >spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college >because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. > > > > > > >Rose >between sigs > > > Gore didn't win the electoral college, decisively or otherwise, period. And one of the reasons he lost was that he did not get the electoral votes from his home state. I'll agree that Gore ran a bad campaign; he was simultaneously trying to run on the Clinton record while trying to distance himself from Bill Clinton. And if you want to play "if", what if Perot hadn't split the Republican votes in '92? What if the Republicans ran someone other than a dinosaur in '96? What if Kal-El had landed in the USSR?

2003-04-20 21:28:23+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 20 Apr 2003 20:35:23 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >Rick wrote: > >> >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>Florida would have been moot. > >But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the >spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college >because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. > > > > > > >Rose >between sigs > > > Gore didn't win the electoral college, decisively or otherwise, period. And one of the reasons he lost was that he did not get the electoral votes from his home state. I'll agree that Gore ran a bad campaign; he was simultaneously trying to run on the Clinton record while trying to distance himself from Bill Clinton. And if you want to play "if", what if Perot hadn't split the Republican votes in '92? What if the Republicans ran someone other than a dinosaur in '96? What if Kal-El had landed in the USSR?

2003-04-20 21:31:00+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 20 Apr 2003 20:33:35 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" rickramey@qhotmail.com >>Date: 4/20/2003 9:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <i6j5avskq2ubq1p3v6cbbae1bnef8muign@4ax.com> >> >>On 20 Apr 2003 15:52:29 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >> >>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>>From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >>>>Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>>>Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> >>>> >>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans >>>><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>>>>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>>>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >>>>> >>>>>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >>>>> >>>>>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>>>>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >>>>> >>>>>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>>>>the current US president. >>>> >>>>And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >>>>unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >>>>whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. >>>> >>> >>>If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if >>he'd >>>won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida >>wouldn't >>>have mattered. That sword has two edges. >>> >> >>Want some cheese with that whine? > >Er, hun-bun, I wasn't whining. I was giving the converse of your statement to >show that that way of looking at things cuts both ways. That was uncalled for of me, and I do offer a sincere apology. > >The election was as close to a tie as it gets. We will never know who really >won. That would require recounts in every extremely close state, identifying >voter fraud, etc. > >>Your guy lost. > >Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't matter, the election had to be settled somehow. >I'm glad it was settled peacefully. Yes, I am real glad Bill Clinton peacefully handed over the reigns of power . > > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Rose >>>between sigs >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >Rose >between sigs > > >

2003-04-20 21:31:00+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 20 Apr 2003 20:33:35 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" rickramey@qhotmail.com >>Date: 4/20/2003 9:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <i6j5avskq2ubq1p3v6cbbae1bnef8muign@4ax.com> >> >>On 20 Apr 2003 15:52:29 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >> >>>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>>From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >>>>Date: 4/20/2003 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>>>Message-id: <e3d8560725ace38858ef53a6688ada20@news.teranews.com> >>>> >>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:21:09 +0100, Mark Evans >>>><mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>In alt.tv.angel Guig <guig@home> wrote: >>>>>> Mike Craney wrote: >>>>>>> We don't install puppet governments. We install democracies, >>>>> >>>>>> BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! >>>>> >>>>>> Panama, Chile, Indonesia, Iraq are merely a few countries where >>>>>> 'democracies' were installed by the US. >>>>> >>>>>There's also the complete farce of an "election" surrounding >>>>>the current US president. >>>> >>>>And herein lies the rub. You cannot stand it that Gore was so >>>>unpopular that he did not even carry his home state. Had he done so, >>>>whatever did or did not happen in Florida wouldn't have mattered. >>>> >>> >>>If Bush had won the popular vote by a reasonable margin (or maybe even if >>he'd >>>won the popular vote, period), what did or did not happen in Florida >>wouldn't >>>have mattered. That sword has two edges. >>> >> >>Want some cheese with that whine? > >Er, hun-bun, I wasn't whining. I was giving the converse of your statement to >show that that way of looking at things cuts both ways. That was uncalled for of me, and I do offer a sincere apology. > >The election was as close to a tie as it gets. We will never know who really >won. That would require recounts in every extremely close state, identifying >voter fraud, etc. > >>Your guy lost. > >Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't matter, the election had to be settled somehow. >I'm glad it was settled peacefully. Yes, I am real glad Bill Clinton peacefully handed over the reigns of power . > > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Rose >>>between sigs >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >Rose >between sigs > > >

2003-04-20 21:35:15+02:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Magie Noire <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net>)


> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > Charter. > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > world? > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it ,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you in my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some 60years ago and look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand and shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat to refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should go wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you can make a man out of you. If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless I'll have to state that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. Sofia D

2003-04-20 21:35:15+02:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Magie Noire <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net>)


> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > > Charter. > We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > world? > That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into thinking > that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my advice > and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it ,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you in my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some 60years ago and look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand and shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat to refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should go wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you can make a man out of you. If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless I'll have to state that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. Sofia D

2003-04-20 21:45:32+02:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Magie Noire <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> a ���crit dans le message : lrt5avcdslvpfkj6dd9fhsjsfc7ojb5vib@4ax.com... > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:35:15 +0200, "Magie Noire" <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> > wrote: > > > > >> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > >> There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > >> remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > >> > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > >> > Charter. > >> We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > >> > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > >> > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > >> Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > >> world? > >> That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > >> We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > >> actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > >thinking > >> that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > >advice > >> and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > >> > >I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it > >,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of > >crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you in > >my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at > >least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some > >60years ago and > >look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand and > >shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward > >like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat to > >refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should go > >wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you can > >make a man out of you. > >If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless I'll > >have to state > > > >that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. > >Sofia D > > Free thinker maybe but apparently not much for discerning sarcasm. :) > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > > email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com > Maybe you are wright but sometimes I just can't help myself of shooting my mouth in a situation like this.

2003-04-20 21:45:32+02:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Magie Noire <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> a ���crit dans le message : lrt5avcdslvpfkj6dd9fhsjsfc7ojb5vib@4ax.com... > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:35:15 +0200, "Magie Noire" <sofiadiogo@belgacom.net> > wrote: > > > > >> There will be peace when the Iron Fist of the US crushes all resistence! > >> There will be peace as soon as we conquer all countries of the world and > >> remove the illusion that they are in control of their destinies > >> > There will not be peace as long as the US is allowed to disobey the UN > >> > Charter. > >> We are "allowed" to do whatever we wish because we control the world. > >> > Bush has all but ensured there will be no peace on the planet for > >> > decades to come, and he may yet start World War III. > >> Do you really think it's going to take decades for us to take over the > >> world? > >> That would be like shooting ourselves in the foot! Why would we do that? > >> We elected him to take over the world. Those anti-war protesters are > >> actually employed as a disinformation tactic to dupe the world into > >thinking > >> that we aren't united in the desire to take over the world. Take my > >advice > >> and find some deserted island now because we are coming! > >> > >I've always been for the freedom of speech and all that goes with it > >,except in a case like yours. Sorry pal but you are such a piece of > >crap,bloody nazi ,son of a bitch that I opened an exception just for you in > >my permanent defence of all freedoms.Ain't I nice? Much nicer than you,at > >least. Ideas like the ones you just puked, where heard and followed some > >60years ago and > >look at the result,but maybe you are one of those that lifts your hand and > >shouts Zieg Heil on your spare time when none is looking because a coward > >like you will be afraid of being knoked over the head with a baseball bat to > >refresh your ideas about the real sense of democracy. And now you should go > >wash your mouth with soap and your mind with bleach just to see if you can > >make a man out of you. > >If you are only making waves, your ironie was lost on me.Nevertheless I'll > >have to state > > > >that I'm a catholic, but one of those considered a free thinker. > >Sofia D > > Free thinker maybe but apparently not much for discerning sarcasm. :) > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > > email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com > Maybe you are wright but sometimes I just can't help myself of shooting my mouth in a situation like this.

2003-04-20 21:49:08-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote: >> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >> you are only listening to US propaganda. >> >> > >All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that >there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, >I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we >haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we >need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking >for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I >haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me >what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those alternatives are.

2003-04-20 21:49:08-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote: >> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >> you are only listening to US propaganda. >> >> > >All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that >there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, >I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we >haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we >need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking >for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I >haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me >what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those alternatives are.

2003-04-20 22:06:27-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:18:28 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >Maybe, but that's their business, not the US's. If you enter a war >area and suddenly give one side financial support or vastly superior >weapons, you can't be surprised if you alienate yourself from the >other and find yourself a target of their anger. If we stay out of everything, the whole world calls us isolationists and wants to kill us. If we get into anything, the whole world calls us meddlesome and wants to kill us. We're fucked no matter what we do.

2003-04-20 22:06:27-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:18:28 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >Maybe, but that's their business, not the US's. If you enter a war >area and suddenly give one side financial support or vastly superior >weapons, you can't be surprised if you alienate yourself from the >other and find yourself a target of their anger. If we stay out of everything, the whole world calls us isolationists and wants to kill us. If we get into anything, the whole world calls us meddlesome and wants to kill us. We're fucked no matter what we do.

2003-04-20 22:14:49-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 20:35:23 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>Florida would have been moot. > >But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the >spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college >because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. Heck, Nader wasn't the only "spoiler;" the fricking Southeastern Communist Party got enough votes to be a "spoiler" in Florida. Lots and lots of also-rans were spoilers. It was an extremely close race. (I made that name up btw, I just mean almost everybody who got votes spoiled Gore.)

2003-04-20 22:14:49-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 20 Apr 2003 20:35:23 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>Florida would have been moot. > >But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the >spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college >because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. Heck, Nader wasn't the only "spoiler;" the fricking Southeastern Communist Party got enough votes to be a "spoiler" in Florida. Lots and lots of also-rans were spoilers. It was an extremely close race. (I made that name up btw, I just mean almost everybody who got votes spoiled Gore.)

2003-04-20 22:20:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com: > Rick wrote: > >> >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>Florida would have been moot. > > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played > the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the > electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost > his home state. Yea, before you know it, you're like a sports fan explaining how if "this went this way, and that went that way, and these guys hadn't gotten hurt" your team would have won the championship rather than finishing last. Election 2000 showed us that our various election sysstems cannot take the stress of extremely close elections. Here we are in the electronic/computer age, and we're still voting on punch cards that went out in the 60's. Shame on us. Between then and 2004, a lot of jurisdictions will have tossed out the old stuff having accelerated plans for bringing the new stuff in. In our county, which used the same "stuff" as Florida, we've tossed the butterfly ballots and and punch cards for spanking new electronic machines. Such is progress. Mike

2003-04-20 22:20:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com: > Rick wrote: > >> >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>Florida would have been moot. > > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played > the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the > electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost > his home state. Yea, before you know it, you're like a sports fan explaining how if "this went this way, and that went that way, and these guys hadn't gotten hurt" your team would have won the championship rather than finishing last. Election 2000 showed us that our various election sysstems cannot take the stress of extremely close elections. Here we are in the electronic/computer age, and we're still voting on punch cards that went out in the 60's. Shame on us. Between then and 2004, a lot of jurisdictions will have tossed out the old stuff having accelerated plans for bringing the new stuff in. In our county, which used the same "stuff" as Florida, we've tossed the butterfly ballots and and punch cards for spanking new electronic machines. Such is progress. Mike

2003-04-20 22:34:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Guig wrote in message <1050827455.54930.0@iris.uk.clara.net>... >Aethelrede wrote: >> A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against >> Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by >> refusing to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a >> "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to >> what they call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi >> invasion. The group is trying to get any elected federal republican >> who disagrees with them replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote >> 100% with the president That explains the US attitude right >> there: they own the world and anyone anywhere who won't agree with US >> policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows what sort of people get >> elected by right wing republicans. > >There was a country a few years back whose leader used to label anyone who >disagreed with him as "anti-<countryname>" and have them pilloried out of >office or worse. The answer is at the bottom of the post. All the rhetoric >and bleatings of the right-wing politicians, FOX 'News' etc, etc are >beginning to sound familiar. > >> And now we hear >> that the one government office in Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was >> protected from looting, is the ministry of petroleum office. > >Yes, I came across that report. Funny that wasn't it. > >> The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian >> aid, reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US >> saying, as they did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the >> money to fix it: we got what we came here for. We'll just leave >> enough occupation troops to keep the free government voting our way". > >I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to kickstart >the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose military isn't >up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then invade and have the >conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place using the companies of his >pals. This morning's headline in the local paper: "Military Plans Long-Term Stay: Iraqi bases would be regional foothold.". And inside, every columnist is saying how "This time" the US should make good and sure that the constitution and the government are westernised and totally pro-American, not like the way Kuwait was simply left. There's also a lot of use of words like "Tyrants" and "Despots" in reference to the US Arab allies who provide so much US oil and staging areas for US troops.

2003-04-20 22:34:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Guig wrote in message <1050827455.54930.0@iris.uk.clara.net>... >Aethelrede wrote: >> A group of neo-fascist republicans are going to run TV ads against >> Senator Voinovich for being disloyal to the president and the US by >> refusing to support Bush's full tax cut. They are going to call him a >> "Franco-Republican" because they think his action is comparable to >> what they call France's "Disloyalty" to the US over the Iraqi >> invasion. The group is trying to get any elected federal republican >> who disagrees with them replaced by a right wing zombie who will vote >> 100% with the president That explains the US attitude right >> there: they own the world and anyone anywhere who won't agree with US >> policy 100% is "Disloyal". It also shows what sort of people get >> elected by right wing republicans. > >There was a country a few years back whose leader used to label anyone who >disagreed with him as "anti-<countryname>" and have them pilloried out of >office or worse. The answer is at the bottom of the post. All the rhetoric >and bleatings of the right-wing politicians, FOX 'News' etc, etc are >beginning to sound familiar. > >> And now we hear >> that the one government office in Baghdad that wasn't bombed, and was >> protected from looting, is the ministry of petroleum office. > >Yes, I came across that report. Funny that wasn't it. > >> The sudden about-face to allow UN participation in humanitarian >> aid, reconstruction and the rest is simply the prelude to the US >> saying, as they did in Afghanistan "OK, we broke it, now you find the >> money to fix it: we got what we came here for. We'll just leave >> enough occupation troops to keep the free government voting our way". > >I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to kickstart >the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose military isn't >up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then invade and have the >conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place using the companies of his >pals. This morning's headline in the local paper: "Military Plans Long-Term Stay: Iraqi bases would be regional foothold.". And inside, every columnist is saying how "This time" the US should make good and sure that the constitution and the government are westernised and totally pro-American, not like the way Kuwait was simply left. There's also a lot of use of words like "Tyrants" and "Despots" in reference to the US Arab allies who provide so much US oil and staging areas for US troops.

2003-04-20 22:39:29-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 23:07:05 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:49:08 -0500, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> >wrote: > >>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> >>wrote: >> >>>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that >>>there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, >>>I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we >>>haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we >>>need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking >>>for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I >>>haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me >>>what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. >> >>That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, >>they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those >>alternatives are. > >Well, you know, *diplomacy*. Twelve years and three presidents was hardly >enough time to let diplomacy work it's magic. And sanctions, don't forget sanctions. As long as we have countries like Russia, France, Germany, Syria, Jordan, et al in the mix, sanctions really do the trick. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 22:39:29-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 23:07:05 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:49:08 -0500, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> >wrote: > >>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> >>wrote: >> >>>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that >>>there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, >>>I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we >>>haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we >>>need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking >>>for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I >>>haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me >>>what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. >> >>That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, >>they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those >>alternatives are. > >Well, you know, *diplomacy*. Twelve years and three presidents was hardly >enough time to let diplomacy work it's magic. And sanctions, don't forget sanctions. As long as we have countries like Russia, France, Germany, Syria, Jordan, et al in the mix, sanctions really do the trick. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people > didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" > - (Calvin and Hobbes) > >email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 22:59:31+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363B07B233DEmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in > news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com: > > > Rick wrote: > > > >> > >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, > >>Florida would have been moot. > > > > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played > > the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the > > electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost > > his home state. > > Yea, before you know it, you're like a sports fan explaining how if "this > went this way, and that went that way, and these guys hadn't gotten hurt" > your team would have won the championship rather than finishing last. > > Election 2000 showed us that our various election sysstems cannot take the > stress of extremely close elections. Here we are in the electronic/computer > age, and we're still voting on punch cards that went out in the 60's. Shame > on us. Between then and 2004, a lot of jurisdictions will have tossed out > the old stuff having accelerated plans for bringing the new stuff in. In > our county, which used the same "stuff" as Florida, we've tossed the > butterfly ballots and and punch cards for spanking new electronic machines. > Such is progress. These the same "new machines" that failed so spectularly in the small scale 2002 elections on which they were tried? Admittedly these we mostly human errors ("Nobody done taught us how to use these here new fangled contraptions"), but I still predict that the 2004 election is going to be a snafu of gigantic proportions. However it's not even going to be close, so it won't really matter. P.S. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-20 22:59:31+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363B07B233DEmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in > news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com: > > > Rick wrote: > > > >> > >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, > >>Florida would have been moot. > > > > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played > > the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the > > electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost > > his home state. > > Yea, before you know it, you're like a sports fan explaining how if "this > went this way, and that went that way, and these guys hadn't gotten hurt" > your team would have won the championship rather than finishing last. > > Election 2000 showed us that our various election sysstems cannot take the > stress of extremely close elections. Here we are in the electronic/computer > age, and we're still voting on punch cards that went out in the 60's. Shame > on us. Between then and 2004, a lot of jurisdictions will have tossed out > the old stuff having accelerated plans for bringing the new stuff in. In > our county, which used the same "stuff" as Florida, we've tossed the > butterfly ballots and and punch cards for spanking new electronic machines. > Such is progress. These the same "new machines" that failed so spectularly in the small scale 2002 elections on which they were tried? Admittedly these we mostly human errors ("Nobody done taught us how to use these here new fangled contraptions"), but I still predict that the 2004 election is going to be a snafu of gigantic proportions. However it's not even going to be close, so it won't really matter. P.S. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-20 23:07:05-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:49:08 -0500, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> >wrote: > >>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>> >>> >> >>All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that >>there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, >>I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we >>haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we >>need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking >>for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I >>haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me >>what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. > >That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, >they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those >alternatives are. Well, you know, *diplomacy*. Twelve years and three presidents was hardly enough time to let diplomacy work it's magic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 23:07:05-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:49:08 -0500, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> >wrote: > >>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>> >>> >> >>All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that >>there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, >>I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we >>haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we >>need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking >>for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I >>haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me >>what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. > >That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, >they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those >alternatives are. Well, you know, *diplomacy*. Twelve years and three presidents was hardly enough time to let diplomacy work it's magic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-20 23:35:38-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 21 Apr 2003 04:27:26 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: "Papa Smurf" fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap >>Date: 4/20/2003 3:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <nDFoa.14057$ot1.11376@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> >> >>"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:Xns9363B07B233DEmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >>> fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in >>> news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com: >>> >>> > Rick wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>> >>Florida would have been moot. >>> > >>> > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played >>> > the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the >>> > electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost >>> > his home state. >>> >>> Yea, before you know it, you're like a sports fan explaining how if "this >>> went this way, and that went that way, and these guys hadn't gotten hurt" >>> your team would have won the championship rather than finishing last. >>> >>> Election 2000 showed us that our various election sysstems cannot take the >>> stress of extremely close elections. Here we are in the >>electronic/computer >>> age, and we're still voting on punch cards that went out in the 60's. >>Shame >>> on us. Between then and 2004, a lot of jurisdictions will have tossed out >>> the old stuff having accelerated plans for bringing the new stuff in. In >>> our county, which used the same "stuff" as Florida, we've tossed the >>> butterfly ballots and and punch cards for spanking new electronic >>machines. >>> Such is progress. >> >>These the same "new machines" that failed so spectularly in the small scale >>2002 elections on which they were tried? >>Admittedly these we mostly human errors ("Nobody done taught us how to use >>these here new fangled contraptions"), but I still predict that the 2004 >>election is going to be a snafu of gigantic proportions. However it's not >>even going to be close, so it won't really matter. >> > >Yes, the Democrat is going to cream Bush. 49-1 landslide. ;p > > >Rose >between sigs > > > But at least Bush will carry his home state. :P

2003-04-20 23:35:38-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 21 Apr 2003 04:27:26 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: "Papa Smurf" fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap >>Date: 4/20/2003 3:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <nDFoa.14057$ot1.11376@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> >> >>"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:Xns9363B07B233DEmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >>> fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in >>> news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com: >>> >>> > Rick wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>> >>Florida would have been moot. >>> > >>> > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played >>> > the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the >>> > electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost >>> > his home state. >>> >>> Yea, before you know it, you're like a sports fan explaining how if "this >>> went this way, and that went that way, and these guys hadn't gotten hurt" >>> your team would have won the championship rather than finishing last. >>> >>> Election 2000 showed us that our various election sysstems cannot take the >>> stress of extremely close elections. Here we are in the >>electronic/computer >>> age, and we're still voting on punch cards that went out in the 60's. >>Shame >>> on us. Between then and 2004, a lot of jurisdictions will have tossed out >>> the old stuff having accelerated plans for bringing the new stuff in. In >>> our county, which used the same "stuff" as Florida, we've tossed the >>> butterfly ballots and and punch cards for spanking new electronic >>machines. >>> Such is progress. >> >>These the same "new machines" that failed so spectularly in the small scale >>2002 elections on which they were tried? >>Admittedly these we mostly human errors ("Nobody done taught us how to use >>these here new fangled contraptions"), but I still predict that the 2004 >>election is going to be a snafu of gigantic proportions. However it's not >>even going to be close, so it won't really matter. >> > >Yes, the Democrat is going to cream Bush. 49-1 landslide. ;p > > >Rose >between sigs > > > But at least Bush will carry his home state. :P

2003-04-20 23:37:40+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


-- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten. "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7va9n$4m56u$3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad > with power > > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about > the only > > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based > on those > > notions. > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used "good = > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > it. Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the truth, and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term.

2003-04-20 23:37:40+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


-- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten. "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7va9n$4m56u$3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad > with power > > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about > the only > > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based > on those > > notions. > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used "good = > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > it. Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the truth, and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term.

2003-04-20 23:37:55-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 21 Apr 2003 04:30:26 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >Rick wrote: > >> >>Yes, I am real glad Bill Clinton peacefully handed over the reigns of >>power . > >That's not what I meant. > >I was starting to worry that things could get really ugly over the Florida mess >and I was relieved that Democrats and Republicans didn't get into a civil war >over the whole thing. You really have to give this country credit. If a >near-tie had occurred in quite a number of other countries, hoo-boy. > > >Rose >between sigs > > > Damn, again we agree. This just won't do.

2003-04-20 23:37:55-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 21 Apr 2003 04:30:26 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >Rick wrote: > >> >>Yes, I am real glad Bill Clinton peacefully handed over the reigns of >>power . > >That's not what I meant. > >I was starting to worry that things could get really ugly over the Florida mess >and I was relieved that Democrats and Republicans didn't get into a civil war >over the whole thing. You really have to give this country credit. If a >near-tie had occurred in quite a number of other countries, hoo-boy. > > >Rose >between sigs > > > Damn, again we agree. This just won't do.

2003-04-20 23:39:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a > great crowd pleaser. Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, right now. Mike

2003-04-20 23:39:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a > great crowd pleaser. Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, right now. Mike

2003-04-20 23:46:02+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9n$4m56u $3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > >> It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad > with power >> and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about > the only >> country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based > on those >> notions. > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > nations use different definitions. You're right, but only to an extent. The extent is where said "other countries" pose a present or possible future threat to the US. In that case, those definitions will be jammed down someone's throat. > Canada, for example, used "good = > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > it. Truth be told, we hardly noticed. If the Canadians think we "can't stop bitching about it" then that's just an illustration of their collective navel-gazing. It wasn't all that important, since Canada had the good manners to keep their opinions to themselves, unlike the French. Hell, if the Canadians HAD signed on to the Coalition, we'd have had to give them a ride there, like we did to Afghanistan. Some help. Mike

2003-04-20 23:46:02+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9n$4m56u $3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > >> It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad > with power >> and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about > the only >> country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based > on those >> notions. > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > nations use different definitions. You're right, but only to an extent. The extent is where said "other countries" pose a present or possible future threat to the US. In that case, those definitions will be jammed down someone's throat. > Canada, for example, used "good = > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > it. Truth be told, we hardly noticed. If the Canadians think we "can't stop bitching about it" then that's just an illustration of their collective navel-gazing. It wasn't all that important, since Canada had the good manners to keep their opinions to themselves, unlike the French. Hell, if the Canadians HAD signed on to the Coalition, we'd have had to give them a ride there, like we did to Afghanistan. Some help. Mike

2003-04-20 23:46:48+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in news:8bGoa.8564 $xR4.1313@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: > Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the truth, > and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term. Point well taken. Thanks. Mike

2003-04-20 23:46:48+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in news:8bGoa.8564 $xR4.1313@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: > Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the truth, > and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term. Point well taken. Thanks. Mike

2003-04-20 23:48:28+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Laz <nospam@wanted.here>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:13:45 +0000, The Black Sheep wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > >> If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole > security >> council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources > and >> permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > Rwandan >> genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, > where >> it generally vetoes everything that moves. > > The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but > France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how > one-sided public opinion can be! And France has used its veto 18 times. Overall, the 5 permanent members of the security council has vetoed over 250 proposals. Do you have some sort of point? -- Laz

2003-04-20 23:48:28+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Laz <nospam@wanted.here>)


On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:13:45 +0000, The Black Sheep wrote: > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > >> If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole > security >> council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources > and >> permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > Rwandan >> genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, > where >> it generally vetoes everything that moves. > > The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but > France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how > one-sided public opinion can be! And France has used its veto 18 times. Overall, the 5 permanent members of the security council has vetoed over 250 proposals. Do you have some sort of point? -- Laz

2003-04-20 23:52:43+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in news:nDFoa.14057$ot1.11376@nwrdny02.gnilink.net: > These the same "new machines" that failed so spectularly in the small > scale 2002 elections on which they were tried? > Admittedly these we mostly human errors ("Nobody done taught us how to > use these here new fangled contraptions"), but I still predict that > the 2004 election is going to be a snafu of gigantic proportions. > However it's not even going to be close, so it won't really matter. Actually, the ones in our area (Harris County, which is Houston, one of the three or four largest counties in the nation) worked just fine. I suspect that Florida's real problem is "cockpit error" when it comes to elections, if you catch my drift. There really isn't any technology that can help a screwup not screw up. Mike

2003-04-20 23:52:43+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in news:nDFoa.14057$ot1.11376@nwrdny02.gnilink.net: > These the same "new machines" that failed so spectularly in the small > scale 2002 elections on which they were tried? > Admittedly these we mostly human errors ("Nobody done taught us how to > use these here new fangled contraptions"), but I still predict that > the 2004 election is going to be a snafu of gigantic proportions. > However it's not even going to be close, so it won't really matter. Actually, the ones in our area (Harris County, which is Houston, one of the three or four largest counties in the nation) worked just fine. I suspect that Florida's real problem is "cockpit error" when it comes to elections, if you catch my drift. There really isn't any technology that can help a screwup not screw up. Mike

2003-04-21 00:00:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Laz <nospam@wanted.here>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose > military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > using the companies of his pals. You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. Have you apologized to your friends, yet? -- Laz

2003-04-21 00:00:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Laz <nospam@wanted.here>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose > military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > using the companies of his pals. You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. Have you apologized to your friends, yet? -- Laz

2003-04-21 01:08:42+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >> > a great crowd pleaser. >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >> crowds, right now. > > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. Mike

2003-04-21 01:08:42+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >> > a great crowd pleaser. >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >> crowds, right now. > > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. Mike

2003-04-21 01:12:58+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > > > > > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries > >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not > >> > a great crowd pleaser. > >> > >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the > >> crowds, right now. > > > > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > > Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. > Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > > Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 01:12:58+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > > > > > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries > >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not > >> > a great crowd pleaser. > >> > >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the > >> crowds, right now. > > > > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > > Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. > Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > > Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 01:21:10-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:26:19 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >David Glenn Misner wrote: >> What "contracts"? There was no contracts awarded to anybody > >Replied to in another thread. And it should be "there were", not "there >was". Thank you for the English lessons. Did it also mention all the money france germany and russia were making from the illegal sales of arms to Iraq?

2003-04-21 01:21:10-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:26:19 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: >David Glenn Misner wrote: >> What "contracts"? There was no contracts awarded to anybody > >Replied to in another thread. And it should be "there were", not "there >was". Thank you for the English lessons. Did it also mention all the money france germany and russia were making from the illegal sales of arms to Iraq?

2003-04-21 01:33:32-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wroth: >"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message >> news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... >> >> > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. >> All I >> > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying >> that >> > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years >> of >> > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein >> started >> > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would >> you have >> > done to make Hussein step down. >> >> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >> you are only listening to US propaganda. >> >> > >So name them. That's all I'm asking. I am asking too. Will you please Name them???

2003-04-21 01:33:32-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wroth: >"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message >> news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... >> >> > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. >> All I >> > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying >> that >> > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years >> of >> > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein >> started >> > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would >> you have >> > done to make Hussein step down. >> >> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >> you are only listening to US propaganda. >> >> > >So name them. That's all I'm asking. I am asking too. Will you please Name them???

2003-04-21 01:34:42+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in news:uAHoa.8580$xR4.727@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: > > Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) > were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few > hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. > Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a > bit has changed. Good observation. With Saddam, they'd be dead, and maybe their families too. Mike

2003-04-21 01:34:42+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in news:uAHoa.8580$xR4.727@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: > > Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) > were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few > hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. > Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a > bit has changed. Good observation. With Saddam, they'd be dead, and maybe their families too. Mike

2003-04-21 01:39:15+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 > @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > > > > > > > > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see > > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a > > great crowd pleaser. > > Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, > right now. Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. Caroline Just say no to the Profits of Doom

2003-04-21 01:39:15+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 > @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > > > > > > > > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see > > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a > > great crowd pleaser. > > Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, > right now. Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. Caroline Just say no to the Profits of Doom

2003-04-21 01:43:42-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Jak Crow <newsman@werewolves.org>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:47:38 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On 20 Apr 2003 16:14:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > >>First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian regimes. >> >>That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and >>still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I would >>think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the >>position that the US should not do either. > >The theory of isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction. I have it myself. It >sounds good but it's not realistic. We're part of the rest of the world, >like it or not. It's just funny to listen all the rants about the US being >the big evil around the world. World history was just so damned peaceful >before we came along. :) The U.S. wouldn't be able to isolate itself from the rest of the world. What about all those U.S. corporations that have moved their operations overseas and farm their support departments out to Asia?! :)

2003-04-21 01:43:42-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Jak Crow <newsman@werewolves.org>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:47:38 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On 20 Apr 2003 16:14:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > > >>First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian regimes. >> >>That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and >>still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I would >>think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the >>position that the US should not do either. > >The theory of isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction. I have it myself. It >sounds good but it's not realistic. We're part of the rest of the world, >like it or not. It's just funny to listen all the rants about the US being >the big evil around the world. World history was just so damned peaceful >before we came along. :) The U.S. wouldn't be able to isolate itself from the rest of the world. What about all those U.S. corporations that have moved their operations overseas and farm their support departments out to Asia?! :)

2003-04-21 01:53:14-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Jak Crow <newsman@werewolves.org>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:46:46 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >>> >> >>> >>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>you? :) >>> >> >>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. >> >> >>Rose >>between sigs >> >> >> > >I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then. I'm trying to figure out why you're getting this wrong, since the post is still online for review and someone even quoted it and still got it wrong. The correct sentence used was: "Fuck, you're thick hen!" Now, I may be out of circulation, but the use of "Fuck" in this sentence would appear to be in place of something like 'Geezus fucking christ", or "Holy shit", but his use of "Fuck" didn't represent "Fuck you". Now, you could be reading into this like he typoed and forgot "you" after "Fuck", but something tells me that doesn't wash. It would appear that both you and EGK have been completely off base.

2003-04-21 01:53:14-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Jak Crow <newsman@werewolves.org>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:46:46 GMT, Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: >On 20 Apr 2003 01:46:50 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/19/2003 6:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <vns3avok721pk9nv80ma40ajtnp3bb5i62@4ax.com> >>> >> >>> >>>If I told you "fuck you, you thick hen!" just how would I come across to >>>you? :) >>> >> >>She called him a Saddam sympathizer before he called her a thick hen. >> >> >>Rose >>between sigs >> >> >> > >I guess the "fuck you" doesn't mean much then. I'm trying to figure out why you're getting this wrong, since the post is still online for review and someone even quoted it and still got it wrong. The correct sentence used was: "Fuck, you're thick hen!" Now, I may be out of circulation, but the use of "Fuck" in this sentence would appear to be in place of something like 'Geezus fucking christ", or "Holy shit", but his use of "Fuck" didn't represent "Fuck you". Now, you could be reading into this like he typoed and forgot "you" after "Fuck", but something tells me that doesn't wash. It would appear that both you and EGK have been completely off base.

2003-04-21 01:59:11-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Jak Crow <newsman@werewolves.org>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:09:21 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>There is more then one root cause of terrorism in the middle east. It's not >>just about being poor as some would want you to believe. > >I never mentioned poverty in my post. Don't know why you mention this. > >>yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. > >Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I >don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible >debate any time. > >>Then we'd get to hear how we're the bad guys because we didn't get their >>sooner and besides, we aren't giving them enough money to rebuild their >>countries. >You think you can afford to be so >magnanimous when you're running a budget deficit that will never be >repaid and the administration is still cutting taxes? Ironically, the cutting taxes part would work if our politicians would STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY LIKE IT'S THEIR OWN FUCKING PIGGY BANK.

2003-04-21 01:59:11-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Jak Crow <newsman@werewolves.org>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:09:21 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>There is more then one root cause of terrorism in the middle east. It's not >>just about being poor as some would want you to believe. > >I never mentioned poverty in my post. Don't know why you mention this. > >>yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. > >Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I >don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible >debate any time. > >>Then we'd get to hear how we're the bad guys because we didn't get their >>sooner and besides, we aren't giving them enough money to rebuild their >>countries. >You think you can afford to be so >magnanimous when you're running a budget deficit that will never be >repaid and the administration is still cutting taxes? Ironically, the cutting taxes part would work if our politicians would STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY LIKE IT'S THEIR OWN FUCKING PIGGY BANK.

2003-04-21 02:06:10+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363D15A0CB02mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.42... > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in > news:uAHoa.8580$xR4.727@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: > > > > > > > Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) > > were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few > > hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. > > Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a > > bit has changed. > > Good observation. With Saddam, they'd be dead, and maybe their families > too. And for a lot of things we'd never classify as "crimes" -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 02:06:10+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363D15A0CB02mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.42... > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in > news:uAHoa.8580$xR4.727@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: > > > > > > > Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) > > were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few > > hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. > > Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a > > bit has changed. > > Good observation. With Saddam, they'd be dead, and maybe their families > too. And for a lot of things we'd never classify as "crimes" -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 02:39:55+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess > you are only listening to US propaganda. > > All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-21 02:39:55+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message > news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... > > > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. > All I > > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying > that > > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years > of > > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein > started > > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would > you have > > done to make Hussein step down. > > Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess > you are only listening to US propaganda. > > So name them. That's all I'm asking. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-21 02:39:55+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess > you are only listening to US propaganda. > > All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just that there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an alternative, I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an alternative that we haven't already tried. The war protesters I have heard have just said we need a peaceful solution. So what is the solution? That's all I am asking for. Maybe you are right, maybe all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I haven't heard of any war protester's side of what to do. So you tell me what I am not hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-21 02:39:55+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message > news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... > > > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. > All I > > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying > that > > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years > of > > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein > started > > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would > you have > > done to make Hussein step down. > > Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess > you are only listening to US propaganda. > > So name them. That's all I'm asking. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-21 03:38:21+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:ovn6av0eh86s87qtd5ao1kkuar65un30pb@4ax.com: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:49:08 -0500, Rick Ramey > <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> >>wrote: >> >>>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just >>>that there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an >>>alternative, I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an >>>alternative that we haven't already tried. The war protesters I have >>>heard have just said we need a peaceful solution. So what is the >>>solution? That's all I am asking for. Maybe you are right, maybe >>>all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I haven't heard of any war >>>protester's side of what to do. So you tell me what I am not >>>hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. >> >>That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, >>they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those >>alternatives are. > > Well, you know, *diplomacy*. Twelve years and three presidents was > hardly enough time to let diplomacy work it's magic. I think the European strategy was to simply outlive Hussein. But, then, those kids of his. Bad strategy. Mike

2003-04-21 03:38:21+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:ovn6av0eh86s87qtd5ao1kkuar65un30pb@4ax.com: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:49:08 -0500, Rick Ramey > <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> >>wrote: >> >>>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just >>>that there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an >>>alternative, I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an >>>alternative that we haven't already tried. The war protesters I have >>>heard have just said we need a peaceful solution. So what is the >>>solution? That's all I am asking for. Maybe you are right, maybe >>>all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I haven't heard of any war >>>protester's side of what to do. So you tell me what I am not >>>hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. >> >>That is the thing: when someone presses one of the appeasement crowd, >>they always say there are alternatives, they just never say what those >>alternatives are. > > Well, you know, *diplomacy*. Twelve years and three presidents was > hardly enough time to let diplomacy work it's magic. I think the European strategy was to simply outlive Hussein. But, then, those kids of his. Bad strategy. Mike

2003-04-21 04:25:19+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/20/2003 1:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <9526av4smp3kl4uqmmrg8p7gg6q16stu9d@4ax.com> >>He lost his home state because he ran a bad campaign. The fact that he was fairly liberal and his home state is fairly conservative probably had something to do with it. He ran a bad >>campaign becuase he seemed ashamed of his association with Clinton. His >>mistake was not using Clinton in the areas where Bubba would have done >>him the most good. > >You mean he lost the Whitehouse intern vote? :P > Glib, but Clinton was popular with many voters even after all the dust settled. Anyway, Gore had a weak message and came off poorly in his debates. Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 04:25:19+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/20/2003 1:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <9526av4smp3kl4uqmmrg8p7gg6q16stu9d@4ax.com> >>He lost his home state because he ran a bad campaign. The fact that he was fairly liberal and his home state is fairly conservative probably had something to do with it. He ran a bad >>campaign becuase he seemed ashamed of his association with Clinton. His >>mistake was not using Clinton in the areas where Bubba would have done >>him the most good. > >You mean he lost the Whitehouse intern vote? :P > Glib, but Clinton was popular with many voters even after all the dust settled. Anyway, Gore had a weak message and came off poorly in his debates. Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 04:26:29+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >Date: 4/20/2003 2:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <45ed373b6cc6bc4890d754096b18c34a@news.teranews.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 20:35:23 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>Rick wrote: >> >>> >>>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>>Florida would have been moot. >> >>But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the >>spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college >>because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Rose >>between sigs >> >> >> > >Gore didn't win the electoral college, decisively or otherwise, >period. And one of the reasons he lost was that he did not get the >electoral votes from his home state. > >I'll agree that Gore ran a bad campaign; he was simultaneously trying >to run on the Clinton record while trying to distance himself from >Bill Clinton. > >And if you want to play "if" Actually I don't. Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 04:26:29+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >Date: 4/20/2003 2:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <45ed373b6cc6bc4890d754096b18c34a@news.teranews.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 20:35:23 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>Rick wrote: >> >>> >>>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>>Florida would have been moot. >> >>But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played the >>spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the electoral college >>because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost his home state. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Rose >>between sigs >> >> >> > >Gore didn't win the electoral college, decisively or otherwise, >period. And one of the reasons he lost was that he did not get the >electoral votes from his home state. > >I'll agree that Gore ran a bad campaign; he was simultaneously trying >to run on the Clinton record while trying to distance himself from >Bill Clinton. > >And if you want to play "if" Actually I don't. Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 04:27:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "Papa Smurf" fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap >Date: 4/20/2003 3:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <nDFoa.14057$ot1.11376@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> > >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >news:Xns9363B07B233DEmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >> fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in >> news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com: >> >> > Rick wrote: >> > >> >> >> >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >> >>Florida would have been moot. >> > >> > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played >> > the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the >> > electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost >> > his home state. >> >> Yea, before you know it, you're like a sports fan explaining how if "this >> went this way, and that went that way, and these guys hadn't gotten hurt" >> your team would have won the championship rather than finishing last. >> >> Election 2000 showed us that our various election sysstems cannot take the >> stress of extremely close elections. Here we are in the >electronic/computer >> age, and we're still voting on punch cards that went out in the 60's. >Shame >> on us. Between then and 2004, a lot of jurisdictions will have tossed out >> the old stuff having accelerated plans for bringing the new stuff in. In >> our county, which used the same "stuff" as Florida, we've tossed the >> butterfly ballots and and punch cards for spanking new electronic >machines. >> Such is progress. > >These the same "new machines" that failed so spectularly in the small scale >2002 elections on which they were tried? >Admittedly these we mostly human errors ("Nobody done taught us how to use >these here new fangled contraptions"), but I still predict that the 2004 >election is going to be a snafu of gigantic proportions. However it's not >even going to be close, so it won't really matter. > Yes, the Democrat is going to cream Bush. 49-1 landslide. ;p Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 04:27:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: "Papa Smurf" fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap >Date: 4/20/2003 3:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <nDFoa.14057$ot1.11376@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> > >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >news:Xns9363B07B233DEmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >> fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in >> news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com: >> >> > Rick wrote: >> > >> >> >> >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >> >>Florida would have been moot. >> > >> > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played >> > the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the >> > electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost >> > his home state. >> >> Yea, before you know it, you're like a sports fan explaining how if "this >> went this way, and that went that way, and these guys hadn't gotten hurt" >> your team would have won the championship rather than finishing last. >> >> Election 2000 showed us that our various election sysstems cannot take the >> stress of extremely close elections. Here we are in the >electronic/computer >> age, and we're still voting on punch cards that went out in the 60's. >Shame >> on us. Between then and 2004, a lot of jurisdictions will have tossed out >> the old stuff having accelerated plans for bringing the new stuff in. In >> our county, which used the same "stuff" as Florida, we've tossed the >> butterfly ballots and and punch cards for spanking new electronic >machines. >> Such is progress. > >These the same "new machines" that failed so spectularly in the small scale >2002 elections on which they were tried? >Admittedly these we mostly human errors ("Nobody done taught us how to use >these here new fangled contraptions"), but I still predict that the 2004 >election is going to be a snafu of gigantic proportions. However it's not >even going to be close, so it won't really matter. > Yes, the Democrat is going to cream Bush. 49-1 landslide. ;p Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 04:30:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Rick wrote: > >Yes, I am real glad Bill Clinton peacefully handed over the reigns of >power . That's not what I meant. I was starting to worry that things could get really ugly over the Florida mess and I was relieved that Democrats and Republicans didn't get into a civil war over the whole thing. You really have to give this country credit. If a near-tie had occurred in quite a number of other countries, hoo-boy. Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 04:30:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Rick wrote: > >Yes, I am real glad Bill Clinton peacefully handed over the reigns of >power . That's not what I meant. I was starting to worry that things could get really ugly over the Florida mess and I was relieved that Democrats and Republicans didn't get into a civil war over the whole thing. You really have to give this country credit. If a near-tie had occurred in quite a number of other countries, hoo-boy. Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 04:32:51+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/20/2003 1:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <bh16av06qqtps20tvisuok5er14lhtue4o@4ax.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 20:30:30 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/20/2003 9:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <2ej5av8cpucjtshhkomm4k8tq10c03hs34@4ax.com> >>> >>>On 20 Apr 2003 16:14:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>> >>> >>>>First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian >regimes. >>>> >>>>That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and >>>>still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I >would >>>>think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the >>>>position that the US should not do either. >>> >>>The theory of isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction. I have it myself. It >>>sounds good but it's not realistic. We're part of the rest of the world, >>>like it or not. It's just funny to listen all the rants about the US being >>>the big evil around the world. World history was just so damned peaceful >>>before we came along. :) >>> >>>Btw, you mentioned a former friend in another post and how she was part of >>>the "hate america first" crowd. I don't know if the former part had to do >>>with your politics but that's exactly the self-hating americans I was >>>talking about earlier. >>> >> >>People like that don't hate themselves. Or at least, not necessarily. They >>don't even hate Americans. They hate the government. > >It's their country. They helped elect the government assuming they bothered >to vote. If Bernie Boo supports, campaigns and votes for Snarky Boomerang of the Incredibly Radical Party, he has no reason to hate himself if he hates the "Democans" as he would call the two parties. Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 04:32:51+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: EGK me@privacy.net >Date: 4/20/2003 1:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <bh16av06qqtps20tvisuok5er14lhtue4o@4ax.com> > >On 20 Apr 2003 20:30:30 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: EGK me@privacy.net >>>Date: 4/20/2003 9:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <2ej5av8cpucjtshhkomm4k8tq10c03hs34@4ax.com> >>> >>>On 20 Apr 2003 16:14:39 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>> >>> >>>>First, I agree that sometimes it's necessary to remove totalitarian >regimes. >>>> >>>>That said, you can be angry that the US supported totalitarian regimes and >>>>still not think they should go in and forcibly remove such regimes. I >would >>>>think an isolationist (I am not one, so I can't be sure) would take the >>>>position that the US should not do either. >>> >>>The theory of isolationism is a knee-jerk reaction. I have it myself. It >>>sounds good but it's not realistic. We're part of the rest of the world, >>>like it or not. It's just funny to listen all the rants about the US being >>>the big evil around the world. World history was just so damned peaceful >>>before we came along. :) >>> >>>Btw, you mentioned a former friend in another post and how she was part of >>>the "hate america first" crowd. I don't know if the former part had to do >>>with your politics but that's exactly the self-hating americans I was >>>talking about earlier. >>> >> >>People like that don't hate themselves. Or at least, not necessarily. They >>don't even hate Americans. They hate the government. > >It's their country. They helped elect the government assuming they bothered >to vote. If Bernie Boo supports, campaigns and votes for Snarky Boomerang of the Incredibly Radical Party, he has no reason to hate himself if he hates the "Democans" as he would call the two parties. Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 06:44:00+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Laz wrote in message ... >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place >> using the companies of his pals. > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful military, but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to replace any of what was lost. Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot of military equipment. Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil production and export infrastructure.

2003-04-21 06:44:00+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Laz wrote in message ... >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place >> using the companies of his pals. > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful military, but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to replace any of what was lost. Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot of military equipment. Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil production and export infrastructure.

2003-04-21 06:54:57+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: >> >> > >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. >> >> >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >> >> crowds, right now. >> > >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >> >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. > >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't think >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. The US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary weapons of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and destruction of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are those in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to loot that building. All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the lives of the Iraqi people. At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power.

2003-04-21 06:54:57+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: >> >> > >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. >> >> >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >> >> crowds, right now. >> > >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >> >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. > >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't think >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. The US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary weapons of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and destruction of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are those in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to loot that building. All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the lives of the Iraqi people. At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power.

2003-04-21 09:25:47-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 01:59:11 -0700, Jak Crow <newsman@werewolves.org> wrote: >>You think you can afford to be so >>magnanimous when you're running a budget deficit that will never be >>repaid and the administration is still cutting taxes? > >Ironically, the cutting taxes part would work if our politicians would STOP >SPENDING OUR MONEY LIKE IT'S THEIR OWN FUCKING PIGGY BANK. Heh, yeah... THAT's gonna happen.

2003-04-21 09:25:47-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 01:59:11 -0700, Jak Crow <newsman@werewolves.org> wrote: >>You think you can afford to be so >>magnanimous when you're running a budget deficit that will never be >>repaid and the administration is still cutting taxes? > >Ironically, the cutting taxes part would work if our politicians would STOP >SPENDING OUR MONEY LIKE IT'S THEIR OWN FUCKING PIGGY BANK. Heh, yeah... THAT's gonna happen.

2003-04-21 09:28:42-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:18:21 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. > >Other than having no water, no food, no electricity, having to avoid >bands of armed thugs, etc. Do you think the entire country is without water, electricity or other infrastructure? Do you think the entire country is being looted? That's hardly the case.

2003-04-21 09:28:42-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:18:21 +0100, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. > >Other than having no water, no food, no electricity, having to avoid >bands of armed thugs, etc. Do you think the entire country is without water, electricity or other infrastructure? Do you think the entire country is being looted? That's hardly the case.

2003-04-21 10:08:52+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> > wroth: >>"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >>> >>> "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message >>> news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... >>> >>> > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. >>> All I >>> > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying >>> that >>> > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years >>> of >>> > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein >>> started >>> > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would >>> you have >>> > done to make Hussein step down. >>> >>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>> >>> >> >>So name them. That's all I'm asking. > I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to bomb them.

2003-04-21 10:08:52+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> > wroth: >>"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >>> >>> "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message >>> news:7Vyoa.541513$L1.157958@sccrnsc02... >>> >>> > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. >>> All I >>> > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying >>> that >>> > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years >>> of >>> > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein >>> started >>> > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would >>> you have >>> > done to make Hussein step down. >>> >>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>> >>> >> >>So name them. That's all I'm asking. > I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to bomb them.

2003-04-21 10:10:55+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Tazana wrote: > > All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just > that there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an > alternative, I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an > alternative that we haven't already tried. The war protesters I have > heard have just said we need a peaceful solution. So what is the > solution? The Franco-Russian proposal to flood Iraq with inspectors (under the protection of some 5-10K UN troops), tightening the conditions which would have to be met, plus expansion of the oil for food policy (also overseen by the UN to prevent corruption). That way, efforts would be made to alleviate the humanitarian situation, the regime would be rendered almost impotent without greatly destabilising the region, and any further attempts to stall the inspection process would result in a near universal support for the war that ensued. One scenario would be that WMDs would be confirmed (as Blix is now suspecting) as non-existent, the UN presence will remain, leading to an effective NFZ-style autonomy over much of Iraq, and Saddam's government would either have to toe the international line or be marginalised within its own country. The other probable scenario would be that Saddam continues to intimidate his scientists, or prevent progress on one point or another. Upon which the five permanent members of the SC will table a resolution, probably passed unanimously, to remove the Iraqi government which is blocking the UN inspections. After all, France and Russia will have a stake in enforcing their proposal. The campaign will have the support of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, since every effort has already been made to avoid armed conflict. The intimidating and overwhelming power of the western military will proceed as in the OTL, but the capture of every major city will be a joint western-Arab operation, to avoid adverse PR about a new 'Crusade'. The glut of troops on the ground will mean that policing will be a hugely less significant problem than in the OTL, particularly as there'll be an abundance of troops who speak the language. Reconstruction will hardly be a problem, with money pouring in from the EU, and probably some of Iraq's debts to various countries forgiven in an inexpensive PR coup. > That's all I am asking for. Maybe you are right, maybe > all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I haven't heard of any war > protester's side of what to do. So you tell me what I am not > hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. Try the above as a surmise of what might have happened had the joint Franco-Russian proposal been accepted by the Anglo-Americans. If we'd waited for another 2-3 months the Museum of Antiquities might still be intact. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-21 10:10:55+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Tazana wrote: > > All I have said is that I haven't heard anyone say alternatives, just > that there are alternatives. Ok, I did say that no one will give an > alternative, I should have said I haven't heard anyone give an > alternative that we haven't already tried. The war protesters I have > heard have just said we need a peaceful solution. So what is the > solution? The Franco-Russian proposal to flood Iraq with inspectors (under the protection of some 5-10K UN troops), tightening the conditions which would have to be met, plus expansion of the oil for food policy (also overseen by the UN to prevent corruption). That way, efforts would be made to alleviate the humanitarian situation, the regime would be rendered almost impotent without greatly destabilising the region, and any further attempts to stall the inspection process would result in a near universal support for the war that ensued. One scenario would be that WMDs would be confirmed (as Blix is now suspecting) as non-existent, the UN presence will remain, leading to an effective NFZ-style autonomy over much of Iraq, and Saddam's government would either have to toe the international line or be marginalised within its own country. The other probable scenario would be that Saddam continues to intimidate his scientists, or prevent progress on one point or another. Upon which the five permanent members of the SC will table a resolution, probably passed unanimously, to remove the Iraqi government which is blocking the UN inspections. After all, France and Russia will have a stake in enforcing their proposal. The campaign will have the support of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, since every effort has already been made to avoid armed conflict. The intimidating and overwhelming power of the western military will proceed as in the OTL, but the capture of every major city will be a joint western-Arab operation, to avoid adverse PR about a new 'Crusade'. The glut of troops on the ground will mean that policing will be a hugely less significant problem than in the OTL, particularly as there'll be an abundance of troops who speak the language. Reconstruction will hardly be a problem, with money pouring in from the EU, and probably some of Iraq's debts to various countries forgiven in an inexpensive PR coup. > That's all I am asking for. Maybe you are right, maybe > all I am hearing is US propaganda, but I haven't heard of any war > protester's side of what to do. So you tell me what I am not > hearing, because obviously I must be missing something. Try the above as a surmise of what might have happened had the joint Franco-Russian proposal been accepted by the Anglo-Americans. If we'd waited for another 2-3 months the Museum of Antiquities might still be intact. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-21 10:14:34+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 >> @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >> > great crowd pleaser. >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, >> right now. > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. > Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. The same? Before the invasion they had running water, electricity and their cities hadn't been looted...

2003-04-21 10:14:34+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 >> @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >> > great crowd pleaser. >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, >> right now. > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. > Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. The same? Before the invasion they had running water, electricity and their cities hadn't been looted...

2003-04-21 10:18:21+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: >> >> "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >>> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >>> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >>> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >>> > a great crowd pleaser. >>> >>> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >>> crowds, right now. >> >> Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. Other than having no water, no food, no electricity, having to avoid bands of armed thugs, etc. > Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having been told to leave by the Iraqi people. > Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. The looters appears able to operate with impunity, this was hardly the case before.

2003-04-21 10:18:21+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: >> >> "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >>> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >>> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >>> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >>> > a great crowd pleaser. >>> >>> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >>> crowds, right now. >> >> Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. Other than having no water, no food, no electricity, having to avoid bands of armed thugs, etc. > Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having been told to leave by the Iraqi people. > Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. The looters appears able to operate with impunity, this was hardly the case before.

2003-04-21 10:21:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@iwantnospam.crap> wrote: > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:Xns9363D15A0CB02mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.42... >> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in >> news:uAHoa.8580$xR4.727@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: >> >> >> >> > >> > Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) >> > were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few >> > hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. >> > Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a >> > bit has changed. >> >> Good observation. With Saddam, they'd be dead, and maybe their families >> too. > And for a lot of things we'd never classify as "crimes" By the looks of things "we" don't classify looting, theft, arson even murder as crimes either.

2003-04-21 10:21:49+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@iwantnospam.crap> wrote: > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:Xns9363D15A0CB02mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.42... >> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in >> news:uAHoa.8580$xR4.727@nwrdny03.gnilink.net: >> >> >> >> > >> > Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) >> > were commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few >> > hours and then release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. >> > Somehow I don't think Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a >> > bit has changed. >> >> Good observation. With Saddam, they'd be dead, and maybe their families >> too. > And for a lot of things we'd never classify as "crimes" By the looks of things "we" don't classify looting, theft, arson even murder as crimes either.

2003-04-21 10:37:05+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:26:19 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: > Thank you for the English lessons. Did it also mention all the money > france germany and russia were making from the illegal sales of arms > to Iraq? I don't believe we were discussing arms sales to Iraq but the handing out of contracts to US companies prior to the war. I notice you haven't made any response to the post with the links confirming the "jobs for the boys" by Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-21 10:37:05+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


David Glenn Misner wrote: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:26:19 +0100, "Guig" <guig@home> wroth: > Thank you for the English lessons. Did it also mention all the money > france germany and russia were making from the illegal sales of arms > to Iraq? I don't believe we were discussing arms sales to Iraq but the handing out of contracts to US companies prior to the war. I notice you haven't made any response to the post with the links confirming the "jobs for the boys" by Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld. -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-21 11:42:07-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (blucas1@mindspring.com)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<5BMoa.71133$ja4.4734935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > > > > >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > >> > >> > > >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries > >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not > >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. > >> >> > >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the > >> >> crowds, right now. > >> > > >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > >> > >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. > >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > >> > >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. > > > >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were > >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then > >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't > think > >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. Just when I think you couldn't possible get more politically biased, you somehow manage to sink to a new low... > Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. The > US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. > And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary weapons > of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and destruction > of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are those > in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. Of course, it's all about oil. Sure it is. The left has been wearing out that tired old rag for decades now, and refuse to abandon it simply because it hasn't stuck in a single conflict. > I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to loot > that building. It was made fairly plain that the people shooting at the troops get first priority attention wise. Looting is non-violent, and could even be seen as a form of protest given that the loot being looted was truly stolen from the masses to pamper a chosen few. > All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the lives > of the Iraqi people. This is the point that marks that new low mentioned above. Can you possibly be so monumentally brain dead as to believe the load of bs in your above statement ? The people in the new uniforms have no official rapists. They do not gouge out the eyes of children to correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. Have you completely ignored the news since the major fighting ended ? Did you somehow miss the "hospitals" with the hooks hanging from the ceilings ? How about the "police stations" with nooses and electrical wires hooked to metal bed frames ? All that has changed is the uniforms indeed...if Saddam or his family were still in power those protesting in the street would be arrested, tortured, and or killed. Instead they are being allowed to voice their opinions in whatever peacefull manner suits them. > At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power. Had Saddam et al cared about the people they would not have used the scorched earth tactics which have led to the lack of utilities and facilities. It is frightening how the left hates Bush and Blair enough to be willing to consign the Iraqi population to torture and death instead of admitting to an overwhelming success in terms of lack of civilian death and infrastructure damage. The left in the US has an anti-gun saying "How much is it worth to save a single child's life ?" This works with the current Iraqi action as well. Is it not worth the effort to remove the threat of brutality and torture from a generation of Iraqi children ?

2003-04-21 11:42:07-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (blucas1@mindspring.com)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<5BMoa.71133$ja4.4734935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > > > > >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > >> > >> > > >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries > >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not > >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. > >> >> > >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the > >> >> crowds, right now. > >> > > >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > >> > >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. > >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > >> > >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. > > > >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were > >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then > >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't > think > >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. Just when I think you couldn't possible get more politically biased, you somehow manage to sink to a new low... > Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. The > US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. > And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary weapons > of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and destruction > of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are those > in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. Of course, it's all about oil. Sure it is. The left has been wearing out that tired old rag for decades now, and refuse to abandon it simply because it hasn't stuck in a single conflict. > I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to loot > that building. It was made fairly plain that the people shooting at the troops get first priority attention wise. Looting is non-violent, and could even be seen as a form of protest given that the loot being looted was truly stolen from the masses to pamper a chosen few. > All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the lives > of the Iraqi people. This is the point that marks that new low mentioned above. Can you possibly be so monumentally brain dead as to believe the load of bs in your above statement ? The people in the new uniforms have no official rapists. They do not gouge out the eyes of children to correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. Have you completely ignored the news since the major fighting ended ? Did you somehow miss the "hospitals" with the hooks hanging from the ceilings ? How about the "police stations" with nooses and electrical wires hooked to metal bed frames ? All that has changed is the uniforms indeed...if Saddam or his family were still in power those protesting in the street would be arrested, tortured, and or killed. Instead they are being allowed to voice their opinions in whatever peacefull manner suits them. > At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power. Had Saddam et al cared about the people they would not have used the scorched earth tactics which have led to the lack of utilities and facilities. It is frightening how the left hates Bush and Blair enough to be willing to consign the Iraqi population to torture and death instead of admitting to an overwhelming success in terms of lack of civilian death and infrastructure damage. The left in the US has an anti-gun saying "How much is it worth to save a single child's life ?" This works with the current Iraqi action as well. Is it not worth the effort to remove the threat of brutality and torture from a generation of Iraqi children ?

2003-04-21 12:25:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:4fc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: >> I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? > > For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons > inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to > bomb them. Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? What's your job? Assuming you're not a cardiologist, if you worked for the UN, and they told you to go insert an aortic stent on the President of the United States, is there some reason the people of the United States should let you perform heart surgery on their President, you who have never done a heart operation before in your life? Read the friggin resumes of the weapons inspectors. Is there ANYTHING in those resumes that leads you to believe that have the police and detective skills necessary to FIND something that is hidden? I'll save you the time. The answer is NO! These are guys who are trained to be ESCORTED INTO a chemical or pharmaceutical production facility, or a nuke power facility, and determine if it is being used for nefarious purposes. The are also excellent accountants. They can assay a list of stuff you admit you have, check your facilties, and determine if your list is accurate or not. Detective work is not in their job description. If you are a UN arms inspector, you DEPEND on your host country cooperating to the extent that they show you the sites and materiale and allow you to determine compliance. Blix himself admitted that if the Iraqis wanted to be uncooperative, it was possible to hide it such that his team would NEVER find it. And, not ONE of the vascillating countries (France, Russia, and their ilk) EVER claimed that Iraq was fully cooperating. In fact, they said the opposite. It was a damn shell game, one that too many countries in the world were all too happy to play, since it was lining their pockets with money to do so. The shit is there. Both the CIA and UK Intelligence says it is. I live in the US. I hire those guys to KNOW, and to make tough decisions based on that knowledge to insure my safety and the safety of my kids. Simple line of reasoning, to anyone who can reason. So, your "for starters" reasoning is herein and officially nuked. Give us another one. Mike

2003-04-21 12:25:49+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:4fc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: >> I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? > > For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons > inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to > bomb them. Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? What's your job? Assuming you're not a cardiologist, if you worked for the UN, and they told you to go insert an aortic stent on the President of the United States, is there some reason the people of the United States should let you perform heart surgery on their President, you who have never done a heart operation before in your life? Read the friggin resumes of the weapons inspectors. Is there ANYTHING in those resumes that leads you to believe that have the police and detective skills necessary to FIND something that is hidden? I'll save you the time. The answer is NO! These are guys who are trained to be ESCORTED INTO a chemical or pharmaceutical production facility, or a nuke power facility, and determine if it is being used for nefarious purposes. The are also excellent accountants. They can assay a list of stuff you admit you have, check your facilties, and determine if your list is accurate or not. Detective work is not in their job description. If you are a UN arms inspector, you DEPEND on your host country cooperating to the extent that they show you the sites and materiale and allow you to determine compliance. Blix himself admitted that if the Iraqis wanted to be uncooperative, it was possible to hide it such that his team would NEVER find it. And, not ONE of the vascillating countries (France, Russia, and their ilk) EVER claimed that Iraq was fully cooperating. In fact, they said the opposite. It was a damn shell game, one that too many countries in the world were all too happy to play, since it was lining their pockets with money to do so. The shit is there. Both the CIA and UK Intelligence says it is. I live in the US. I hire those guys to KNOW, and to make tough decisions based on that knowledge to insure my safety and the safety of my kids. Simple line of reasoning, to anyone who can reason. So, your "for starters" reasoning is herein and officially nuked. Give us another one. Mike

2003-04-21 12:29:27+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:qpc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >> "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >>> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >>> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >>> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is >>> > not a great crowd pleaser. >>> >>> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >>> crowds, right now. > >> Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > > The same? Before the invasion they had running water, electricity and > their cities hadn't been looted... Geez, yesterday you were Terror-Boy, spouting the morally bankrupt notion that the "US had it coming" WRT 911. Now, you're "Commie-boy", taking the line that "Gee, it doesn't matter what a demon your ruler is, as long as the refrigerator stays on." Idiot. But, I now respect the Royal Marines even more than I did before. They are the ultimate the professional fighting forces, well trained, noble, and exemplary in every way. And they do their job knowing full well that they're protecting the likes of you, who could care less about the liberties you were born into. Mike

2003-04-21 12:29:27+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net>)


Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in news:qpc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > In alt.tv.angel Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >> "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >>> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >>> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >>> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is >>> > not a great crowd pleaser. >>> >>> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >>> crowds, right now. > >> Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > > The same? Before the invasion they had running water, electricity and > their cities hadn't been looted... Geez, yesterday you were Terror-Boy, spouting the morally bankrupt notion that the "US had it coming" WRT 911. Now, you're "Commie-boy", taking the line that "Gee, it doesn't matter what a demon your ruler is, as long as the refrigerator stays on." Idiot. But, I now respect the Royal Marines even more than I did before. They are the ultimate the professional fighting forces, well trained, noble, and exemplary in every way. And they do their job knowing full well that they're protecting the likes of you, who could care less about the liberties you were born into. Mike

2003-04-21 12:53:07+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


-- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten. "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Laz wrote in message ... > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful military, > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to > replace any of what was lost. > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot of > military equipment. > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken 4 > weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil > production and export infrastructure. The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn hard not kill civilians, and to leave as much infrastructure standing as possible. If we had just wanted to parking lot the country it would have taken 3 days. And what happened to all the liberal handringing preaching of "these people know how to fight, you've only sent 250,000 troops, you're gonna be there forever and maybe even loose" that was all the rage a few weeks ago?

2003-04-21 12:53:07+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


-- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten. "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Laz wrote in message ... > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful military, > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to > replace any of what was lost. > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot of > military equipment. > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken 4 > weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil > production and export infrastructure. The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn hard not kill civilians, and to leave as much infrastructure standing as possible. If we had just wanted to parking lot the country it would have taken 3 days. And what happened to all the liberal handringing preaching of "these people know how to fight, you've only sent 250,000 troops, you're gonna be there forever and maybe even loose" that was all the rage a few weeks ago?

2003-04-21 14:27:59+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >Date: 4/20/2003 9:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <q7t6avcd9bkoj3v305tab25jvhtvk17nqp@4ax.com> > >On 21 Apr 2003 04:27:26 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: "Papa Smurf" fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap >>>Date: 4/20/2003 3:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <nDFoa.14057$ot1.11376@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> >>> >>>"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>news:Xns9363B07B233DEmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >>>> fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in >>>> news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com: >>>> >>>> > Rick wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>>> >>Florida would have been moot. >>>> > >>>> > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played >>>> > the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the >>>> > electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost >>>> > his home state. >>>> >>>> Yea, before you know it, you're like a sports fan explaining how if "this >>>> went this way, and that went that way, and these guys hadn't gotten hurt" >>>> your team would have won the championship rather than finishing last. >>>> >>>> Election 2000 showed us that our various election sysstems cannot take >the >>>> stress of extremely close elections. Here we are in the >>>electronic/computer >>>> age, and we're still voting on punch cards that went out in the 60's. >>>Shame >>>> on us. Between then and 2004, a lot of jurisdictions will have tossed out >>>> the old stuff having accelerated plans for bringing the new stuff in. In >>>> our county, which used the same "stuff" as Florida, we've tossed the >>>> butterfly ballots and and punch cards for spanking new electronic >>>machines. >>>> Such is progress. >>> >>>These the same "new machines" that failed so spectularly in the small scale >>>2002 elections on which they were tried? >>>Admittedly these we mostly human errors ("Nobody done taught us how to use >>>these here new fangled contraptions"), but I still predict that the 2004 >>>election is going to be a snafu of gigantic proportions. However it's not >>>even going to be close, so it won't really matter. >>> >> >>Yes, the Democrat is going to cream Bush. 49-1 landslide. ;p >> >> >>Rose >>between sigs >> >> >> >But at least Bush will carry his home state. :P > He shoots he scores!! Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 14:27:59+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: Rick Ramey rickramey@nospamhotmail.com >Date: 4/20/2003 9:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <q7t6avcd9bkoj3v305tab25jvhtvk17nqp@4ax.com> > >On 21 Apr 2003 04:27:26 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > >>>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>>From: "Papa Smurf" fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap >>>Date: 4/20/2003 3:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>>Message-id: <nDFoa.14057$ot1.11376@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> >>> >>>"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>news:Xns9363B07B233DEmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >>>> fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in >>>> news:20030420163523.18808.00000284@mb-m18.aol.com: >>>> >>>> > Rick wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >>And as I pointed out earlier, had Al Gore carried his home state, >>>> >>Florida would have been moot. >>>> > >>>> > But as I said before, there are lots of "ifs." If Nader hadn't played >>>> > the spoiler, if this, if that. Gore didn't decisively win the >>>> > electoral college because he ran a bad campaign, not because he lost >>>> > his home state. >>>> >>>> Yea, before you know it, you're like a sports fan explaining how if "this >>>> went this way, and that went that way, and these guys hadn't gotten hurt" >>>> your team would have won the championship rather than finishing last. >>>> >>>> Election 2000 showed us that our various election sysstems cannot take >the >>>> stress of extremely close elections. Here we are in the >>>electronic/computer >>>> age, and we're still voting on punch cards that went out in the 60's. >>>Shame >>>> on us. Between then and 2004, a lot of jurisdictions will have tossed out >>>> the old stuff having accelerated plans for bringing the new stuff in. In >>>> our county, which used the same "stuff" as Florida, we've tossed the >>>> butterfly ballots and and punch cards for spanking new electronic >>>machines. >>>> Such is progress. >>> >>>These the same "new machines" that failed so spectularly in the small scale >>>2002 elections on which they were tried? >>>Admittedly these we mostly human errors ("Nobody done taught us how to use >>>these here new fangled contraptions"), but I still predict that the 2004 >>>election is going to be a snafu of gigantic proportions. However it's not >>>even going to be close, so it won't really matter. >>> >> >>Yes, the Democrat is going to cream Bush. 49-1 landslide. ;p >> >> >>Rose >>between sigs >> >> >> >But at least Bush will carry his home state. :P > He shoots he scores!! Rose between sigs

2003-04-21 15:04:15+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in message news:b80vfm$rj6$1@kermit.esat.net... > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > news:TQRoa.18864$ot1.9461@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > -- > > That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being > > eaten. > > "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > > news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > > > Laz wrote in message ... > > > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > > > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > > > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation > whose > > > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > > > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > > > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > > > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what > with > > > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of > them. > > > > > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten > the > > > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > > > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful > > military, > > > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to > > > replace any of what was lost. > > > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local > wars > > > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each > year > > > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft > and > > > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot > > of military equipment. > > > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have > taken > > 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil > > > production and export infrastructure. > > > > The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn > > hard not kill civilians, > > Yes damn those pesky civilians. Damn them for getting in the way of > daisycutter and bunker buster bombs. Damn them for going to the market on > the day the US wanted to drop a bomb on it. Damn those British soldiers for > getting in the way of the US's bullets and bombs. And damn those > journalists for not hanging their sheets out so the US army would know not > to aim at and kill them too. > > Pesky people spoiling the invasion! > Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. Also you might want to go back and check the final resolution on who bombed the Market. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 15:04:15+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in message news:b80vfm$rj6$1@kermit.esat.net... > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > news:TQRoa.18864$ot1.9461@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > -- > > That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being > > eaten. > > "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > > news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > > > Laz wrote in message ... > > > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > > > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > > > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation > whose > > > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > > > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > > > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > > > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what > with > > > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of > them. > > > > > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten > the > > > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > > > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful > > military, > > > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to > > > replace any of what was lost. > > > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local > wars > > > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each > year > > > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft > and > > > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot > > of military equipment. > > > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have > taken > > 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil > > > production and export infrastructure. > > > > The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn > > hard not kill civilians, > > Yes damn those pesky civilians. Damn them for getting in the way of > daisycutter and bunker buster bombs. Damn them for going to the market on > the day the US wanted to drop a bomb on it. Damn those British soldiers for > getting in the way of the US's bullets and bombs. And damn those > journalists for not hanging their sheets out so the US army would know not > to aim at and kill them too. > > Pesky people spoiling the invasion! > Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. Also you might want to go back and check the final resolution on who bombed the Market. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 15:29:34+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:TQRoa.18864$ot1.9461@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > -- > That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being > eaten. > "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > Laz wrote in message ... > > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose > > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with > > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. > > > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the > > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful > military, > > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to > > replace any of what was lost. > > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars > > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year > > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and > > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot > of military equipment. > > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken > 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil > > production and export infrastructure. > > The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn > hard not kill civilians, Yes damn those pesky civilians. Damn them for getting in the way of daisycutter and bunker buster bombs. Damn them for going to the market on the day the US wanted to drop a bomb on it. Damn those British soldiers for getting in the way of the US's bullets and bombs. And damn those journalists for not hanging their sheets out so the US army would know not to aim at and kill them too. Pesky people spoiling the invasion! Caroline No to the Profits of Doom

2003-04-21 15:29:34+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:TQRoa.18864$ot1.9461@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > -- > That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being > eaten. > "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > Laz wrote in message ... > > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose > > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then > > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with > > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. > > > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the > > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful > military, > > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to > > replace any of what was lost. > > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars > > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year > > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and > > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot > of military equipment. > > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken > 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil > > production and export infrastructure. > > The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn > hard not kill civilians, Yes damn those pesky civilians. Damn them for getting in the way of daisycutter and bunker buster bombs. Damn them for going to the market on the day the US wanted to drop a bomb on it. Damn those British soldiers for getting in the way of the US's bullets and bombs. And damn those journalists for not hanging their sheets out so the US army would know not to aim at and kill them too. Pesky people spoiling the invasion! Caroline No to the Profits of Doom

2003-04-21 15:38:48-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >Like many others, I suspect you think "the UN" = "The UN Security >Council". The UN=The United Nations, an organization of countries, 99% of whom hate the United States and would elect SH as their president in a heartbeat and worship the ground that OBL walks on. There are 190 nations in the world now, many of those countries have dictators that would put SH to shame. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-21 15:38:48-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >Like many others, I suspect you think "the UN" = "The UN Security >Council". The UN=The United Nations, an organization of countries, 99% of whom hate the United States and would elect SH as their president in a heartbeat and worship the ground that OBL walks on. There are 190 nations in the world now, many of those countries have dictators that would put SH to shame. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-21 15:42:25-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <1050827455.54930.3@iris.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent wrote: >> Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their >> government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the >> face when he met with him? >It would have been a start. Hmm. Funny how people who supported diplomacy over liberation are suddenly arguing against diplomacy. >Strange how you were kissing up to Saddam even after he'd gassed his own >folk and the Iranians, and murdered thousands more. Still, I don't suppose >much more can be expected when you bow down before the altar of mammon. Nobody "kissed up to Saddam," except Jacques Chirac. The US condemned Saddam Hussein repeatedly. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:42:25-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <1050827455.54930.3@iris.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent wrote: >> Rumsfeld was a diplomatic envoy. He went to Iraq to meet with their >> government, as diplomats do. Did you want him to punch Saddam in the >> face when he met with him? >It would have been a start. Hmm. Funny how people who supported diplomacy over liberation are suddenly arguing against diplomacy. >Strange how you were kissing up to Saddam even after he'd gassed his own >folk and the Iranians, and murdered thousands more. Still, I don't suppose >much more can be expected when you bow down before the altar of mammon. Nobody "kissed up to Saddam," except Jacques Chirac. The US condemned Saddam Hussein repeatedly. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:43:22-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons >inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to >bomb them. The weapons inspectors weren't going to find anything. They were searching an area the size of Calirnornia and Oregon, looking for weapons that could be inside houses, buiried in the ground or who knows where else. The inspectors were looking for a needle in a heystack. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-21 15:43:22-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons >inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to >bomb them. The weapons inspectors weren't going to find anything. They were searching an area the size of Calirnornia and Oregon, looking for weapons that could be inside houses, buiried in the ground or who knows where else. The inspectors were looking for a needle in a heystack. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-21 15:46:45-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the >weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? When the UN went looking for weapons inspectors, was their first stop the umpires union for Major League Baseball? -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-21 15:46:45-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the >weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? When the UN went looking for weapons inspectors, was their first stop the umpires union for Major League Baseball? -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-21 15:48:19-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b7vao5$4r4em$3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >"NickKnight" <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >> >>bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >> >>been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. >> You mean other options like economic sanctions? Countries >> like France and others made sure that sanctions wouldn't work. >> Too many countries were tripping over themselves to >> violate sanctions and sell to Iraq. >> Have you looked at figures on how much SH owed France? >> Gee I wonder why France opposed this war? >They opposed the war for some of the same reasons the US used its veto >over 30 times were Israel is concerned. Because the anti-Israel resolutions were based on anti-Semitism? No, I don't think that's why France opposed the liberation of Iraq. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:48:19-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b7vao5$4r4em$3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >"NickKnight" <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>but you have to understand that other options could have been explored - >> >>bombing the country to shit wasn't the only (and in the end, it hasn't even >> >>been the *correct*) way to kill hussein. >> You mean other options like economic sanctions? Countries >> like France and others made sure that sanctions wouldn't work. >> Too many countries were tripping over themselves to >> violate sanctions and sell to Iraq. >> Have you looked at figures on how much SH owed France? >> Gee I wonder why France opposed this war? >They opposed the war for some of the same reasons the US used its veto >over 30 times were Israel is concerned. Because the anti-Israel resolutions were based on anti-Semitism? No, I don't think that's why France opposed the liberation of Iraq. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:52:16-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume >> you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now removing >> them instead. >So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >and put on trial? When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:52:16-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I assume >> you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're now removing >> them instead. >So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >and put on trial? When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:54:27-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <4fc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wroth: >>>"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message >>>> > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. All I >>>> > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying that >>>> > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years of >>>> > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein started >>>> > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would you have >>>> > done to make Hussein step down. >>>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>>So name them. That's all I'm asking. >> I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? >For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons >inspectors to do their jobs. Nope. Not a reasonable option. For one thing, it was ineffective, both logically and empirically. For another, it would have left Saddam Hussein in power. > Rather than attempting to >bomb them. Who bombed weapons inspectors? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:54:27-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <4fc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel David Glenn Misner <kidmiracleman@netzon.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:39:55 GMT, "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wroth: >>>"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> "Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message >>>> > People keep saying that! Oh the options! No one will name them. All I >>>> > hear is there are other ways to solve this. Well instead of saying that >>>> > over and over again, name the ways. We have already given 12 years of >>>> > chances, tried to negotiate, had inspections, not to mention Hussein started >>>> > using weapons he claimed he didn't have. I want to hear what would you have >>>> > done to make Hussein step down. >>>> Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess >>>> you are only listening to US propaganda. >>>So name them. That's all I'm asking. >> I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? >For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons >inspectors to do their jobs. Nope. Not a reasonable option. For one thing, it was ineffective, both logically and empirically. For another, it would have left Saddam Hussein in power. > Rather than attempting to >bomb them. Who bombed weapons inspectors? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:58:00-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net>, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >> > great crowd pleaser. >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, >> right now. >Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. >Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. Really? So the people protesting in the streets have all been murdered? Or are you just an idiot? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:58:00-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net>, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >> > great crowd pleaser. >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, >> right now. >Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. >Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. Really? So the people protesting in the streets have all been murdered? Or are you just an idiot? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:59:40-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <t0d08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in >>> "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >>>> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >>>> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >>>> > a great crowd pleaser. >>>> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >>>> crowds, right now. >>> Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >>> same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. >Other than having no water, no food, no electricity, having to avoid >bands of armed thugs, etc. Other than having water, food, electricity, and no bands of armed thugs, etc. >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >been told to leave by the Iraqi people. They haven't. >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. >The looters appears able to operate with impunity, this was hardly >the case before. Wrong. Did you see those palaces? Built by the looters "before." With impunity. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 15:59:40-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <t0d08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in >>> "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >>>> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >>>> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >>>> > a great crowd pleaser. >>>> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >>>> crowds, right now. >>> Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >>> same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. >Other than having no water, no food, no electricity, having to avoid >bands of armed thugs, etc. Other than having water, food, electricity, and no bands of armed thugs, etc. >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >been told to leave by the Iraqi people. They haven't. >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. >The looters appears able to operate with impunity, this was hardly >the case before. Wrong. Did you see those palaces? Built by the looters "before." With impunity. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 16:11:41-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:8bGoa.8564$xR4.1313@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7va9n$4m56u$3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad > > with power > > > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about > > the only > > > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based > > on those > > > notions. > > > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > > nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used "good = > > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > > it. > > Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the truth, > and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term. No, polls still show he has majority support in the current foreign policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the Post's poll supported that view.

2003-04-21 16:11:41-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:8bGoa.8564$xR4.1313@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7va9n$4m56u$3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being mad > > with power > > > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just about > > the only > > > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies based > > on those > > > notions. > > > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > > nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used "good = > > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > > it. > > Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the truth, > and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term. No, polls still show he has majority support in the current foreign policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the Post's poll supported that view.

2003-04-21 16:20:20-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363BEED3B1FFmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9n$4m56u > $3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > > nations use different definitions. > > You're right, but only to an extent. The extent is where said "other > countries" pose a present or possible future threat to the US. > > In that case, those definitions will be jammed down someone's throat. Ah, so anyone who may present a threat to the US is evil, got it. > > > Canada, for example, used "good = > > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > > it. > > Truth be told, we hardly noticed. If the Canadians think we "can't stop > bitching about it" then that's just an illustration of their collective > navel-gazing. It wasn't all that important, since Canada had the good > manners to keep their opinions to themselves, unlike the French. Obviously you are unaware of the actions of your own government. The US ambassador to Canada has criticised and reprimanded our government at every public opportunity for the last month, throwing oil on an already hot political fire. There was actually discussion of expelling him from the country, but we can't since he's acting under orders from his superiors (and not just guilty of having a big mouth).

2003-04-21 16:20:20-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns9363BEED3B1FFmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9n$4m56u > $3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" on > > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > > nations use different definitions. > > You're right, but only to an extent. The extent is where said "other > countries" pose a present or possible future threat to the US. > > In that case, those definitions will be jammed down someone's throat. Ah, so anyone who may present a threat to the US is evil, got it. > > > Canada, for example, used "good = > > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching about > > it. > > Truth be told, we hardly noticed. If the Canadians think we "can't stop > bitching about it" then that's just an illustration of their collective > navel-gazing. It wasn't all that important, since Canada had the good > manners to keep their opinions to themselves, unlike the French. Obviously you are unaware of the actions of your own government. The US ambassador to Canada has criticised and reprimanded our government at every public opportunity for the last month, throwing oil on an already hot political fire. There was actually discussion of expelling him from the country, but we can't since he's acting under orders from his superiors (and not just guilty of having a big mouth).

2003-04-21 16:20:49-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Laz" <nospam@wanted.here> wrote in message news:pan.2003.04.20.23.48.48.173081@wanted.here... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:13:45 +0000, The Black Sheep wrote: > > > > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > > > >> If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole > > security > >> council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources > > and > >> permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > > Rwandan > >> genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, > > where > >> it generally vetoes everything that moves. > > > > The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but > > France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how > > one-sided public opinion can be! > > And France has used its veto 18 times. Overall, the 5 permanent members > of the security council has vetoed over 250 proposals. > > Do you have some sort of point? Yes, but apparently it escapes you.

2003-04-21 16:20:49-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Laz" <nospam@wanted.here> wrote in message news:pan.2003.04.20.23.48.48.173081@wanted.here... > On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:13:45 +0000, The Black Sheep wrote: > > > > "Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message > > news:1050776233.21985.0@demeter.uk.clara.net... > > > >> If you had the nerve to look it up you'd find that the whole > > security > >> council stalled and refused the UN commander in the area resources > > and > >> permission to act. The *WHOLE* security council is complicite in the > > Rwandan > >> genocide, and last time I looked the US sat on the security council, > > where > >> it generally vetoes everything that moves. > > > > The US has used its veto in the Security Council over 30 times, but > > France threatens to use it re: Iraq and they become "evil". Funny how > > one-sided public opinion can be! > > And France has used its veto 18 times. Overall, the 5 permanent members > of the security council has vetoed over 250 proposals. > > Do you have some sort of point? Yes, but apparently it escapes you.

2003-04-21 16:27:23+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Mike Craney wrote: > > Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the > weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? [snip] > Read the friggin resumes of the weapons inspectors. Is there ANYTHING > in those resumes that leads you to believe that have the police and > detective skills necessary to FIND something that is hidden? Erm, the past history of UN inspections shows that it's pretty good at finding things that Saddam would rather have hidden. Wasn't it something like 90% of WMDs proven to be destroyed since the last Gulf War? With the other 10% missing, due to administrative errors according to the Iraqis. Even marginals like that pathetic drone plane (made of balsa or somesuch), missiles which may conceivably be strapped together, and missiles which exceeded the maximum range by 10% were rooted out and either destroyed or in the process of being destroyed. And if they're so ineffective, I presume that you think that the current USMOVIC will be able to find the missing 10%? Insiders aren't so sure; hence the team's whopping increase in size to 1000 investigators. One source says that they'll need to find the Iraqi scientists to lead them to the weapons. Another says that, with the loss of documentation in the looting in the big cities, they've lost important evidence that may lead to the smoking gun. Perhaps they'll need to recruit those former members of UNMOVIC (the ones you thought were unqualified) that they'd courted earlier this month. > The shit is there. Both the CIA and UK Intelligence says it is. I > live in the US. I hire those guys to KNOW, and to make tough > decisions based on that knowledge to insure my safety and the safety > of my kids. Simple line of reasoning, to anyone who can reason. The intelligence guys may know stuff. However, I wouldn't trust them to tell us the truth, and even if they do, the government may still twist the evidence. The evidence put forward by Powell, Blair and others was thoroughly discredited before the first shots were fired. IIRC our intelligence guys forged the letters which said that Saddam was wanting to buy uranium from Niger; forgeries which the UN team thought were laughably amateurish (signed by an official who'd left the post 10+ years earlier). The inside information leaked by Powell was largely derived from a student's essay found on the internet (another product of our wonderful MI6). The CIA was publicly distancing themselves from government insinuations that Saddam was linked with OBL. And as for their effectiveness; the CIA lacked _any_ contacts in Afghanistan after the 911 incident. They didn't have _anyone_ who could give them up to date information on the situation on the ground. And not only in Afghanistan; this was the case in most of the rest of the world. The obsession with high-tech surveillance and gadgetry had led to the neglect of human information, which was less objective, more dangerous, but also considerably more rewarding. The Russians were said to have been astonished by the US approach to intelligence-gathering. > So, your "for starters" reasoning is herein and officially nuked. > Give us another one. The Labour MPs may yet be mollified, even if no WMDs are found, if Iraq is settled as per his promises, as a genuine democracy with the freedom to tell us to bugger off. And if the Israel-Palestine situation is sorted out with a degree of justice for the Palestinians. But, as seems increasingly possible, no WMDs are found, Iraq is turned into a US colony with orders to pump out the oil to the US and its allies (including the UK), and the Israel-Palestine issue is stymied yet again, Blair will be facing serious and serial revolts. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-21 16:27:23+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


Mike Craney wrote: > > Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the > weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? [snip] > Read the friggin resumes of the weapons inspectors. Is there ANYTHING > in those resumes that leads you to believe that have the police and > detective skills necessary to FIND something that is hidden? Erm, the past history of UN inspections shows that it's pretty good at finding things that Saddam would rather have hidden. Wasn't it something like 90% of WMDs proven to be destroyed since the last Gulf War? With the other 10% missing, due to administrative errors according to the Iraqis. Even marginals like that pathetic drone plane (made of balsa or somesuch), missiles which may conceivably be strapped together, and missiles which exceeded the maximum range by 10% were rooted out and either destroyed or in the process of being destroyed. And if they're so ineffective, I presume that you think that the current USMOVIC will be able to find the missing 10%? Insiders aren't so sure; hence the team's whopping increase in size to 1000 investigators. One source says that they'll need to find the Iraqi scientists to lead them to the weapons. Another says that, with the loss of documentation in the looting in the big cities, they've lost important evidence that may lead to the smoking gun. Perhaps they'll need to recruit those former members of UNMOVIC (the ones you thought were unqualified) that they'd courted earlier this month. > The shit is there. Both the CIA and UK Intelligence says it is. I > live in the US. I hire those guys to KNOW, and to make tough > decisions based on that knowledge to insure my safety and the safety > of my kids. Simple line of reasoning, to anyone who can reason. The intelligence guys may know stuff. However, I wouldn't trust them to tell us the truth, and even if they do, the government may still twist the evidence. The evidence put forward by Powell, Blair and others was thoroughly discredited before the first shots were fired. IIRC our intelligence guys forged the letters which said that Saddam was wanting to buy uranium from Niger; forgeries which the UN team thought were laughably amateurish (signed by an official who'd left the post 10+ years earlier). The inside information leaked by Powell was largely derived from a student's essay found on the internet (another product of our wonderful MI6). The CIA was publicly distancing themselves from government insinuations that Saddam was linked with OBL. And as for their effectiveness; the CIA lacked _any_ contacts in Afghanistan after the 911 incident. They didn't have _anyone_ who could give them up to date information on the situation on the ground. And not only in Afghanistan; this was the case in most of the rest of the world. The obsession with high-tech surveillance and gadgetry had led to the neglect of human information, which was less objective, more dangerous, but also considerably more rewarding. The Russians were said to have been astonished by the US approach to intelligence-gathering. > So, your "for starters" reasoning is herein and officially nuked. > Give us another one. The Labour MPs may yet be mollified, even if no WMDs are found, if Iraq is settled as per his promises, as a genuine democracy with the freedom to tell us to bugger off. And if the Israel-Palestine situation is sorted out with a degree of justice for the Palestinians. But, as seems increasingly possible, no WMDs are found, Iraq is turned into a US colony with orders to pump out the oil to the US and its allies (including the UK), and the Israel-Palestine issue is stymied yet again, Blair will be facing serious and serial revolts. Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-21 16:39:23-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b7vao4$4r4em$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> CNN is the most balanced of the major cable networks right now. It shows the >> pro-US people and the anti-US people. It discusses the positive side and >> negative side of what the US is doing. >It may be the most balanced in the US (I hate to think that's true), >but its rather pathetic compared to other news sources. Contrast CNN >reports to BBC and CBC, for a start. >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2929411.stm Indeed. Do contrast CNN to the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation (tm- Andrew Sullivan). CNN is liberally biased, but at least they make a pretense of objectivity. Unlike the BBC. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 16:39:23-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b7vao4$4r4em$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message >> CNN is the most balanced of the major cable networks right now. It shows the >> pro-US people and the anti-US people. It discusses the positive side and >> negative side of what the US is doing. >It may be the most balanced in the US (I hate to think that's true), >but its rather pathetic compared to other news sources. Contrast CNN >reports to BBC and CBC, for a start. >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2929411.stm Indeed. Do contrast CNN to the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation (tm- Andrew Sullivan). CNN is liberally biased, but at least they make a pretense of objectivity. Unlike the BBC. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-21 16:44:48-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:39:23 -0400, David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >In article <b7vao4$4r4em$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >>"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >>> CNN is the most balanced of the major cable networks right now. It shows the >>> pro-US people and the anti-US people. It discusses the positive side and >>> negative side of what the US is doing. > >>It may be the most balanced in the US (I hate to think that's true), >>but its rather pathetic compared to other news sources. Contrast CNN >>reports to BBC and CBC, for a start. > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2929411.stm > >Indeed. Do contrast CNN to the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation (tm- >Andrew Sullivan). CNN is liberally biased, but at least they make a >pretense of objectivity. Unlike the BBC. There were more then a few tongue-in-cheek references to the BBS hiring the Iraqi Information Minister after the war. :) Baghdad Bob would have been just the ticket for the BBC. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 16:44:48-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:39:23 -0400, David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >In article <b7vao4$4r4em$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >>"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > >>> CNN is the most balanced of the major cable networks right now. It shows the >>> pro-US people and the anti-US people. It discusses the positive side and >>> negative side of what the US is doing. > >>It may be the most balanced in the US (I hate to think that's true), >>but its rather pathetic compared to other news sources. Contrast CNN >>reports to BBC and CBC, for a start. > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2929411.stm > >Indeed. Do contrast CNN to the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation (tm- >Andrew Sullivan). CNN is liberally biased, but at least they make a >pretense of objectivity. Unlike the BBC. There were more then a few tongue-in-cheek references to the BBS hiring the Iraqi Information Minister after the war. :) Baghdad Bob would have been just the ticket for the BBC. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 16:45:02-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message news:%RIoa.21855$gK.132478@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess > > you are only listening to US propaganda. > > > > > > So name them. That's all I'm asking. Why should I have to do the work? There are plenty of anti-war web sites out there! However, here is brief (and by no means complete) list of preferred alternatives to THIS war. (Note that I do not necessarily approve any war.) This is a brief version of things I have posted previously in other forums. Steps to follow before making a decision: 1) Allow the new round of inspections to continue. There was no reason not to give Blix the few more months he wanted. (Oh, we moved our troops in too early, whine whine whine... ) 2) Based on the results from the new round of inspections, consider a more aggressive inspection system, and/or consider requiring the US to hand over some of the evidence they claimed to have so that banned weapons could be found. 3) At this point we either have solid proof that Iraq had banned weapons, we have no evidence of such weapons, or we have a series of questionable weapons amounting to a breach. Now it is time to make a decision as to the future. Option A: Do nothing. Iraq was not a threat to anyone, and if no banned weapons were be found by aggressive searches and if Iraq continued to (more or less) cooperate than this situation is perfectly acceptable to me. Saddam would continue to be a relatively tame dictator and the world could deal with more serious problems, like Korea. (Before you give me some boo-hoo about the plight of the Iraqi people-- but are more than willing to sacrifice people in the war, of course-- I am not one of those people who sees a brighter future for Iraq now, nor do I approve of the decision to kill people because one country claims it can impose a better government than the previous dictator.) Option B: Further sanctions, restriction, etc. This is a good option if Iraq did have some questionable weapons, but nothing so damning that war was seen as the only option. Possibilities could include very aggressive inspections, very restricted trade, etc. Further sanctions against Iraq would be problematic, as Iraqis already lived under poverty in part due to sanctions. The current system, however, could have been tightened to remove power and control from Saddam himself (for example removing the oil-for-food program from his administration and placing it directly under the control of US overseers). Already about 60% of Iraqis depended on the oil-for-food program for basic necessities. Sanctions against countries trading with Iraq would also be called for. Option C: Use military force. This would only be acceptable if Iraq was clearly in breach of UN resolutions. This would only be acceptable if the war was lead by an international coalition with UN approval; if humanitarian aid was in place before the war started; if policing and support services were ready in time; and if a clear plan for Iraq's future was in place and approved both my other Arab states and by the UN. Option D: Stalemate. Ok, this is not really an option as such. If no decision could be made at the Security Council then no action could be taken against Iraq. The mature thing to do here is to respect the will of the global community (you can't always have thing your war, life sucks that war). Should the US have been unable to do that and still wanted to impose its wish on the world, then the honourable thing to do would be for the US to withdraw from the UN and thus no longer be bound by the UN Charter. So that's the short answer to the "what was better than this war" question. Given what we knew before the war started and what we have learned since, it is extremely unlikely I would have supported any military force against Iraq. I have yet to see any reason to.

2003-04-21 16:45:02-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Tazana" <somewhere@somehow.com> wrote in message news:%RIoa.21855$gK.132478@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b7va9m$4m56u$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > Wrong, many people have listed alternatives in many forums, I guess > > you are only listening to US propaganda. > > > > > > So name them. That's all I'm asking. Why should I have to do the work? There are plenty of anti-war web sites out there! However, here is brief (and by no means complete) list of preferred alternatives to THIS war. (Note that I do not necessarily approve any war.) This is a brief version of things I have posted previously in other forums. Steps to follow before making a decision: 1) Allow the new round of inspections to continue. There was no reason not to give Blix the few more months he wanted. (Oh, we moved our troops in too early, whine whine whine... ) 2) Based on the results from the new round of inspections, consider a more aggressive inspection system, and/or consider requiring the US to hand over some of the evidence they claimed to have so that banned weapons could be found. 3) At this point we either have solid proof that Iraq had banned weapons, we have no evidence of such weapons, or we have a series of questionable weapons amounting to a breach. Now it is time to make a decision as to the future. Option A: Do nothing. Iraq was not a threat to anyone, and if no banned weapons were be found by aggressive searches and if Iraq continued to (more or less) cooperate than this situation is perfectly acceptable to me. Saddam would continue to be a relatively tame dictator and the world could deal with more serious problems, like Korea. (Before you give me some boo-hoo about the plight of the Iraqi people-- but are more than willing to sacrifice people in the war, of course-- I am not one of those people who sees a brighter future for Iraq now, nor do I approve of the decision to kill people because one country claims it can impose a better government than the previous dictator.) Option B: Further sanctions, restriction, etc. This is a good option if Iraq did have some questionable weapons, but nothing so damning that war was seen as the only option. Possibilities could include very aggressive inspections, very restricted trade, etc. Further sanctions against Iraq would be problematic, as Iraqis already lived under poverty in part due to sanctions. The current system, however, could have been tightened to remove power and control from Saddam himself (for example removing the oil-for-food program from his administration and placing it directly under the control of US overseers). Already about 60% of Iraqis depended on the oil-for-food program for basic necessities. Sanctions against countries trading with Iraq would also be called for. Option C: Use military force. This would only be acceptable if Iraq was clearly in breach of UN resolutions. This would only be acceptable if the war was lead by an international coalition with UN approval; if humanitarian aid was in place before the war started; if policing and support services were ready in time; and if a clear plan for Iraq's future was in place and approved both my other Arab states and by the UN. Option D: Stalemate. Ok, this is not really an option as such. If no decision could be made at the Security Council then no action could be taken against Iraq. The mature thing to do here is to respect the will of the global community (you can't always have thing your war, life sucks that war). Should the US have been unable to do that and still wanted to impose its wish on the world, then the honourable thing to do would be for the US to withdraw from the UN and thus no longer be bound by the UN Charter. So that's the short answer to the "what was better than this war" question. Given what we knew before the war started and what we have learned since, it is extremely unlikely I would have supported any military force against Iraq. I have yet to see any reason to.

2003-04-21 16:51:08-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b80c89$4tkn0$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de... > Try the above as a surmise of what might have happened had the joint > Franco-Russian proposal been accepted by the Anglo-Americans. If we'd > waited for another 2-3 months the Museum of Antiquities might still be > intact. A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, and he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his support up. Quite the move, politically speaking.

2003-04-21 16:51:08-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b80c89$4tkn0$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de... > Try the above as a surmise of what might have happened had the joint > Franco-Russian proposal been accepted by the Anglo-Americans. If we'd > waited for another 2-3 months the Museum of Antiquities might still be > intact. A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, and he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his support up. Quite the move, politically speaking.

2003-04-21 17:06:24-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"NickKnight" <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:tvh8av8djk9r7eo5ojtbr92fgaom7oivjf@4ax.com... > On "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Like many others, I suspect you think "the UN" = "The UN Security > >Council". > The UN=The United Nations, an organization of countries, 99% > of whom hate the United States and would elect SH as their > president in a heartbeat and worship the ground that OBL > walks on. That's almost funny.

2003-04-21 17:06:24-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"NickKnight" <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:tvh8av8djk9r7eo5ojtbr92fgaom7oivjf@4ax.com... > On "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Like many others, I suspect you think "the UN" = "The UN Security > >Council". > The UN=The United Nations, an organization of countries, 99% > of whom hate the United States and would elect SH as their > president in a heartbeat and worship the ground that OBL > walks on. That's almost funny.

2003-04-21 17:08:06-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current foreign > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the Post's > > poll supported that view. > > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to do) then > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, even if their policies sometimes make me cringe.

2003-04-21 17:08:06-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (The Black Sheep <blacksheep667@hotmail.com>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current foreign > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the Post's > > poll supported that view. > > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to do) then > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, even if their policies sometimes make me cringe.

2003-04-21 17:10:17-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:b80c89$4tkn0$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de... > >> Try the above as a surmise of what might have happened had the joint >> Franco-Russian proposal been accepted by the Anglo-Americans. If >we'd >> waited for another 2-3 months the Museum of Antiquities might still >be >> intact. > >A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more >patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based on >political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, and >he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off >his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American >public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his >support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. > What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we should have waited for the next century to roll around? I agree there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 17:10:17-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:b80c89$4tkn0$1@ID-134236.news.dfncis.de... > >> Try the above as a surmise of what might have happened had the joint >> Franco-Russian proposal been accepted by the Anglo-Americans. If >we'd >> waited for another 2-3 months the Museum of Antiquities might still >be >> intact. > >A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more >patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based on >political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, and >he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off >his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American >public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his >support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. > What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we should have waited for the next century to roll around? I agree there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 18:08:11-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <MPG.190c7f17f462ec4898a03f@netnews.attbi.com>, tyger@never.invalid says... > Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, kidmiracleman@netzon.net wrote in > article <gjd4avg1cncg9iddr495ik69u45ooh88bf@4ax.com>... > > > > But Israel is not in Palestinian land > > > > Is that so? Well, if you believe that Israel can annex West Bank > territorry with impunity, then you are correct. Since it is annexed > then ipso jure Israel is not on Palestinian land. I fear that the > Palestinians would beg to differ with out on this point. I've decided to annex the whole damn Middle East, myself. Everyone has four days to get out.

2003-04-21 18:08:11-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <MPG.190c7f17f462ec4898a03f@netnews.attbi.com>, tyger@never.invalid says... > Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, kidmiracleman@netzon.net wrote in > article <gjd4avg1cncg9iddr495ik69u45ooh88bf@4ax.com>... > > > > But Israel is not in Palestinian land > > > > Is that so? Well, if you believe that Israel can annex West Bank > territorry with impunity, then you are correct. Since it is annexed > then ipso jure Israel is not on Palestinian land. I fear that the > Palestinians would beg to differ with out on this point. I've decided to annex the whole damn Middle East, myself. Everyone has four days to get out.

2003-04-21 18:24:09+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns93644B9912489mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > news:4fc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > > >> I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? > > > > For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons > > inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to > > bomb them. > > Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the > weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? > > What's your job? Assuming you're not a cardiologist, if you worked for > the UN, and they told you to go insert an aortic stent on the President > of the United States, is there some reason the people of the United > States should let you perform heart surgery on their President, you who > have never done a heart operation before in your life? > > Read the friggin resumes of the weapons inspectors. Is there ANYTHING in > those resumes that leads you to believe that have the police and > detective skills necessary to FIND something that is hidden? > > I'll save you the time. The answer is NO! These are guys who are trained > to be ESCORTED INTO a chemical or pharmaceutical production facility, or > a nuke power facility, and determine if it is being used for nefarious > purposes. The are also excellent accountants. They can assay a list of > stuff you admit you have, check your facilties, and determine if your > list is accurate or not. > > Detective work is not in their job description. If you are a UN arms > inspector, you DEPEND on your host country cooperating to the extent that > they show you the sites and materiale and allow you to determine > compliance. Blix himself admitted that if the Iraqis wanted to be > uncooperative, it was possible to hide it such that his team would NEVER > find it. And, not ONE of the vascillating countries (France, Russia, and > their ilk) EVER claimed that Iraq was fully cooperating. In fact, they > said the opposite. > > It was a damn shell game, one that too many countries in the world were > all too happy to play, since it was lining their pockets with money to do > so. > > The shit is there. Both the CIA and UK Intelligence says it is. I live in > the US. I hire those guys to KNOW, and to make tough decisions based on > that knowledge to insure my safety and the safety of my kids. Simple line > of reasoning, to anyone who can reason. > > So, your "for starters" reasoning is herein and officially nuked. Give us > another one. > > Mike > Very good thank you Mike. Also, I believe I asked for alternatives, not for things we have already tried. We did let the inspectors do their job for months. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-21 18:24:09+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Xns93644B9912489mcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > news:4fc08b.jc7.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk: > > > >> I am asking too. Will you please Name them??? > > > > For starters Britain and the US allowing the weapons > > inspectors to do their jobs. Rather than attempting to > > bomb them. > > Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the > weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? > > What's your job? Assuming you're not a cardiologist, if you worked for > the UN, and they told you to go insert an aortic stent on the President > of the United States, is there some reason the people of the United > States should let you perform heart surgery on their President, you who > have never done a heart operation before in your life? > > Read the friggin resumes of the weapons inspectors. Is there ANYTHING in > those resumes that leads you to believe that have the police and > detective skills necessary to FIND something that is hidden? > > I'll save you the time. The answer is NO! These are guys who are trained > to be ESCORTED INTO a chemical or pharmaceutical production facility, or > a nuke power facility, and determine if it is being used for nefarious > purposes. The are also excellent accountants. They can assay a list of > stuff you admit you have, check your facilties, and determine if your > list is accurate or not. > > Detective work is not in their job description. If you are a UN arms > inspector, you DEPEND on your host country cooperating to the extent that > they show you the sites and materiale and allow you to determine > compliance. Blix himself admitted that if the Iraqis wanted to be > uncooperative, it was possible to hide it such that his team would NEVER > find it. And, not ONE of the vascillating countries (France, Russia, and > their ilk) EVER claimed that Iraq was fully cooperating. In fact, they > said the opposite. > > It was a damn shell game, one that too many countries in the world were > all too happy to play, since it was lining their pockets with money to do > so. > > The shit is there. Both the CIA and UK Intelligence says it is. I live in > the US. I hire those guys to KNOW, and to make tough decisions based on > that knowledge to insure my safety and the safety of my kids. Simple line > of reasoning, to anyone who can reason. > > So, your "for starters" reasoning is herein and officially nuked. Give us > another one. > > Mike > Very good thank you Mike. Also, I believe I asked for alternatives, not for things we have already tried. We did let the inspectors do their job for months. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-21 18:24:36-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >EGK wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more >>> patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based >>> on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, >>> and >>> he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off >>> his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American >>> public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his >>> support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. >>> >> >> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent >> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we >> should have waited for the next century to roll around? > >Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with the >resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to be blocked, >bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, probably unanimously backed >by the Security Council, and a majority of the neighbouring countries. After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone believe this time would be any different? > >> I agree >> there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties >> them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported >> them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. > >If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a point of >reference? You do know that American money has funded a terrorist struggle >that has killed over 3500 British citizens so far? That you've waited for >over 20 years before blocking it? I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's private money is a lot different then the federal government giving money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and funneling money to groups like bin laden. >Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to this >present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant their >continued existence? Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 18:24:36-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >EGK wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more >>> patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based >>> on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, >>> and >>> he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off >>> his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American >>> public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his >>> support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. >>> >> >> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent >> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we >> should have waited for the next century to roll around? > >Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with the >resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to be blocked, >bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, probably unanimously backed >by the Security Council, and a majority of the neighbouring countries. After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone believe this time would be any different? > >> I agree >> there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties >> them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported >> them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. > >If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a point of >reference? You do know that American money has funded a terrorist struggle >that has killed over 3500 British citizens so far? That you've waited for >over 20 years before blocking it? I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's private money is a lot different then the federal government giving money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and funneling money to groups like bin laden. >Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to this >present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant their >continued existence? Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 18:44:11-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:29:03 +0000 (UTC), "Kathryn" <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com> wrote: >> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference > >America put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. Not true. >Funded Sadam Hussein when he went to war with Iran. > >Its always a mistake to get all righteous because somewhere along the line >every country has blood on its hands. The best laid plans... You talk as if the US is just sitting back and pulling strings and Saddam Husein or whoever is only doing what we told him. If you want to play those kinds of games then the UK and Neville Chamberlain were really the ones responsible for WWII because they appeased Hitler. Games like that are silly. Ultimately people have to take responsibility for their own actions and quit blaming someone else. The US seems to be the current boogie man that people like to blame. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 18:44:11-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:29:03 +0000 (UTC), "Kathryn" <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com> wrote: >> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference > >America put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. Not true. >Funded Sadam Hussein when he went to war with Iran. > >Its always a mistake to get all righteous because somewhere along the line >every country has blood on its hands. The best laid plans... You talk as if the US is just sitting back and pulling strings and Saddam Husein or whoever is only doing what we told him. If you want to play those kinds of games then the UK and Neville Chamberlain were really the ones responsible for WWII because they appeased Hitler. Games like that are silly. Ultimately people have to take responsibility for their own actions and quit blaming someone else. The US seems to be the current boogie man that people like to blame. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 19:45:09-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 22 Apr 2003 00:28:31 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: forge bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net >>Date: 4/21/2003 5:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <bl29avs90dabk6p2b987gnqfr4qnm5mntt@4ax.com> >> >>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:20:43 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" >><coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> >>>> Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. >>> >>>Yaay! Great. The genocide was far less than for any other country the US >>>has invaded! >> >>You use that word "genocide" a lot. I don't think it means what you >>think it means. </inigomontoya> >> >>"Genocide" means someone set out to eliminate an entire race from the >>planet. I seriously doubt that's what we were doing when we >>accidentally hurt a few civilians while "freeing" them from their >>dictator. >> > >Forge, I see your point, but in the neighborhood of 1300 isn't a few. If 1300 >people in the US died in a war on our land, it would be a huge deal. And we're >a far bigger country. > >It's a shame that with all of our advancements, mankind has no better way to >fight a war than drop bombs. > > >Rose >between sigs > > > Like particle beams or plasma rifles? X-ray lasers? Would the dead be any less dead if they were killed with fancy new sci-fi weapons? I know what you mean, but this is war after all. This is the most advanced war fought to date. I found this on the internet and thought you might want to see it. The Sunday New York Times had a full-page graph comparing various elements of the six US wars of the last century, beginning with World War I and ending with the war against Saddam Hussein. Two of the more amazing statistics were dealt with precision guided weapons and the effort it took to hit a 60 x 100 foot building with a bomb. Precision-guided weapons were not in general use through Vietnam, where less than one percent of weapons fit this category. In the Gulf War 9% of weapons were precision guided. In the current war that figure rose to 67%. And just how hard is it to bomb that 60X100 foot building? In World War I it would have taken aobut 3,024 strikes. In World War II you would have to toss about 550 bombs to hit that building. During Vietnam it would take 44 bombs. In the Gulf War, 6 bombs. The War in Iraq? Just one

2003-04-21 19:45:09-05:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Rick Ramey <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 22 Apr 2003 00:28:31 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >>From: forge bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net >>Date: 4/21/2003 5:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time >>Message-id: <bl29avs90dabk6p2b987gnqfr4qnm5mntt@4ax.com> >> >>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:20:43 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" >><coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> >>>> Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. >>> >>>Yaay! Great. The genocide was far less than for any other country the US >>>has invaded! >> >>You use that word "genocide" a lot. I don't think it means what you >>think it means. </inigomontoya> >> >>"Genocide" means someone set out to eliminate an entire race from the >>planet. I seriously doubt that's what we were doing when we >>accidentally hurt a few civilians while "freeing" them from their >>dictator. >> > >Forge, I see your point, but in the neighborhood of 1300 isn't a few. If 1300 >people in the US died in a war on our land, it would be a huge deal. And we're >a far bigger country. > >It's a shame that with all of our advancements, mankind has no better way to >fight a war than drop bombs. > > >Rose >between sigs > > > Like particle beams or plasma rifles? X-ray lasers? Would the dead be any less dead if they were killed with fancy new sci-fi weapons? I know what you mean, but this is war after all. This is the most advanced war fought to date. I found this on the internet and thought you might want to see it. The Sunday New York Times had a full-page graph comparing various elements of the six US wars of the last century, beginning with World War I and ending with the war against Saddam Hussein. Two of the more amazing statistics were dealt with precision guided weapons and the effort it took to hit a 60 x 100 foot building with a bomb. Precision-guided weapons were not in general use through Vietnam, where less than one percent of weapons fit this category. In the Gulf War 9% of weapons were precision guided. In the current war that figure rose to 67%. And just how hard is it to bomb that 60X100 foot building? In World War I it would have taken aobut 3,024 strikes. In World War II you would have to toss about 550 bombs to hit that building. During Vietnam it would take 44 bombs. In the Gulf War, 6 bombs. The War in Iraq? Just one

2003-04-21 20:01:24+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com wrote in article <igi8av4tasl991bthfgspu6asklkc1huij@4ax.com>... > On Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the > >weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? > When the UN went looking for weapons inspectors, was their > first stop the umpires union for Major League Baseball? Are you implying there is something un-American about baseball? Baseball?!? You have now crossed the line. Begone, troll! ;-) -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-04-21 20:01:24+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com wrote in article <igi8av4tasl991bthfgspu6asklkc1huij@4ax.com>... > On Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >Do you have any idea how STUPID you have to be to go with the "let the > >weapons inspectors do their jobs" apologetic? > When the UN went looking for weapons inspectors, was their > first stop the umpires union for Major League Baseball? Are you implying there is something un-American about baseball? Baseball?!? You have now crossed the line. Begone, troll! ;-) -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-04-21 20:21:37-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:20:43 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. > >Yaay! Great. The genocide was far less than for any other country the US >has invaded! You use that word "genocide" a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means. </inigomontoya> "Genocide" means someone set out to eliminate an entire race from the planet. I seriously doubt that's what we were doing when we accidentally hurt a few civilians while "freeing" them from their dictator.

2003-04-21 20:21:37-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:20:43 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. > >Yaay! Great. The genocide was far less than for any other country the US >has invaded! You use that word "genocide" a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means. </inigomontoya> "Genocide" means someone set out to eliminate an entire race from the planet. I seriously doubt that's what we were doing when we accidentally hurt a few civilians while "freeing" them from their dictator.

2003-04-21 20:36:15-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >Because the anti-Israel resolutions were based on anti-Semitism? No, I >don't think that's why France opposed the liberation of Iraq. Want to know why France opposed the liberation of Iraq? Just look at how much SH owed France. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-21 20:36:15-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >Because the anti-Israel resolutions were based on anti-Semitism? No, I >don't think that's why France opposed the liberation of Iraq. Want to know why France opposed the liberation of Iraq? Just look at how much SH owed France. -------------------------------------------- To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-04-21 20:36:59+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > news:8bGoa.8564$xR4.1313@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b7va9n$4m56u$3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being > mad > > > with power > > > > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just > about > > > the only > > > > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies > based > > > on those > > > > notions. > > > > > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" > on > > > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > > > nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used > "good = > > > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching > about > > > it. > > > > Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the > truth, > > and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term. > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current foreign > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the Post's > poll supported that view. If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 20:36:59+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > news:8bGoa.8564$xR4.1313@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b7va9n$4m56u$3@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:iqDoa.32782$ey1.2939709@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > It was sarcasm- I'm sick of people accusing the U.S. of being > mad > > > with power > > > > and having ambitions to take over the world- The U.S. is just > about > > > the only > > > > country that defines good and evil, and guides their policies > based > > > on those > > > > notions. > > > > > > You have no right to impose your definitions of "good" or "evil" > on > > > any other nation, nor do you have the right to bitch when other > > > nations use different definitions. Canada, for example, used > "good = > > > lawful = act within UN", yet your government can't stop bitching > about > > > it. > > > > Please say Prime Minister, instead of Canada. That's much more the > truth, > > and might help us get rid him without waiting out the term. > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current foreign > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the Post's > poll supported that view. If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 20:56:53+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Kathryn <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com>)


uh no one in their right mind is a sadam sympathiser but in ignorance those who were/are pro war seem to think that those against the war are. Life isn't that black and white. I'm sure there are plenty of folks in the US who were pro war with Afghanistan or think that Bush is spot on with his war on terrorism but support the IRA Kathryn "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3EA3122B.F6473839@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > JoAnn Peeler wrote: > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam sympathizers > > so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! > > You're welcome! > >

2003-04-21 20:56:53+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Kathryn <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com>)


uh no one in their right mind is a sadam sympathiser but in ignorance those who were/are pro war seem to think that those against the war are. Life isn't that black and white. I'm sure there are plenty of folks in the US who were pro war with Afghanistan or think that Bush is spot on with his war on terrorism but support the IRA Kathryn "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message news:3EA3122B.F6473839@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > JoAnn Peeler wrote: > > > "Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message > > news:3EA14CC0.45CDA733@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us... > > > Now that the war is over, how shall we win the peace? > > > > > Hey, thanks for the post Tim. This brought out all the Saddam sympathizers > > so I could find them and killfile them all in one place! > > You're welcome! > >

2003-04-21 21:55:00-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:00:35 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >EGK wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >>> EGK wrote: >>>> >>>> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent >>>> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we >>>> should have waited for the next century to roll around? >>> >>> Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with >>> the resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to >>> be blocked, bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, >>> probably unanimously backed by the Security Council, and a majority >>> of the neighbouring countries. >> >> After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone >> believe this time would be any different? > >Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the >sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding >Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It >would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why should we believe it would be any different now? The UN was just as likely to sit on it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd issue another toothless resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was Saddam Hussein's best friend in all of this. >> I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's >> private money is a lot different then the federal government giving >> money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from >> doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to >> stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and >> funneling money to groups like bin laden. > >Perhaps I'm raising this point because, despite your ally's requests to do >so, you didn't prevent *known* members of a terrorist organisation (the most >active in western Europe) from coming to the US to raise funds? Wasn't >there supposed to be some kind of special relationship between Thatcher and >Reagan's US? If the US was the target, and Syria allowed the open funding >of Al-Qaeda cells by known Al-Qaeda members, would you brush it off with the >same logic about the freedom of individuals? Heck, you invaded Iraq despite >the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. I'm not sure point this is supposed to prove. That the US government has often acted hypocritically? That's not news and I don't defend it. >>> Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts >>> to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have >>> meant their continued existence? >> >> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any >> difference > >It would have meant the participation of Arab troops, No, It most certainly would not have. No matter what coalition was formed, the US and the UK would have supplied the firepower just as they always have. We had all the support we needed from arab countries. >who would have lent >visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the >transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting their >(our) shared heritage. You're kidding, right? They can't resist killing one another in the same country what with the Baathists and Shites and Kurds and who knows what else. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 21:55:00-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:00:35 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >EGK wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >>> EGK wrote: >>>> >>>> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent >>>> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we >>>> should have waited for the next century to roll around? >>> >>> Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with >>> the resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to >>> be blocked, bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, >>> probably unanimously backed by the Security Council, and a majority >>> of the neighbouring countries. >> >> After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone >> believe this time would be any different? > >Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the >sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding >Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It >would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why should we believe it would be any different now? The UN was just as likely to sit on it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd issue another toothless resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was Saddam Hussein's best friend in all of this. >> I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's >> private money is a lot different then the federal government giving >> money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from >> doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to >> stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and >> funneling money to groups like bin laden. > >Perhaps I'm raising this point because, despite your ally's requests to do >so, you didn't prevent *known* members of a terrorist organisation (the most >active in western Europe) from coming to the US to raise funds? Wasn't >there supposed to be some kind of special relationship between Thatcher and >Reagan's US? If the US was the target, and Syria allowed the open funding >of Al-Qaeda cells by known Al-Qaeda members, would you brush it off with the >same logic about the freedom of individuals? Heck, you invaded Iraq despite >the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. I'm not sure point this is supposed to prove. That the US government has often acted hypocritically? That's not news and I don't defend it. >>> Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts >>> to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have >>> meant their continued existence? >> >> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any >> difference > >It would have meant the participation of Arab troops, No, It most certainly would not have. No matter what coalition was formed, the US and the UK would have supplied the firepower just as they always have. We had all the support we needed from arab countries. >who would have lent >visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the >transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting their >(our) shared heritage. You're kidding, right? They can't resist killing one another in the same country what with the Baathists and Shites and Kurds and who knows what else. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-21 22:09:05+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message news:nieporen-D472E3.15580021042003@news.fu-berlin.de... > In article <b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net>, > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 > > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see > >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a > >> > great crowd pleaser. > > >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, > >> right now. > > >Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. > >Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > > Really? So the people protesting in the streets have all been murdered? Mark Evans said: >If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >been told to leave by the Iraqi people. You Replied: They haven't. So are the Iraqis protesting the invaders or not? > Or are you just an idiot? Compared to you I'm a frickin' genius, pal! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2965193.stm Caroline

2003-04-21 22:09:05+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message news:nieporen-D472E3.15580021042003@news.fu-berlin.de... > In article <b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net>, > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 > > >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see > >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a > >> > great crowd pleaser. > > >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, > >> right now. > > >Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. > >Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > > Really? So the people protesting in the streets have all been murdered? Mark Evans said: >If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >been told to leave by the Iraqi people. You Replied: They haven't. So are the Iraqis protesting the invaders or not? > Or are you just an idiot? Compared to you I'm a frickin' genius, pal! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2965193.stm Caroline

2003-04-21 22:20:43+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:PLToa.5254$vs2.1175@nwrdny01.gnilink.net... > > > > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in message > news:b80vfm$rj6$1@kermit.esat.net... > > > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > > news:TQRoa.18864$ot1.9461@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > -- > > > That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being > > > eaten. > > > "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > > > news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > > > > > Laz wrote in message ... > > > > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > > > > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation > > whose > > > > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, > then > > > > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > > > > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > > > > > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what > > with > > > > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of > > them. > > > > > > > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten > > the > > > > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > > > > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful > > > military, > > > > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible > to > > > > replace any of what was lost. > > > > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local > > wars > > > > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each > > year > > > > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft > > and > > > > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a > lot > > > of military equipment. > > > > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have > > taken > > > 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the > oil production and export infrastructure. > > > > > > The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn > > > hard not kill civilians, > > > > Yes damn those pesky civilians. Damn them for getting in the way of > > daisycutter and bunker buster bombs. Damn them for going to the market on > > the day the US wanted to drop a bomb on it. Damn those British soldiers > for > > getting in the way of the US's bullets and bombs. And damn those > > journalists for not hanging their sheets out so the US army would know not > > to aim at and kill them too. > > > > Pesky people spoiling the invasion! > > > > Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. Yaay! Great. The genocide was far less than for any other country the US has invaded! >Also you might > want to go back and check the final resolution on who bombed the Market. MarketS - plural. More than one market in Baghdad was bombed. The first one killed 14 the second one killed over 50 Some general in his cushy pr job in Qatar said that one of them was either an American missile or an Iraqi missile... so much for army intelligence! http://www.pacifica.org/programs/peacewatch/ Caroline No to the Profits of Doom

2003-04-21 22:20:43+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Caffeine Cal <coconnell@esatclear.ei>)


"Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message news:PLToa.5254$vs2.1175@nwrdny01.gnilink.net... > > > > "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in message > news:b80vfm$rj6$1@kermit.esat.net... > > > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > > news:TQRoa.18864$ot1.9461@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > -- > > > That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being > > > eaten. > > > "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > > > news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > > > > > Laz wrote in message ... > > > > >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to > > > > >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation > > whose > > > > >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, > then > > > > >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place > > > > >> using the companies of his pals. > > > > > > > > > >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what > > with > > > > >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of > > them. > > > > > > > > Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten > > the > > > > Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. > > > > Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful > > > military, > > > > but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible > to > > > > replace any of what was lost. > > > > Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local > > wars > > > > but not against a country that spends more money on its military each > > year > > > > than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft > > and > > > > wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a > lot > > > of military equipment. > > > > Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have > > taken > > > 4 weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the > oil production and export infrastructure. > > > > > > The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn > > > hard not kill civilians, > > > > Yes damn those pesky civilians. Damn them for getting in the way of > > daisycutter and bunker buster bombs. Damn them for going to the market on > > the day the US wanted to drop a bomb on it. Damn those British soldiers > for > > getting in the way of the US's bullets and bombs. And damn those > > journalists for not hanging their sheets out so the US army would know not > > to aim at and kill them too. > > > > Pesky people spoiling the invasion! > > > > Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. Yaay! Great. The genocide was far less than for any other country the US has invaded! >Also you might > want to go back and check the final resolution on who bombed the Market. MarketS - plural. More than one market in Baghdad was bombed. The first one killed 14 the second one killed over 50 Some general in his cushy pr job in Qatar said that one of them was either an American missile or an Iraqi missile... so much for army intelligence! http://www.pacifica.org/programs/peacewatch/ Caroline No to the Profits of Doom

2003-04-21 22:25:39+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b81mki$58jp9$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > > > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current > foreign > > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the > Post's > > > poll supported that view. > > > > > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > do) then > > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. > > My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, > even if their policies sometimes make me cringe. > As you might have guessed I'm from one of those western provinces (Alberta) and my Canada unfortunately contains Quebec too. But we were soooo close once (just a few more votes) and I can dream for the future. Let Quebec secede and let it drown in it's own policies and not take the rest of us with it. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 22:25:39+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b81mki$58jp9$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > > > > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > > > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current > foreign > > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the > Post's > > > poll supported that view. > > > > > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > do) then > > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. > > My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, > even if their policies sometimes make me cringe. > As you might have guessed I'm from one of those western provinces (Alberta) and my Canada unfortunately contains Quebec too. But we were soooo close once (just a few more votes) and I can dream for the future. Let Quebec secede and let it drown in it's own policies and not take the rest of us with it. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 22:27:05+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Papa Smurf wrote: > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of > view. And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your point? -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-21 22:27:05+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Guig <guig@home>)


Papa Smurf wrote: > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of > view. And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your point? -- Guig GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know. CBFA #1

2003-04-21 22:29:03+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Kathryn <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:amr8avou0fv2u8t7p7unf0udnsdnfaqnh5@4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >EGK wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more > >>> patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based > >>> on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, > >>> and > >>> he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off > >>> his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American > >>> public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his > >>> support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. > >>> > >> > >> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent > >> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we > >> should have waited for the next century to roll around? > > > >Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with the > >resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to be blocked, > >bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, probably unanimously backed > >by the Security Council, and a majority of the neighbouring countries. > > After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone believe > this time would be any different? > > > > >> I agree > >> there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties > >> them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported > >> them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. > > > >If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a point of > >reference? You do know that American money has funded a terrorist struggle > >that has killed over 3500 British citizens so far? That you've waited for > >over 20 years before blocking it? > > I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's private > money is a lot different then the federal government giving money to > terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from doing what they > want with their money? We haven't even been able to stop variousislamic > groups from setting up various charities and funneling money to groups like > bin laden. > > >Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to this > >present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant their > >continued existence? > > Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference > > America put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. Funded Sadam Hussein when he went to war with Iran. Its always a mistake to get all righteous because somewhere along the line every country has blood on its hands.

2003-04-21 22:29:03+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Kathryn <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com>)


"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:amr8avou0fv2u8t7p7unf0udnsdnfaqnh5@4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >EGK wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > >> <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more > >>> patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based > >>> on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, > >>> and > >>> he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off > >>> his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American > >>> public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his > >>> support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. > >>> > >> > >> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent > >> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we > >> should have waited for the next century to roll around? > > > >Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with the > >resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to be blocked, > >bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, probably unanimously backed > >by the Security Council, and a majority of the neighbouring countries. > > After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone believe > this time would be any different? > > > > >> I agree > >> there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties > >> them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported > >> them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. > > > >If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a point of > >reference? You do know that American money has funded a terrorist struggle > >that has killed over 3500 British citizens so far? That you've waited for > >over 20 years before blocking it? > > I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's private > money is a lot different then the federal government giving money to > terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from doing what they > want with their money? We haven't even been able to stop variousislamic > groups from setting up various charities and funneling money to groups like > bin laden. > > >Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to this > >present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant their > >continued existence? > > Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference > > America put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. Funded Sadam Hussein when he went to war with Iran. Its always a mistake to get all righteous because somewhere along the line every country has blood on its hands.

2003-04-21 22:30:44+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050960708.58968.0@doris.uk.clara.net... > Papa Smurf wrote: > > > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > > do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of > > view. > > And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your > point? My point was that I hope "our" PM does last out his term. That he doesn't speak for me, or the bulk of nonQueckers. That was the only point this go round. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 22:30:44+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Guig" <guig@home> wrote in message news:1050960708.58968.0@doris.uk.clara.net... > Papa Smurf wrote: > > > > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > > do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of > > view. > > And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your > point? My point was that I hope "our" PM does last out his term. That he doesn't speak for me, or the bulk of nonQueckers. That was the only point this go round. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-21 23:01:29-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 22 Apr 2003 00:28:31 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>"Genocide" means someone set out to eliminate an entire race from the >>planet. I seriously doubt that's what we were doing when we >>accidentally hurt a few civilians while "freeing" them from their >>dictator. >> > >Forge, I see your point, but in the neighborhood of 1300 isn't a few. If 1300 >people in the US died in a war on our land, it would be a huge deal. And we're >a far bigger country. Yes, you're right of course. But at least there was no Dresden or anything like what happened (intentionally or not) in Vietnam so terribly often. I mean, think of the thousands and millions of soldiers and civilians on all sides killed in other wars. Gah.

2003-04-21 23:01:29-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 22 Apr 2003 00:28:31 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: >>"Genocide" means someone set out to eliminate an entire race from the >>planet. I seriously doubt that's what we were doing when we >>accidentally hurt a few civilians while "freeing" them from their >>dictator. >> > >Forge, I see your point, but in the neighborhood of 1300 isn't a few. If 1300 >people in the US died in a war on our land, it would be a huge deal. And we're >a far bigger country. Yes, you're right of course. But at least there was no Dresden or anything like what happened (intentionally or not) in Vietnam so terribly often. I mean, think of the thousands and millions of soldiers and civilians on all sides killed in other wars. Gah.

2003-04-21 23:03:01-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:36:15 -0400, NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >Want to know why France opposed the liberation of Iraq? >Just look at how much SH owed France. Are you aware that you're repeating yourself quite a bit?

2003-04-21 23:03:01-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:36:15 -0400, NickKnight <NickKnightonFKNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >Want to know why France opposed the liberation of Iraq? >Just look at how much SH owed France. Are you aware that you're repeating yourself quite a bit?

2003-04-21 23:22:03+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


EGK wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more >> patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based >> on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, >> and >> he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off >> his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American >> public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his >> support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. >> > > What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent > waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we > should have waited for the next century to roll around? Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with the resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to be blocked, bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, probably unanimously backed by the Security Council, and a majority of the neighbouring countries. > I agree > there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties > them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported > them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a point of reference? You do know that American money has funded a terrorist struggle that has killed over 3500 British citizens so far? That you've waited for over 20 years before blocking it? Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant their continued existence? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-21 23:22:03+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


EGK wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:51:08 -0400, "The Black Sheep" > <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> A lot of things would have been better had Bush shown a bit more >> patience. Of course it is pretty clear that his decision was based >> on political reasons-- he had already spent money to move in troops, >> and >> he wanted control over the post-war rebuilding contracts to pay off >> his supporters. All this and he completely distracted the American >> public from paying attention to any other issues, while driving his >> support up. Quite the move, politically speaking. >> > > What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent > waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we > should have waited for the next century to roll around? Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with the resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to be blocked, bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, probably unanimously backed by the Security Council, and a majority of the neighbouring countries. > I agree > there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties > them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported > them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a point of reference? You do know that American money has funded a terrorist struggle that has killed over 3500 British citizens so far? That you've waited for over 20 years before blocking it? Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant their continued existence? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-21 23:55:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Jak Crow wrote in message <1jc7avosledger1bov8sumt8f3c51jov8v@4ax.com>... >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:09:21 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>>There is more then one root cause of terrorism in the middle east. It's not >>>just about being poor as some would want you to believe. >> >>I never mentioned poverty in my post. Don't know why you mention this. >> >>>yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. >> >>Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I >>don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible >>debate any time. >> >>>Then we'd get to hear how we're the bad guys because we didn't get their >>>sooner and besides, we aren't giving them enough money to rebuild their >>>countries. > >>You think you can afford to be so >>magnanimous when you're running a budget deficit that will never be >>repaid and the administration is still cutting taxes? > >Ironically, the cutting taxes part would work if our politicians would STOP >SPENDING OUR MONEY LIKE IT'S THEIR OWN FUCKING PIGGY BANK. It's not your money. It's their money. To a politician or a bureaucrat a tax cut is not a case of allowing people to keep more of what they earn: it's "Revenue Loss": taking money away from them that they have already planned to spend. It's stealing from them.

2003-04-21 23:55:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Jak Crow wrote in message <1jc7avosledger1bov8sumt8f3c51jov8v@4ax.com>... >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:09:21 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:00:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>>There is more then one root cause of terrorism in the middle east. It's not >>>just about being poor as some would want you to believe. >> >>I never mentioned poverty in my post. Don't know why you mention this. >> >>>yeah, yeah, yeah. blah blah blah. It's all the US"s fault. >> >>Ditto. I can also choose to ignore an uncomfortable opinion that I >>don't like by trying to ridicule the messenger... Beats sensible >>debate any time. >> >>>Then we'd get to hear how we're the bad guys because we didn't get their >>>sooner and besides, we aren't giving them enough money to rebuild their >>>countries. > >>You think you can afford to be so >>magnanimous when you're running a budget deficit that will never be >>repaid and the administration is still cutting taxes? > >Ironically, the cutting taxes part would work if our politicians would STOP >SPENDING OUR MONEY LIKE IT'S THEIR OWN FUCKING PIGGY BANK. It's not your money. It's their money. To a politician or a bureaucrat a tax cut is not a case of allowing people to keep more of what they earn: it's "Revenue Loss": taking money away from them that they have already planned to spend. It's stealing from them.

2003-04-22 00:14:11+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > >-- >That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being >eaten. >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... >> >> Laz wrote in message ... >> >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: >> > >> >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to >> >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose >> >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then >> >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place >> >> using the companies of his pals. >> > >> >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with >> >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. >> >> Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the >> Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. >> Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful >military, >> but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to >> replace any of what was lost. >> Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars >> but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year >> than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and >> wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot >of >> military equipment. >> Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken >4 >> weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil >> production and export infrastructure. > >The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn >hard not kill civilians, and to leave as much infrastructure standing as >possible. Which is why Baghdad has been without water and electricity for more than 2 weeks: someone in the military decided to take out that part of the infrastructure. The sewers are probably unusable too. But the oil field infrastructure matters and it's in perfect shape, electricity, water, everything. It's just a matter of priorities. And if US troops could prevent looting at the ministry of petroleum, why didn't they stop the gutting of Baghdad hospitals? If we had just wanted to parking lot the country it would have >taken 3 days. If the USA wanted a parking lot it would have used its primary weapon of mass destruction, just bigger than the 2 they've already used on Japan. But that might have damaged the oil infrastructure and killed Iraqi workers needed to keep the oil flowing. And the radioactivity would delay restarting the oil for too long. So you secure the oilfields, bomb Baghdad, take out the power, allow looting of all but the important building and declare a victory. The trick now is to win the peace without obviously ruling the place through a US controlled government when the Iraqis want something totally different which could result in the formation of at least 3 new countries, which the US has said it won't allow. So much for the Iraqi people having freedom to choose what they want.

2003-04-22 00:14:11+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > >-- >That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being >eaten. >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >news:QqMoa.71124$ja4.4734078@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... >> >> Laz wrote in message ... >> >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 +0100, Guig wrote: >> > >> >> I said to my friends a while back that Bush had a simple plan to >> >> kickstart the faltering US economy - find an oil producing nation whose >> >> military isn't up to much, bomb it and wreck the infrastructure, then >> >> invade and have the conquered people pay *him* to rebuild the place >> >> using the companies of his pals. >> > >> >You must be very embarassed by how wrong you turned out to be, what with >> >Bush "picking" the nation with the most powerful military of all of them. >> >> Iraq had a powerful military? 6 weeks ago it couldn't have beaten the >> Kuwaiti army, let alone the Saudis. >> Maybe back in 1990 before the first gulf war it was a powerful >military, >> but most of it was destroyed and the oil sanctions made it impossible to >> replace any of what was lost. >> Plus the stuff they had was old in 1990: fine for fighting local wars >> but not against a country that spends more money on its military each year >> than the GNP of all but a few countries. And even with all the theft and >> wastage of the military industrial complex that sort of money buys a lot >of >> military equipment. >> Beating a tiny country with 20 year old weaponry shouldn't have taken >4 >> weeks, even though the main task was securing the oilfields and the oil >> production and export infrastructure. > >The only reason it took the time it did, was that we were trying so damn >hard not kill civilians, and to leave as much infrastructure standing as >possible. Which is why Baghdad has been without water and electricity for more than 2 weeks: someone in the military decided to take out that part of the infrastructure. The sewers are probably unusable too. But the oil field infrastructure matters and it's in perfect shape, electricity, water, everything. It's just a matter of priorities. And if US troops could prevent looting at the ministry of petroleum, why didn't they stop the gutting of Baghdad hospitals? If we had just wanted to parking lot the country it would have >taken 3 days. If the USA wanted a parking lot it would have used its primary weapon of mass destruction, just bigger than the 2 they've already used on Japan. But that might have damaged the oil infrastructure and killed Iraqi workers needed to keep the oil flowing. And the radioactivity would delay restarting the oil for too long. So you secure the oilfields, bomb Baghdad, take out the power, allow looting of all but the important building and declare a victory. The trick now is to win the peace without obviously ruling the place through a US controlled government when the Iraqis want something totally different which could result in the formation of at least 3 new countries, which the US has said it won't allow. So much for the Iraqi people having freedom to choose what they want.

2003-04-22 00:28:31+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: forge bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net >Date: 4/21/2003 5:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <bl29avs90dabk6p2b987gnqfr4qnm5mntt@4ax.com> > >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:20:43 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" ><coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >>> Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. >> >>Yaay! Great. The genocide was far less than for any other country the US >>has invaded! > >You use that word "genocide" a lot. I don't think it means what you >think it means. </inigomontoya> > >"Genocide" means someone set out to eliminate an entire race from the >planet. I seriously doubt that's what we were doing when we >accidentally hurt a few civilians while "freeing" them from their >dictator. > Forge, I see your point, but in the neighborhood of 1300 isn't a few. If 1300 people in the US died in a war on our land, it would be a huge deal. And we're a far bigger country. It's a shame that with all of our advancements, mankind has no better way to fight a war than drop bombs. Rose between sigs

2003-04-22 00:28:31+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT >From: forge bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net >Date: 4/21/2003 5:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <bl29avs90dabk6p2b987gnqfr4qnm5mntt@4ax.com> > >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:20:43 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" ><coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > >>> Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. >> >>Yaay! Great. The genocide was far less than for any other country the US >>has invaded! > >You use that word "genocide" a lot. I don't think it means what you >think it means. </inigomontoya> > >"Genocide" means someone set out to eliminate an entire race from the >planet. I seriously doubt that's what we were doing when we >accidentally hurt a few civilians while "freeing" them from their >dictator. > Forge, I see your point, but in the neighborhood of 1300 isn't a few. If 1300 people in the US died in a war on our land, it would be a huge deal. And we're a far bigger country. It's a shame that with all of our advancements, mankind has no better way to fight a war than drop bombs. Rose between sigs

2003-04-22 00:38:47+00:00 - Re: Whining The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


-- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten. "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030421202831.19060.00000478@mb-m02.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT > >From: forge bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net > >Date: 4/21/2003 5:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <bl29avs90dabk6p2b987gnqfr4qnm5mntt@4ax.com> > > > >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:20:43 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" > ><coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > > > >>> Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. > >> > >>Yaay! Great. The genocide was far less than for any other country the US > >>has invaded! > > > >You use that word "genocide" a lot. I don't think it means what you > >think it means. </inigomontoya> > > > >"Genocide" means someone set out to eliminate an entire race from the > >planet. I seriously doubt that's what we were doing when we > >accidentally hurt a few civilians while "freeing" them from their > >dictator. > > > > Forge, I see your point, but in the neighborhood of 1300 isn't a few. If 1300 > people in the US died in a war on our land, it would be a huge deal. And we're > a far bigger country. > Actually Americans 2700 died in a war on US land recently. And you're right, it was a huge deal.

2003-04-22 00:38:47+00:00 - Re: Whining The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


-- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten. "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030421202831.19060.00000478@mb-m02.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: Winning The Peace OT > >From: forge bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net > >Date: 4/21/2003 5:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <bl29avs90dabk6p2b987gnqfr4qnm5mntt@4ax.com> > > > >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:20:43 +0100, "Caffeine Cal" > ><coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: > > > >>> Compare it to any other war, and it's still damn impressive. > >> > >>Yaay! Great. The genocide was far less than for any other country the US > >>has invaded! > > > >You use that word "genocide" a lot. I don't think it means what you > >think it means. </inigomontoya> > > > >"Genocide" means someone set out to eliminate an entire race from the > >planet. I seriously doubt that's what we were doing when we > >accidentally hurt a few civilians while "freeing" them from their > >dictator. > > > > Forge, I see your point, but in the neighborhood of 1300 isn't a few. If 1300 > people in the US died in a war on our land, it would be a huge deal. And we're > a far bigger country. > Actually Americans 2700 died in a war on US land recently. And you're right, it was a huge deal.

2003-04-22 00:45:32+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0304211042.3c456d90@posting.google.com>... >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<5BMoa.71133$ja4.4734935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> Papa Smurf wrote in message ... >> > >> > >> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >> >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in >> >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >> >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >> >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. >> >> >> >> >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >> >> >> crowds, right now. >> >> > >> >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> >> >> >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. >> >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >> >> >> >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. >> > >> >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were >> >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then >> >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't >> think >> >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. > >Just when I think you couldn't possible get more politically biased, >you somehow manage to sink to a new low... > >> Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. The >> US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. >> And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary weapons >> of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and destruction >> of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are those >> in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. > >Of course, it's all about oil. Sure it is. The left has been wearing >out that tired old rag for decades now, and refuse to abandon it >simply because it hasn't stuck in a single conflict. > >> I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to loot >> that building. > >It was made fairly plain that the people shooting at the troops get >first priority attention wise. Looting is non-violent, and could even >be seen as a form of protest given that the loot being looted was >truly stolen from the masses to pamper a chosen few. Yes indeed: all those pampered patients in hospitals where they were getting wounds and burns from US bombs. They needed to have the hopitals looted to the bare walls, leaving doctors with now way to treat them. That'll teach them a lesson. >> All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the lives >> of the Iraqi people. > >This is the point that marks that new low mentioned above. Can you >possibly be so monumentally brain dead as to believe the load of bs in >your above statement ? The people in the new uniforms have no >official rapists. Not official, but you might look up the data on how many US military women were raped in Gulf War 1, and note that they were all raped by US military men. I don't know how many were USAF academy graduates. >They do not gouge out the eyes of children to >correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to >women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for >them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a >firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first >to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. So the US military has learned a little since Vietnam, and has also learned the power of negative propaganda. I haven't seen any civilian TV shots of soldiers assaulting behind women and children: when did you? I'm not taking an army spokesman sitting in an office in DC as a source. > >Have you completely ignored the news since the major fighting ended ? >Did you somehow miss the "hospitals" with the hooks hanging from the >ceilings ? How about the "police stations" with nooses and electrical >wires hooked to metal bed frames ? I've seen picture of dozens and dozens of those world-wide over the last few decades. A surprising number were funded by the US, and the secret police that used them were trained in the USA. The USA has been the world's biggest financer and supporter of terrorist one party regimes. Who sold Iraq the equipment to make chemical and biological weapons in the first place? I think you'll find it was the USA. Without USA support Saddam might well have been deposed `15 years or more ago. >All that has changed is the uniforms indeed...if Saddam or his family >were still in power those protesting in the street would be arrested, >tortured, and or killed. Instead they are being allowed to voice >their opinions in whatever peacefull manner suits them. Sure. It's not as if US troops weren't leading Iraqis in pulling down that statue, and we know TV reporers just happen to pick the one mad on the street who speaks English. I'm reading about thousands of people on the street in Baghdad protesting the lack of hospitals, water, power, sewage treatment and food. Does your hate-Iraq radio show ignore them? > >> At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power. > >Had Saddam et al cared about the people they would not have used the >scorched earth tactics which have led to the lack of utilities and >facilities. So you're claiming Saddam bombed the Baghdad electricity and water systems? That's not in the news sane people are recieving > >It is frightening how the left hates Bush and Blair enough to be >willing to consign the Iraqi population to torture and death instead >of admitting to an overwhelming success in terms of lack of civilian >death and infrastructure damage. > >The left in the US has an anti-gun saying "How much is it worth to >save a single child's life ?" What is this absurd belief you have that anyone who doesn't like a war based on lies must be "a Leftist"? Where you taught as a child to look under your bed every night in case there was a godless communist hiding under it? You throw that word "leftist" about the way religious freaks throw the word "Heretic". Why not take the time to type "people who won't agree with me"?

2003-04-22 00:45:32+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0304211042.3c456d90@posting.google.com>... >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<5BMoa.71133$ja4.4734935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> Papa Smurf wrote in message ... >> > >> > >> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... >> >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in >> >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... >> >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries >> >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not >> >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. >> >> >> >> >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the >> >> >> crowds, right now. >> >> > >> >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the >> >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> >> >> >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as usual. >> >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. >> >> >> >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. >> > >> >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) were >> >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and then >> >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't >> think >> >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. > >Just when I think you couldn't possible get more politically biased, >you somehow manage to sink to a new low... > >> Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. The >> US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. >> And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary weapons >> of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and destruction >> of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are those >> in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. > >Of course, it's all about oil. Sure it is. The left has been wearing >out that tired old rag for decades now, and refuse to abandon it >simply because it hasn't stuck in a single conflict. > >> I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to loot >> that building. > >It was made fairly plain that the people shooting at the troops get >first priority attention wise. Looting is non-violent, and could even >be seen as a form of protest given that the loot being looted was >truly stolen from the masses to pamper a chosen few. Yes indeed: all those pampered patients in hospitals where they were getting wounds and burns from US bombs. They needed to have the hopitals looted to the bare walls, leaving doctors with now way to treat them. That'll teach them a lesson. >> All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the lives >> of the Iraqi people. > >This is the point that marks that new low mentioned above. Can you >possibly be so monumentally brain dead as to believe the load of bs in >your above statement ? The people in the new uniforms have no >official rapists. Not official, but you might look up the data on how many US military women were raped in Gulf War 1, and note that they were all raped by US military men. I don't know how many were USAF academy graduates. >They do not gouge out the eyes of children to >correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to >women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for >them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a >firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first >to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. So the US military has learned a little since Vietnam, and has also learned the power of negative propaganda. I haven't seen any civilian TV shots of soldiers assaulting behind women and children: when did you? I'm not taking an army spokesman sitting in an office in DC as a source. > >Have you completely ignored the news since the major fighting ended ? >Did you somehow miss the "hospitals" with the hooks hanging from the >ceilings ? How about the "police stations" with nooses and electrical >wires hooked to metal bed frames ? I've seen picture of dozens and dozens of those world-wide over the last few decades. A surprising number were funded by the US, and the secret police that used them were trained in the USA. The USA has been the world's biggest financer and supporter of terrorist one party regimes. Who sold Iraq the equipment to make chemical and biological weapons in the first place? I think you'll find it was the USA. Without USA support Saddam might well have been deposed `15 years or more ago. >All that has changed is the uniforms indeed...if Saddam or his family >were still in power those protesting in the street would be arrested, >tortured, and or killed. Instead they are being allowed to voice >their opinions in whatever peacefull manner suits them. Sure. It's not as if US troops weren't leading Iraqis in pulling down that statue, and we know TV reporers just happen to pick the one mad on the street who speaks English. I'm reading about thousands of people on the street in Baghdad protesting the lack of hospitals, water, power, sewage treatment and food. Does your hate-Iraq radio show ignore them? > >> At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power. > >Had Saddam et al cared about the people they would not have used the >scorched earth tactics which have led to the lack of utilities and >facilities. So you're claiming Saddam bombed the Baghdad electricity and water systems? That's not in the news sane people are recieving > >It is frightening how the left hates Bush and Blair enough to be >willing to consign the Iraqi population to torture and death instead >of admitting to an overwhelming success in terms of lack of civilian >death and infrastructure damage. > >The left in the US has an anti-gun saying "How much is it worth to >save a single child's life ?" What is this absurd belief you have that anyone who doesn't like a war based on lies must be "a Leftist"? Where you taught as a child to look under your bed every night in case there was a godless communist hiding under it? You throw that word "leftist" about the way religious freaks throw the word "Heretic". Why not take the time to type "people who won't agree with me"?

2003-04-22 00:55:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > >"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:b81mki$58jp9$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message >> news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... >> > >> > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >> >> > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current >> foreign >> > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the >> Post's >> > > poll supported that view. >> > >> > >> > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to >> do) then >> > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. >> >> My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, >> even if their policies sometimes make me cringe. >> > >As you might have guessed I'm from one of those western provinces (Alberta) >and my Canada unfortunately contains Quebec too. But we were soooo close >once (just a few more votes) and I can dream for the future. Let Quebec >secede and let it drown in it's own policies and not take the rest of us >with it. Just think: you could stop being a bilingual country like Belgium and save billions by not having to do everything in French which nobody reads.

2003-04-22 00:55:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > >"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:b81mki$58jp9$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >> >> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message >> news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... >> > >> > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... >> >> > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current >> foreign >> > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the >> Post's >> > > poll supported that view. >> > >> > >> > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to >> do) then >> > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. >> >> My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, >> even if their policies sometimes make me cringe. >> > >As you might have guessed I'm from one of those western provinces (Alberta) >and my Canada unfortunately contains Quebec too. But we were soooo close >once (just a few more votes) and I can dream for the future. Let Quebec >secede and let it drown in it's own policies and not take the rest of us >with it. Just think: you could stop being a bilingual country like Belgium and save billions by not having to do everything in French which nobody reads.

2003-04-22 01:14:08-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:25:07 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >EGK wrote: >> You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure >> to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why >> should we believe it would be any different now? > >Because this particular initiative will be the responsibility of the French >and the Russians. If Saddam defies this, he'll be defying the French and >the Russians. I'm sorry but I can't help but break out in a fit of laughter. Defying the French and the Russians? >The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating. How many countries >has Iraq invaded in the last 12 years? How many countries has Iraq >threatened to invade in the last 12 years? And you maintain that the UN was >ineffective in disarming Iraq? Of course they were. The only thing that disarmed Iraq was destroying a good share of their capability in the Gulf war and creating things like no-fly zones. >> I'm not sure point this is supposed to prove. That the US government >> has often acted hypocritically? That's not news and I don't defend >> it. > >I'm just pointing out that the US government, and some posters like yourself >continue to be hypocritical by holding 9/11 as a significant landmark in >your dealings with Iraq. Nope. I'm saying that it was a significant landmark in making people pull their heads out of their asses and realize if we sit back and do nothing or depend on the uselessness of the UN, we'll be hit again and again. >9/11 has as much relevance wrt Iraq as the IRA. >Saddam had _nothing_ to do with OBL. Prove it. There were reported to be terrorist training camps in Iraq. I know you will choose not to believe that but frankly, I don't care. >Saddam has been deposed by right of conquest. If you'd waited another 2-3 >months, you could have deposed him by right of international law. If we had waited another 2-3 months, France and Russia would have found new reasons to drag their heels. Thankfully, we no longer have to worry about it. >> No, It most certainly would not have. No matter what coalition was >> formed, the US and the UK would have supplied the firepower just as >> they always have. We had all the support we needed from arab >> countries. > >The Saudis outnumbered the British in GWI. Some Arab countries were calling >on Hussain to stand down to avoid war, even before OIF was coined. If a >united SC had called for the deposition of Saddam, neighbouring countries >would have joined. The UN has a funny habit of uniting the world like that. Obviously you have a lot of confidence in the UN. I believe the UN is useful as a Red Cross type of organization and that's it. They're useless everywhere else. My brother was stationed in Bosnia for 9 months. He came back telling me how the locals ignored the UN. If they wanted anything done, they went to the US or UK soldiers. >>> who would have lent >>> visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the >>> transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting >>> their (our) shared heritage. >> >> You're kidding, right? They can't resist killing one another in the >> same country what with the Baathists and Shites and Kurds and who >> knows what else. > >How can one argue with a stereotype of a nation of natives, good for nothing >except killing each other? Straw man. I never said that. It's still a fact that the Arabs routinely fight among themselves due to ethnic or religious differences. I'm afraid you're living in a dream world. The UN is probably dominated by the European >model of a loose collection of nation states with common humanitarian >ideals, with no one nation dominating the others. It's a flexible model, >and it's been proven to hold a collection of peoples together who'd been >killing each other virtually non-stop for the previous 1000 years and more. >There's no reason why such a model wouldn't work, suitably adapted, in Iraq, >especially if similar peoples with similar cultures were drafted in to help >front the transition. > >The great thing about this model is that each part feels at least some >affinity with the whole. OTOH, the only things that currently seem to unite >the vocal is the desire to get the Yanks and Brits out, and Islamic law in, >demands that transcend tribe and sect. If the operation had universal >backing, was fronted by fellow Arabs who practised the same religion, would >things be the same? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-22 01:14:08-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:25:07 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >EGK wrote: >> You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure >> to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why >> should we believe it would be any different now? > >Because this particular initiative will be the responsibility of the French >and the Russians. If Saddam defies this, he'll be defying the French and >the Russians. I'm sorry but I can't help but break out in a fit of laughter. Defying the French and the Russians? >The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating. How many countries >has Iraq invaded in the last 12 years? How many countries has Iraq >threatened to invade in the last 12 years? And you maintain that the UN was >ineffective in disarming Iraq? Of course they were. The only thing that disarmed Iraq was destroying a good share of their capability in the Gulf war and creating things like no-fly zones. >> I'm not sure point this is supposed to prove. That the US government >> has often acted hypocritically? That's not news and I don't defend >> it. > >I'm just pointing out that the US government, and some posters like yourself >continue to be hypocritical by holding 9/11 as a significant landmark in >your dealings with Iraq. Nope. I'm saying that it was a significant landmark in making people pull their heads out of their asses and realize if we sit back and do nothing or depend on the uselessness of the UN, we'll be hit again and again. >9/11 has as much relevance wrt Iraq as the IRA. >Saddam had _nothing_ to do with OBL. Prove it. There were reported to be terrorist training camps in Iraq. I know you will choose not to believe that but frankly, I don't care. >Saddam has been deposed by right of conquest. If you'd waited another 2-3 >months, you could have deposed him by right of international law. If we had waited another 2-3 months, France and Russia would have found new reasons to drag their heels. Thankfully, we no longer have to worry about it. >> No, It most certainly would not have. No matter what coalition was >> formed, the US and the UK would have supplied the firepower just as >> they always have. We had all the support we needed from arab >> countries. > >The Saudis outnumbered the British in GWI. Some Arab countries were calling >on Hussain to stand down to avoid war, even before OIF was coined. If a >united SC had called for the deposition of Saddam, neighbouring countries >would have joined. The UN has a funny habit of uniting the world like that. Obviously you have a lot of confidence in the UN. I believe the UN is useful as a Red Cross type of organization and that's it. They're useless everywhere else. My brother was stationed in Bosnia for 9 months. He came back telling me how the locals ignored the UN. If they wanted anything done, they went to the US or UK soldiers. >>> who would have lent >>> visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the >>> transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting >>> their (our) shared heritage. >> >> You're kidding, right? They can't resist killing one another in the >> same country what with the Baathists and Shites and Kurds and who >> knows what else. > >How can one argue with a stereotype of a nation of natives, good for nothing >except killing each other? Straw man. I never said that. It's still a fact that the Arabs routinely fight among themselves due to ethnic or religious differences. I'm afraid you're living in a dream world. The UN is probably dominated by the European >model of a loose collection of nation states with common humanitarian >ideals, with no one nation dominating the others. It's a flexible model, >and it's been proven to hold a collection of peoples together who'd been >killing each other virtually non-stop for the previous 1000 years and more. >There's no reason why such a model wouldn't work, suitably adapted, in Iraq, >especially if similar peoples with similar cultures were drafted in to help >front the transition. > >The great thing about this model is that each part feels at least some >affinity with the whole. OTOH, the only things that currently seem to unite >the vocal is the desire to get the Yanks and Brits out, and Islamic law in, >demands that transcend tribe and sect. If the operation had universal >backing, was fronted by fellow Arabs who practised the same religion, would >things be the same? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-22 01:14:12+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


David Cheatham wrote in message ... >In article <MPG.190c7f17f462ec4898a03f@netnews.attbi.com>, >tyger@never.invalid says... >> Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, kidmiracleman@netzon.net wrote in >> article <gjd4avg1cncg9iddr495ik69u45ooh88bf@4ax.com>... >> > >> > But Israel is not in Palestinian land >> > >> >> Is that so? Well, if you believe that Israel can annex West Bank >> territorry with impunity, then you are correct. Since it is annexed >> then ipso jure Israel is not on Palestinian land. I fear that the >> Palestinians would beg to differ with out on this point. > >I've decided to annex the whole damn Middle East, myself. > >Everyone has four days to get out. Too late. I called it Friday. But you can have Iraq. And Israel. Palestine too, if there's any of it left.

2003-04-22 01:14:12+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


David Cheatham wrote in message ... >In article <MPG.190c7f17f462ec4898a03f@netnews.attbi.com>, >tyger@never.invalid says... >> Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, kidmiracleman@netzon.net wrote in >> article <gjd4avg1cncg9iddr495ik69u45ooh88bf@4ax.com>... >> > >> > But Israel is not in Palestinian land >> > >> >> Is that so? Well, if you believe that Israel can annex West Bank >> territorry with impunity, then you are correct. Since it is annexed >> then ipso jure Israel is not on Palestinian land. I fear that the >> Palestinians would beg to differ with out on this point. > >I've decided to annex the whole damn Middle East, myself. > >Everyone has four days to get out. Too late. I called it Friday. But you can have Iraq. And Israel. Palestine too, if there's any of it left.

2003-04-22 01:15:36-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 05:01:01 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:55:00 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>>Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the >>>sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding >>>Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It >>>would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. >> >>You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure to >>happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why should we >>believe it would be any different now? The UN was just as likely to sit on >>it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd issue another toothless >>resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was Saddam Hussein's best friend in >>all of this. > >I can't help wondering what you think the UN actually *is*! A useless organization of politicians all bent on feathering their own nests. >It is a forum where political problems are discussed and resolutions >to those problems that satisfy a majority are hammered out. Oh, boy, that was a good one. I'm still laughing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-22 01:15:36-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 05:01:01 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:55:00 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >>>Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the >>>sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding >>>Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It >>>would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. >> >>You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure to >>happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why should we >>believe it would be any different now? The UN was just as likely to sit on >>it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd issue another toothless >>resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was Saddam Hussein's best friend in >>all of this. > >I can't help wondering what you think the UN actually *is*! A useless organization of politicians all bent on feathering their own nests. >It is a forum where political problems are discussed and resolutions >to those problems that satisfy a majority are hammered out. Oh, boy, that was a good one. I'm still laughing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-22 01:27:51+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:2q0pa.38679$cO3.2948741@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > > >"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:b81mki$58jp9$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > >> > >> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > >> news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > >> > > >> > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > >> > >> > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current > >> foreign > >> > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the > >> Post's > >> > > poll supported that view. > >> > > >> > > >> > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > >> do) then > >> > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. > >> > >> My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, > >> even if their policies sometimes make me cringe. > >> > > > >As you might have guessed I'm from one of those western provinces (Alberta) > >and my Canada unfortunately contains Quebec too. But we were soooo close > >once (just a few more votes) and I can dream for the future. Let Quebec > >secede and let it drown in it's own policies and not take the rest of us > >with it. > > Just think: you could stop being a bilingual country like Belgium and > save billions by not having to do everything in French which nobody reads. Or much more importantly we could stop paying billions to prop up a province that can't pay for it's own policies. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-22 01:27:51+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Papa Smurf <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap>)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:2q0pa.38679$cO3.2948741@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > > > >"The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:b81mki$58jp9$2@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > >> > >> "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote in message > >> news:LDYoa.9308$xR4.4336@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... > >> > > >> > "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > news:b81jph$5dig1$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de... > >> > >> > > No, polls still show he has majority support in the current > >> foreign > >> > > policy. In fact- despite the misleading headline-- even the > >> Post's > >> > > poll supported that view. > >> > > >> > > >> > If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to > >> do) then > >> > you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of view. > >> > >> My Canada includes Quebec. It even includes the western provinces, > >> even if their policies sometimes make me cringe. > >> > > > >As you might have guessed I'm from one of those western provinces (Alberta) > >and my Canada unfortunately contains Quebec too. But we were soooo close > >once (just a few more votes) and I can dream for the future. Let Quebec > >secede and let it drown in it's own policies and not take the rest of us > >with it. > > Just think: you could stop being a bilingual country like Belgium and > save billions by not having to do everything in French which nobody reads. Or much more importantly we could stop paying billions to prop up a province that can't pay for it's own policies. -- That's the kind of woolly-headed, liberal thinking that leads to being eaten.

2003-04-22 01:39:14-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b81rbe$m06$1@titan.btinternet.com>, "Kathryn" <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com> wrote: >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to >> >this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant >> >their continued existence? >> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference >America put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. No, America didn't. Pakistan helped put the Taliban in power. America's involvement in Afghanistan was long over when the Taliban came to power. >Funded Sadam Hussein when he went to war with Iran. No, America didn't. Years after Saddam went to war, America gave agricultural credits to Iraq. Mostly corporate welfare for American farmers, but food for Iraq. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 01:39:14-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b81rbe$m06$1@titan.btinternet.com>, "Kathryn" <kathrynahunter@btinternet.com> wrote: >"EGK" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message >>"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts to >> >this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have meant >> >their continued existence? >> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any difference >America put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. No, America didn't. Pakistan helped put the Taliban in power. America's involvement in Afghanistan was long over when the Taliban came to power. >Funded Sadam Hussein when he went to war with Iran. No, America didn't. Years after Saddam went to war, America gave agricultural credits to Iraq. Mostly corporate welfare for American farmers, but food for Iraq. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 01:50:59-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b81mt3$ea0$1@kermit.esat.net>, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >> >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >> >> > great crowd pleaser. >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, >> >> right now. >> >Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. >> >Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> Really? So the people protesting in the streets have all been murdered? >Mark Evans said: >>If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >>been told to leave by the Iraqi people. >You Replied: >They haven't. >So are the Iraqis protesting the invaders or not? They're not. _Some_ Iraqis are protesting. Not "the Iraqis." _Some_ Iraqis have demanded that the US leave. "The Iraqi people" have not told the US to leave. See the difference? There are 20 million people in Iraq; if 20,000 are protesting then that means 99.9% of the population is not protesting. See how that works? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 01:50:59-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b81mt3$ea0$1@kermit.esat.net>, "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote: >> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >> >> > you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >> >> > great crowd pleaser. >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the crowds, >> >> right now. >> >Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the same. >> >Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. >> Really? So the people protesting in the streets have all been murdered? >Mark Evans said: >>If that's the case why are the Americans still there after having >>been told to leave by the Iraqi people. >You Replied: >They haven't. >So are the Iraqis protesting the invaders or not? They're not. _Some_ Iraqis are protesting. Not "the Iraqis." _Some_ Iraqis have demanded that the US leave. "The Iraqi people" have not told the US to leave. See the difference? There are 20 million people in Iraq; if 20,000 are protesting then that means 99.9% of the population is not protesting. See how that works? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 01:52:33-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <1050960708.58968.0@doris.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >Papa Smurf wrote: >> If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to >> do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of >> view. >And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your >point? No, Blair had a majority of Britain supporting his stance. Earlier in the year, it's true that he didn't. But after the French perfidy, the British -- the Robert Fisks of the world excepted -- supported Blair. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 01:52:33-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <1050960708.58968.0@doris.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >Papa Smurf wrote: >> If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to >> do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of >> view. >And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your >point? No, Blair had a majority of Britain supporting his stance. Earlier in the year, it's true that he didn't. But after the French perfidy, the British -- the Robert Fisks of the world excepted -- supported Blair. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 01:55:33+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


~snipped to make shorter~ > So that's the short answer to the "what was better than this war" > question. Given what we knew before the war started and what we have > learned since, it is extremely unlikely I would have supported any > military force against Iraq. I have yet to see any reason to. > > First off I agree with you that we should not be going to war just to liberate the Iraqi people and I don't like that the Bush administration is pushing that reason so strongly.We do however have the right to wage war on a country with or without the support of the UN when our national security is at stake.The COALITION FORCES have found terrorist training camps in Iraq and we have already been attacked numerous times by terrorists so I say that constitutes a national security issue.As for not publicly releasing the locations that we knew of that had Weapons of Mass Destruction it was because we didn't want Saddam to move his weapons out before the inspectors arrived,which, by the way, we did give the info to.We also had an Iraqi in the biological weapons program just turn himself in and tell us that Saddam had much of the biological weapons buried and he gave us the locations of a few of these buried weapons caches.We couldn't tighten the oil for food program anymore because too many Iraqis were already starving and tightening the program further would have resulted in more starvation.We just found $680 million in US cash in a hidden stash.Why wasn't he using that to feed his people.The French and the Germans had a large financial stake in seeing Saddam stay in power to keep their billions in oil for military equipment contracts valid.Oh Yeah,and if this war was just for oil like so many anti-war people claim it is then why don't we just invade Canada.33% of all of our imported oil comes from Canada.The US produces 85% of all natural gas consumed in this nation domestically and the other 15% comes from Canada.We only import 2.5% of our oil form Iraq.However,if removing Saddam stabilizes the region,and there is already evidence that it is,ensures a reliable source of oil than that is ok,because oil is a national security issue.So this war is justified and screw the UN.They've only messed up just about everything else they've been involved in. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-22 01:55:33+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Tazana <somewhere@somehow.com>)


~snipped to make shorter~ > So that's the short answer to the "what was better than this war" > question. Given what we knew before the war started and what we have > learned since, it is extremely unlikely I would have supported any > military force against Iraq. I have yet to see any reason to. > > First off I agree with you that we should not be going to war just to liberate the Iraqi people and I don't like that the Bush administration is pushing that reason so strongly.We do however have the right to wage war on a country with or without the support of the UN when our national security is at stake.The COALITION FORCES have found terrorist training camps in Iraq and we have already been attacked numerous times by terrorists so I say that constitutes a national security issue.As for not publicly releasing the locations that we knew of that had Weapons of Mass Destruction it was because we didn't want Saddam to move his weapons out before the inspectors arrived,which, by the way, we did give the info to.We also had an Iraqi in the biological weapons program just turn himself in and tell us that Saddam had much of the biological weapons buried and he gave us the locations of a few of these buried weapons caches.We couldn't tighten the oil for food program anymore because too many Iraqis were already starving and tightening the program further would have resulted in more starvation.We just found $680 million in US cash in a hidden stash.Why wasn't he using that to feed his people.The French and the Germans had a large financial stake in seeing Saddam stay in power to keep their billions in oil for military equipment contracts valid.Oh Yeah,and if this war was just for oil like so many anti-war people claim it is then why don't we just invade Canada.33% of all of our imported oil comes from Canada.The US produces 85% of all natural gas consumed in this nation domestically and the other 15% comes from Canada.We only import 2.5% of our oil form Iraq.However,if removing Saddam stabilizes the region,and there is already evidence that it is,ensures a reliable source of oil than that is ok,because oil is a national security issue.So this war is justified and screw the UN.They've only messed up just about everything else they've been involved in. -- Tayana "Oh, I don't get crazy, crazy on me equals spaz."

2003-04-22 02:00:35+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


EGK wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> EGK wrote: >>> >>> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent >>> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we >>> should have waited for the next century to roll around? >> >> Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with >> the resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to >> be blocked, bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, >> probably unanimously backed by the Security Council, and a majority >> of the neighbouring countries. > > After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone > believe this time would be any different? Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. >>> I agree >>> there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties >>> them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported >>> them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. >> >> If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a >> point of reference? You do know that American money has funded a >> terrorist struggle that has killed over 3500 British citizens so >> far? That you've waited for over 20 years before blocking it? > > I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's > private money is a lot different then the federal government giving > money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from > doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to > stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and > funneling money to groups like bin laden. Perhaps I'm raising this point because, despite your ally's requests to do so, you didn't prevent *known* members of a terrorist organisation (the most active in western Europe) from coming to the US to raise funds? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of special relationship between Thatcher and Reagan's US? If the US was the target, and Syria allowed the open funding of Al-Qaeda cells by known Al-Qaeda members, would you brush it off with the same logic about the freedom of individuals? Heck, you invaded Iraq despite the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. >> Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts >> to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have >> meant their continued existence? > > Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any > difference It would have meant the participation of Arab troops, who would have lent visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting their (our) shared heritage. Apparently Garner placed the Museum second on its list of buldings to be protected, the oil offices fifteenth (out of sixteen). Instead, every effort on the ground was made to guard number 15, while numbers 2-14 were neglected. The excuse was that there weren't enough troops in the area. So why wouldn't the presence of additional troops with the motivation to guard their history have made a difference? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-22 02:00:35+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


EGK wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> EGK wrote: >>> >>> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent >>> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we >>> should have waited for the next century to roll around? >> >> Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with >> the resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to >> be blocked, bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, >> probably unanimously backed by the Security Council, and a majority >> of the neighbouring countries. > > After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone > believe this time would be any different? Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. >>> I agree >>> there's no tying Iraq to 9/11 directly but there is much that ties >>> them to terrorist organizations and shows they've actively supported >>> them. I think 9/11 was the day our patience as a country wore out. >> >> If Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 then why do you keep bringing it up as a >> point of reference? You do know that American money has funded a >> terrorist struggle that has killed over 3500 British citizens so >> far? That you've waited for over 20 years before blocking it? > > I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's > private money is a lot different then the federal government giving > money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from > doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to > stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and > funneling money to groups like bin laden. Perhaps I'm raising this point because, despite your ally's requests to do so, you didn't prevent *known* members of a terrorist organisation (the most active in western Europe) from coming to the US to raise funds? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of special relationship between Thatcher and Reagan's US? If the US was the target, and Syria allowed the open funding of Al-Qaeda cells by known Al-Qaeda members, would you brush it off with the same logic about the freedom of individuals? Heck, you invaded Iraq despite the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. >> Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those artefacts >> to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have >> meant their continued existence? > > Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any > difference It would have meant the participation of Arab troops, who would have lent visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting their (our) shared heritage. Apparently Garner placed the Museum second on its list of buldings to be protected, the oil offices fifteenth (out of sixteen). Instead, every effort on the ground was made to guard number 15, while numbers 2-14 were neglected. The excuse was that there weren't enough troops in the area. So why wouldn't the presence of additional troops with the motivation to guard their history have made a difference? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-22 02:07:21-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <hOAoa.12781$ot1.1093@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote: >"JustMe" <whome@nospam.com> wrote in message >> "forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> > The US isn't always right either. >> REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it.. >I admit I never watch network news so I might have this assbackwards, but >isn't CNN the Peter Arnet hiring outfit with view points oriented just a >hair to the right of NPR? No to the first part. CNN had previously employed Arnett, but fired him several years ago, when he made up a phony story about the US use of chemical weapons in Southeast Asia. (Then, when the story was questioned, he claimed that he had nothing to do with the story and just read a script on-air.) MSNBC was the most recent employer of Arnett. But yes, CNN is the very liberal news network. >Isn't it Fox news that is the one that is different from the standard >liberal media broadcasters? Yeah. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 02:07:21-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <hOAoa.12781$ot1.1093@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, "Papa Smurf" <fakeaddress@Iwantnospam.crap> wrote: >"JustMe" <whome@nospam.com> wrote in message >> "forge" <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> > The US isn't always right either. >> REALLY?? That's not the way CNN portrays it.. >I admit I never watch network news so I might have this assbackwards, but >isn't CNN the Peter Arnet hiring outfit with view points oriented just a >hair to the right of NPR? No to the first part. CNN had previously employed Arnett, but fired him several years ago, when he made up a phony story about the US use of chemical weapons in Southeast Asia. (Then, when the story was questioned, he claimed that he had nothing to do with the story and just read a script on-air.) MSNBC was the most recent employer of Arnett. But yes, CNN is the very liberal news network. >Isn't it Fox news that is the one that is different from the standard >liberal media broadcasters? Yeah. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 02:15:40-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b7va9l$4m56u$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, >> > but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see >> > the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will >> > on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades >> > to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to >> > do so. >> What's funny is that how the world can be so blind to the truth. Other >> countries are going to see us however they want to see us- no matter our >> intentions, we can't change that. The sad thing is that our govt *will* >> probably try to appease the world... but it won't help, and sooner or later >> our govt will realize that and say to hell with you all. And newsflash- if >> our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the >> world would be much different than it is. >Are you really so sure of who is being blind here? >And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >great crowd pleaser. It wasn't meant to be; it was meant to be a warning. One can't be neutral in a fight between good and evil. And if one can't tell that Islamofascism is evil, one is too morally blind to exist. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 02:15:40-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b7va9l$4m56u$1@ID-148573.news.dfncis.de>, "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > What's funny here is not only how close to the real situation you are, >> > but that this is exactly how many countries around the world now see >> > the US- as an unlawful and dangerous bully intent on forcing its will >> > on others. The damage to international cooperation will take decades >> > to fix, if the US government has any intention of making any effort to >> > do so. >> What's funny is that how the world can be so blind to the truth. Other >> countries are going to see us however they want to see us- no matter our >> intentions, we can't change that. The sad thing is that our govt *will* >> probably try to appease the world... but it won't help, and sooner or later >> our govt will realize that and say to hell with you all. And newsflash- if >> our intent was to force our will on the world, the state of the >> world would be much different than it is. >Are you really so sure of who is being blind here? >And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries see >you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is not a >great crowd pleaser. It wasn't meant to be; it was meant to be a warning. One can't be neutral in a fight between good and evil. And if one can't tell that Islamofascism is evil, one is too morally blind to exist. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-04-22 02:29:01-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 22 Apr 2003 06:08:16 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >news:nieporen-54C6D3.15521621042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > >> In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, >> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I >>>> assume you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're >>>> now removing them instead. >> >>>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>>and put on trial? >> >> When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. > >Is this the famous "mention Israel as anything other than 100% innocent wrt >the sufferings of both peoples and suffer accusations of being anti-semitic >and/or a nazi sympathiser" play? > >Interesting concept. Actually you've got it backwards. It's usually Marc blaming Israel and the jews for every problem under the sun. It was Israeli agents who sent planes in to the World Trade Center to frame innocent arabs, dont you know? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-22 02:29:01-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 22 Apr 2003 06:08:16 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >news:nieporen-54C6D3.15521621042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > >> In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, >> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I >>>> assume you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're >>>> now removing them instead. >> >>>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>>and put on trial? >> >> When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. > >Is this the famous "mention Israel as anything other than 100% innocent wrt >the sufferings of both peoples and suffer accusations of being anti-semitic >and/or a nazi sympathiser" play? > >Interesting concept. Actually you've got it backwards. It's usually Marc blaming Israel and the jews for every problem under the sun. It was Israeli agents who sent planes in to the World Trade Center to frame innocent arabs, dont you know? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes) email: egk-nospam-@hotmail.com

2003-04-22 04:14:31+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:39:04 -0400, forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:42:49 GMT, Rick Ramey ><rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: > >>EVERYTHING is the US's fault, whether we are too involved (butting in >>and doing something) or not involved enough (sitting back idly while >>the world goes to hell in a handbasket). At least that is what I have >>learned here. > >That's what the whole rest of the planet thinks, there's more of them >collectively than there are of us, they must be right. (eyeroll) How can you be so arrogant? What the rest of the planet thinks IS important. If you value any sense of democracy at all, you have to accept that however large, influential and important the US is, it is part of a *much* larger global humanity, and we *all* deserve a voice in how this planet works together to avoid destroying each other. You can argue about the best way to achieve that, and about the ineffectiveness of the current UN as a forum to create international policy *and* enforce it, but right now it is what we have. What the rest of the world saw a month or two back was the US tearing up the rule book and showing that it doesn't care a fig about the rest of humanity's opinion. I think those rest of us have a right to be very concerned about that, as we get disproportionately affected by whatever the US does and we don't get a vote in your leadership election, only an apparently brainwashed US public that seems unable to admit that their leaders might ever be wrong, because God and the American Constitution are on their side! For many years the UN has acted as a valuable balancing force and arbitrator for territorial disputes. This is not perfect - we can argue about the way the UN creates resolution after resolution, but only enforces the ones that it wants or that it is politically expedient for the people who are going to do the enforcing to get involved in. You can also argue about the speed it takes to get involved, but that is a matter of the will of individual governments to commit, not the institution itself. It has to rely on the willingness of the member governments to support it, or it *is* ineffectual. It is *only* a body for creating diplomatic consensus, however flawed, as it has no enforcing troops of its own. Where there is political will to solve a problem, everyone pulls together and good happens. But the value of the forum is that however rigged the vote, however bribed the voters, a consensus of a sort is reached that can satisfy the world that there is reasonable cause for action. I may be wrong, but my impression is that the UN generally tries to limit intervention to allow local conflicts to stabilise and allow dialogue without necessarily taking sides. Sometimes that works well, like the UK's peacekeeping role in Sierra Leone. Sometimes it has been less successful, as in the ethnic bloodbath that became of the former Yugoslavia. The UN *could* have decided, with the right political input from the US and the UK if a war scenario had not been so predetermined, to take a more strongly interventionist stance on Iraq *beyond* weapons inspection but *short* of bombing and invasion/occupation. Unfortunately it was not presented with that option as the US had already decided what it wanted to do and just wanted a rubber-stamp to make it palatable for world opinion. You don't have to be a genius or a cynic to see the truth of that. Many people have asked in this thread what these alternative options might have been. I can say that I certainly don't know, as I'm not a diplomat or military strategist, so it's hardly my place to come up with those answers, but it is blindingly obvious to most people outside the US that there was *no* effort made to consider them by the people who *should* have done so, as the prize of winning Iraq (both its oil and its incomparable strategic location) by force was simply much more attractive. This had to be done while the rhetoric of the "War on Terror" was still working, hence the rush. Where the current action in Iraq has fallen down is that the world, not just the French and the Russian foreign ministers, but a significant majority of the world's population, looked at the evidence for the action provided by the US and didn't believe it. Here in the UK, many people, including our parliamentary members, not all corrupt and toadying Blair-supporters, looked at the "dossier" justifying military action and just didn't believe it. People here aren't going to be taken in by lies and misinformation, especially when it is so blatant, desperate and insulting as the use of a 10 year-old article written by a student being passed off as current "intelligence". Why is it that so many people worldwide chose to be sceptical about the perceived threat the US claimed, enough of a threat to even consider bombing thousands of innocent Iraqis, never mind putting American and UK soldiers at risk, while so many Americans did not? Why are you so prepared to believe your politicians, when we are inclined to question? It strikes me as odd that the clear popular enjoyment of a show like the X-Files, which is predicated on the idea of massive government conspiracy and lies, has not led to a real questioning of the motives of real politicians. Why in fact do most Americans assume that they *are* being told the truth? Or can the truth ever be an issue when highly complex political choices are dumbed down to black and white, them or us, even blatantly religious good versus evil? Let's face it, *nowhere* in the world is the political process so completely dependent on huge financial promises, bribes, deals and patronage, where the people running for office are being bankrolled by the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world, who expect a return for their huge investments in overt favouritism in legal, financial or other terms. It is not done out of altruism or concern for the democratic process! No president can take a campaign donation without promising *some* kind of payback. The bigger the bribe... and we know Enron was just one massive energy corporation that was a major Bush donator. How then can any American be so naive as to think that *any* administration can be free to make a political decision, even on something as important as a war, without there being massive financial implications and private kick-back promises factored in? Given that Bush is a member of a family with significant financial interests in oil and arms sales, as are many of his major political supporters, it's hardly surprising to many of us that a decision to go to war was made in the face of massive world opprobrium. It is the *process* of this decision to war that is clearly deeply flawed and undemocratic. How can this not be obvious? I'm not quibbling with the result of removing Saddam, although that was never supposedly the reason. Regime change is flatly outlawed by the UN charter, remember. There is no doubting the outcome is an improvement for many Iraqis, and that *some* support for terrorism against the US may have been cut off, although the action will undoubtedly create many more new fanatics from previously ambivalent sources. This has been seen as a 21st Century Crusade by Christian Bush against Islam. We have yet to see whether any of the fabled "weapons of mass destruction" ever turn up. Let's not forget that the biggest stockpilers of those are the American military, and they deny *any* other country (even so-called allies) the right to inspect them where they expect others to meekly submit. It hardly encourages trust. Americans have a right to feel defensive, no-one is doubting the shock of the 9/11 tragedy, but the unthinking belief in what your leaders are telling you, especially an appeal to the lowest common denominator of "patriotism" when a rational look at the facts should tell even the most unenlightened citizen that there are huge financial incentives behind this war, both personally for the instigators and for their core supporters, is what is disheartening to the rest of us. And yes, frightening, because when money and greed, not compassion for humanity and the higher ideals on which the nation was supposedly built, are the guiding policy of such a militarily powerful country so appallingly contemptuous of its neighbours, any one of us may be next. And this experience has shown us that most Americans will be led like sheep into believing what they are told, without being able to question those motives and make their own decisions from the questionable "evidence" they are spoonfed through highly manipulative and influential media. Any who do dare to question are denounced as "unpatriotic" in a manner that McCarthy would have recognised. That is not the democracy of your precious Constitution. That "patriotism" is nothing more than blind mob ignorance shaped by a self-interested plitical elite with ultimate global power, both military and economic. You don't need to be an X-Files conspiracy nut to see that. What happens next *will* be your fault if you do not sit up, collectively, and start to seriously question what these people are doing in your name, and why. Ian

2003-04-22 04:14:31+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:39:04 -0400, forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:42:49 GMT, Rick Ramey ><rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: > >>EVERYTHING is the US's fault, whether we are too involved (butting in >>and doing something) or not involved enough (sitting back idly while >>the world goes to hell in a handbasket). At least that is what I have >>learned here. > >That's what the whole rest of the planet thinks, there's more of them >collectively than there are of us, they must be right. (eyeroll) How can you be so arrogant? What the rest of the planet thinks IS important. If you value any sense of democracy at all, you have to accept that however large, influential and important the US is, it is part of a *much* larger global humanity, and we *all* deserve a voice in how this planet works together to avoid destroying each other. You can argue about the best way to achieve that, and about the ineffectiveness of the current UN as a forum to create international policy *and* enforce it, but right now it is what we have. What the rest of the world saw a month or two back was the US tearing up the rule book and showing that it doesn't care a fig about the rest of humanity's opinion. I think those rest of us have a right to be very concerned about that, as we get disproportionately affected by whatever the US does and we don't get a vote in your leadership election, only an apparently brainwashed US public that seems unable to admit that their leaders might ever be wrong, because God and the American Constitution are on their side! For many years the UN has acted as a valuable balancing force and arbitrator for territorial disputes. This is not perfect - we can argue about the way the UN creates resolution after resolution, but only enforces the ones that it wants or that it is politically expedient for the people who are going to do the enforcing to get involved in. You can also argue about the speed it takes to get involved, but that is a matter of the will of individual governments to commit, not the institution itself. It has to rely on the willingness of the member governments to support it, or it *is* ineffectual. It is *only* a body for creating diplomatic consensus, however flawed, as it has no enforcing troops of its own. Where there is political will to solve a problem, everyone pulls together and good happens. But the value of the forum is that however rigged the vote, however bribed the voters, a consensus of a sort is reached that can satisfy the world that there is reasonable cause for action. I may be wrong, but my impression is that the UN generally tries to limit intervention to allow local conflicts to stabilise and allow dialogue without necessarily taking sides. Sometimes that works well, like the UK's peacekeeping role in Sierra Leone. Sometimes it has been less successful, as in the ethnic bloodbath that became of the former Yugoslavia. The UN *could* have decided, with the right political input from the US and the UK if a war scenario had not been so predetermined, to take a more strongly interventionist stance on Iraq *beyond* weapons inspection but *short* of bombing and invasion/occupation. Unfortunately it was not presented with that option as the US had already decided what it wanted to do and just wanted a rubber-stamp to make it palatable for world opinion. You don't have to be a genius or a cynic to see the truth of that. Many people have asked in this thread what these alternative options might have been. I can say that I certainly don't know, as I'm not a diplomat or military strategist, so it's hardly my place to come up with those answers, but it is blindingly obvious to most people outside the US that there was *no* effort made to consider them by the people who *should* have done so, as the prize of winning Iraq (both its oil and its incomparable strategic location) by force was simply much more attractive. This had to be done while the rhetoric of the "War on Terror" was still working, hence the rush. Where the current action in Iraq has fallen down is that the world, not just the French and the Russian foreign ministers, but a significant majority of the world's population, looked at the evidence for the action provided by the US and didn't believe it. Here in the UK, many people, including our parliamentary members, not all corrupt and toadying Blair-supporters, looked at the "dossier" justifying military action and just didn't believe it. People here aren't going to be taken in by lies and misinformation, especially when it is so blatant, desperate and insulting as the use of a 10 year-old article written by a student being passed off as current "intelligence". Why is it that so many people worldwide chose to be sceptical about the perceived threat the US claimed, enough of a threat to even consider bombing thousands of innocent Iraqis, never mind putting American and UK soldiers at risk, while so many Americans did not? Why are you so prepared to believe your politicians, when we are inclined to question? It strikes me as odd that the clear popular enjoyment of a show like the X-Files, which is predicated on the idea of massive government conspiracy and lies, has not led to a real questioning of the motives of real politicians. Why in fact do most Americans assume that they *are* being told the truth? Or can the truth ever be an issue when highly complex political choices are dumbed down to black and white, them or us, even blatantly religious good versus evil? Let's face it, *nowhere* in the world is the political process so completely dependent on huge financial promises, bribes, deals and patronage, where the people running for office are being bankrolled by the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world, who expect a return for their huge investments in overt favouritism in legal, financial or other terms. It is not done out of altruism or concern for the democratic process! No president can take a campaign donation without promising *some* kind of payback. The bigger the bribe... and we know Enron was just one massive energy corporation that was a major Bush donator. How then can any American be so naive as to think that *any* administration can be free to make a political decision, even on something as important as a war, without there being massive financial implications and private kick-back promises factored in? Given that Bush is a member of a family with significant financial interests in oil and arms sales, as are many of his major political supporters, it's hardly surprising to many of us that a decision to go to war was made in the face of massive world opprobrium. It is the *process* of this decision to war that is clearly deeply flawed and undemocratic. How can this not be obvious? I'm not quibbling with the result of removing Saddam, although that was never supposedly the reason. Regime change is flatly outlawed by the UN charter, remember. There is no doubting the outcome is an improvement for many Iraqis, and that *some* support for terrorism against the US may have been cut off, although the action will undoubtedly create many more new fanatics from previously ambivalent sources. This has been seen as a 21st Century Crusade by Christian Bush against Islam. We have yet to see whether any of the fabled "weapons of mass destruction" ever turn up. Let's not forget that the biggest stockpilers of those are the American military, and they deny *any* other country (even so-called allies) the right to inspect them where they expect others to meekly submit. It hardly encourages trust. Americans have a right to feel defensive, no-one is doubting the shock of the 9/11 tragedy, but the unthinking belief in what your leaders are telling you, especially an appeal to the lowest common denominator of "patriotism" when a rational look at the facts should tell even the most unenlightened citizen that there are huge financial incentives behind this war, both personally for the instigators and for their core supporters, is what is disheartening to the rest of us. And yes, frightening, because when money and greed, not compassion for humanity and the higher ideals on which the nation was supposedly built, are the guiding policy of such a militarily powerful country so appallingly contemptuous of its neighbours, any one of us may be next. And this experience has shown us that most Americans will be led like sheep into believing what they are told, without being able to question those motives and make their own decisions from the questionable "evidence" they are spoonfed through highly manipulative and influential media. Any who do dare to question are denounced as "unpatriotic" in a manner that McCarthy would have recognised. That is not the democracy of your precious Constitution. That "patriotism" is nothing more than blind mob ignorance shaped by a self-interested plitical elite with ultimate global power, both military and economic. You don't need to be an X-Files conspiracy nut to see that. What happens next *will* be your fault if you do not sit up, collectively, and start to seriously question what these people are doing in your name, and why. Ian

2003-04-22 04:25:07+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


EGK wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:00:35 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> EGK wrote: >>> >>> After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone >>> believe this time would be any different? >> >> Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have >> the sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the >> surrounding Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language >> as the Iraqis. It would have *legitimacy*, and popular support >> across the political spectrum. > > You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure > to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why > should we believe it would be any different now? Because this particular initiative will be the responsibility of the French and the Russians. If Saddam defies this, he'll be defying the French and the Russians. He will also be defying the last reasonable chance that the UN process has given him. The Franco-Russian initiative, if it foundered, will be met by a Franco-Russian proposal to depose the regime. Do you think that the UK and US will stand aside when this ultimate resolution is passed? And if the permanent members of the SC are united on an issue, do you think the other members will disagree? If the SC was united, do you think the ME would disagree? And I disagree with your opinion that the UN inspections were impotent. 90% of prohibited weapons were *proven* to be destroyed in the years in the inspection process. The other 10% was *unaccounted for*, reportedly due to administration errors. And now that the whole country is under US control, open to US-led inspections, those 10% are *still* unaccounted for, reportedly due to administration errors. The last round of inspections found nothing that significantly countered the prohibitions set by the UN; a partial result corroborated by the more reliable evidence from elsewhere. Weapons which *marginally* overlapped the boundaries were found, and destroyed. In the war just gone, we haven't encountered any weapons that the UN said weren't there. In the face of all this evidence, do you still maintain that the UN was ineffective in disarming Iraq? The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating. How many countries has Iraq invaded in the last 12 years? How many countries has Iraq threatened to invade in the last 12 years? And you maintain that the UN was ineffective in disarming Iraq? > The UN was just as > likely to sit on it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd > issue another toothless resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was > Saddam Hussein's best friend in all of this. > >>> I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's >>> private money is a lot different then the federal government giving >>> money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from >>> doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to >>> stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and >>> funneling money to groups like bin laden. >> >> Perhaps I'm raising this point because, despite your ally's requests >> to do so, you didn't prevent *known* members of a terrorist >> organisation (the most active in western Europe) from coming to the >> US to raise funds? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of special >> relationship between Thatcher and Reagan's US? If the US was the >> target, and Syria allowed the open funding of Al-Qaeda cells by >> known Al-Qaeda members, would you brush it off with the same logic >> about the freedom of individuals? Heck, you invaded Iraq despite >> the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. > > I'm not sure point this is supposed to prove. That the US government > has often acted hypocritically? That's not news and I don't defend > it. I'm just pointing out that the US government, and some posters like yourself continue to be hypocritical by holding 9/11 as a significant landmark in your dealings with Iraq. 9/11 has as much relevance wrt Iraq as the IRA. Saddam had _nothing_ to do with OBL. The 9/11 date has _nothing_ to do with Saddam. Saddam should have been overthrown, or at least marginalised within his own country, but it should have been done for the right reason, using the right process, observing existing laws, and with the right preparation. Wait another 2-3 months and you would have had the world on your side, the world's laws on your side, the world's resources at your disposal, in war and in the reconstruction. Saddam has been deposed by right of conquest. If you'd waited another 2-3 months, you could have deposed him by right of international law. As it is, Russia is quite correct in continuing to recognise Saddam as the Iraqi head of state until new democratic elections are held. >>>> Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those >>>> artefacts >>>> to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have >>>> meant their continued existence? >>> >>> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any >>> difference >> >> It would have meant the participation of Arab troops, > > No, It most certainly would not have. No matter what coalition was > formed, the US and the UK would have supplied the firepower just as > they always have. We had all the support we needed from arab > countries. The Saudis outnumbered the British in GWI. Some Arab countries were calling on Hussain to stand down to avoid war, even before OIF was coined. If a united SC had called for the deposition of Saddam, neighbouring countries would have joined. The UN has a funny habit of uniting the world like that. The US may provide 90% of the firepower, but what we've notably lacked was a communication channel with the Iraqi population - the UK troops less so due to their peacekeeping experience, but still noticeable. We've also lacked the will to protect cultural sites, and the manpower with which to do so. Just 10K Saudi and Syrian troops would have made a huge difference in the policing. >> who would have lent >> visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the >> transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting >> their (our) shared heritage. > > You're kidding, right? They can't resist killing one another in the > same country what with the Baathists and Shites and Kurds and who > knows what else. How can one argue with a stereotype of a nation of natives, good for nothing except killing each other? The UN is probably dominated by the European model of a loose collection of nation states with common humanitarian ideals, with no one nation dominating the others. It's a flexible model, and it's been proven to hold a collection of peoples together who'd been killing each other virtually non-stop for the previous 1000 years and more. There's no reason why such a model wouldn't work, suitably adapted, in Iraq, especially if similar peoples with similar cultures were drafted in to help front the transition. The great thing about this model is that each part feels at least some affinity with the whole. OTOH, the only things that currently seem to unite the vocal is the desire to get the Yanks and Brits out, and Islamic law in, demands that transcend tribe and sect. If the operation had universal backing, was fronted by fellow Arabs who practised the same religion, would things be the same? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-22 04:25:07+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Yuk Tang <jim.laker2@yahoo.com>)


EGK wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:00:35 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> EGK wrote: >>> >>> After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone >>> believe this time would be any different? >> >> Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have >> the sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the >> surrounding Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language >> as the Iraqis. It would have *legitimacy*, and popular support >> across the political spectrum. > > You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure > to happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why > should we believe it would be any different now? Because this particular initiative will be the responsibility of the French and the Russians. If Saddam defies this, he'll be defying the French and the Russians. He will also be defying the last reasonable chance that the UN process has given him. The Franco-Russian initiative, if it foundered, will be met by a Franco-Russian proposal to depose the regime. Do you think that the UK and US will stand aside when this ultimate resolution is passed? And if the permanent members of the SC are united on an issue, do you think the other members will disagree? If the SC was united, do you think the ME would disagree? And I disagree with your opinion that the UN inspections were impotent. 90% of prohibited weapons were *proven* to be destroyed in the years in the inspection process. The other 10% was *unaccounted for*, reportedly due to administration errors. And now that the whole country is under US control, open to US-led inspections, those 10% are *still* unaccounted for, reportedly due to administration errors. The last round of inspections found nothing that significantly countered the prohibitions set by the UN; a partial result corroborated by the more reliable evidence from elsewhere. Weapons which *marginally* overlapped the boundaries were found, and destroyed. In the war just gone, we haven't encountered any weapons that the UN said weren't there. In the face of all this evidence, do you still maintain that the UN was ineffective in disarming Iraq? The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating. How many countries has Iraq invaded in the last 12 years? How many countries has Iraq threatened to invade in the last 12 years? And you maintain that the UN was ineffective in disarming Iraq? > The UN was just as > likely to sit on it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd > issue another toothless resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was > Saddam Hussein's best friend in all of this. > >>> I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's >>> private money is a lot different then the federal government giving >>> money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from >>> doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to >>> stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and >>> funneling money to groups like bin laden. >> >> Perhaps I'm raising this point because, despite your ally's requests >> to do so, you didn't prevent *known* members of a terrorist >> organisation (the most active in western Europe) from coming to the >> US to raise funds? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of special >> relationship between Thatcher and Reagan's US? If the US was the >> target, and Syria allowed the open funding of Al-Qaeda cells by >> known Al-Qaeda members, would you brush it off with the same logic >> about the freedom of individuals? Heck, you invaded Iraq despite >> the absence of evidence linking them to OBL. > > I'm not sure point this is supposed to prove. That the US government > has often acted hypocritically? That's not news and I don't defend > it. I'm just pointing out that the US government, and some posters like yourself continue to be hypocritical by holding 9/11 as a significant landmark in your dealings with Iraq. 9/11 has as much relevance wrt Iraq as the IRA. Saddam had _nothing_ to do with OBL. The 9/11 date has _nothing_ to do with Saddam. Saddam should have been overthrown, or at least marginalised within his own country, but it should have been done for the right reason, using the right process, observing existing laws, and with the right preparation. Wait another 2-3 months and you would have had the world on your side, the world's laws on your side, the world's resources at your disposal, in war and in the reconstruction. Saddam has been deposed by right of conquest. If you'd waited another 2-3 months, you could have deposed him by right of international law. As it is, Russia is quite correct in continuing to recognise Saddam as the Iraqi head of state until new democratic elections are held. >>>> Anyway, humanity has waited over 5000 years to bring those >>>> artefacts >>>> to this present day. What's another 2-3 months, if it would have >>>> meant their continued existence? >>> >>> Because only the naive believe 2-3 months would have made any >>> difference >> >> It would have meant the participation of Arab troops, > > No, It most certainly would not have. No matter what coalition was > formed, the US and the UK would have supplied the firepower just as > they always have. We had all the support we needed from arab > countries. The Saudis outnumbered the British in GWI. Some Arab countries were calling on Hussain to stand down to avoid war, even before OIF was coined. If a united SC had called for the deposition of Saddam, neighbouring countries would have joined. The UN has a funny habit of uniting the world like that. The US may provide 90% of the firepower, but what we've notably lacked was a communication channel with the Iraqi population - the UK troops less so due to their peacekeeping experience, but still noticeable. We've also lacked the will to protect cultural sites, and the manpower with which to do so. Just 10K Saudi and Syrian troops would have made a huge difference in the policing. >> who would have lent >> visible Muslim support to the enterprise, who would have smoothed the >> transition between regimes, who would have had a stake in protecting >> their (our) shared heritage. > > You're kidding, right? They can't resist killing one another in the > same country what with the Baathists and Shites and Kurds and who > knows what else. How can one argue with a stereotype of a nation of natives, good for nothing except killing each other? The UN is probably dominated by the European model of a loose collection of nation states with common humanitarian ideals, with no one nation dominating the others. It's a flexible model, and it's been proven to hold a collection of peoples together who'd been killing each other virtually non-stop for the previous 1000 years and more. There's no reason why such a model wouldn't work, suitably adapted, in Iraq, especially if similar peoples with similar cultures were drafted in to help front the transition. The great thing about this model is that each part feels at least some affinity with the whole. OTOH, the only things that currently seem to unite the vocal is the desire to get the Yanks and Brits out, and Islamic law in, demands that transcend tribe and sect. If the operation had universal backing, was fronted by fellow Arabs who practised the same religion, would things be the same? Cheers, ymt.

2003-04-22 05:01:01+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:55:00 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the >>sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding >>Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It >>would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. > >You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure to >happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why should we >believe it would be any different now? The UN was just as likely to sit on >it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd issue another toothless >resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was Saddam Hussein's best friend in >all of this. I can't help wondering what you think the UN actually *is*! It is a forum where political problems are discussed and resolutions to those problems that satisfy a majority are hammered out. The problems that are brought to the attention of the UN, and the possible solutions that are presented, are *entirely* down to the members' self-interest. Resolution 1441 was presented for rubber-stamp by the US/UK/Spanish IIRC, not as you seem to imply by some independent group of idealists without political connections to the member states. If the UN has "sat on its hands", it is not the fault of it as a body, or group of people, but of the political will of the member states to take the action they have agreed on, *or to frame the resolutions they sponsor in such a way that they can be enforced*. The UN has no force of its own to enforce its own resolutions, it must rely on the willingness of those members to take action. Ergo, if nothing has happened over Iraq for 12 years, it is *only* because it was simply not in the political interest of the US or any other powerful player who could have done so to *make* anything happen! If nothing has happened on all the resolutions against Israel, for instance, it is because no-one has had the will to enforce it against the risk of reprisal by the US - a clear political decision not to have the will to enforce. Equally with Iraq, for whatever respective political reasons, for the last 12 years. We *all*, as UN members, share complicity for doing nothing, or as citizens of those countries for not forcing our leaders to have the will to enforce what they agree on. But to try and shift the blame for this inaction or impotence from the member countries, including the US, who are directly responsible for moving and resolving these issues, onto the forum which merely creates the consensus on what is brought before it by those members, is grossly disingenuous. Ian

2003-04-22 05:01:01+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:55:00 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the >>sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding >>Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It >>would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. > >You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure to >happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why should we >believe it would be any different now? The UN was just as likely to sit on >it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd issue another toothless >resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was Saddam Hussein's best friend in >all of this. I can't help wondering what you think the UN actually *is*! It is a forum where political problems are discussed and resolutions to those problems that satisfy a majority are hammered out. The problems that are brought to the attention of the UN, and the possible solutions that are presented, are *entirely* down to the members' self-interest. Resolution 1441 was presented for rubber-stamp by the US/UK/Spanish IIRC, not as you seem to imply by some independent group of idealists without political connections to the member states. If the UN has "sat on its hands", it is not the fault of it as a body, or group of people, but of the political will of the member states to take the action they have agreed on, *or to frame the resolutions they sponsor in such a way that they can be enforced*. The UN has no force of its own to enforce its own resolutions, it must rely on the willingness of those members to take action. Ergo, if nothing has happened over Iraq for 12 years, it is *only* because it was simply not in the political interest of the US or any other powerful player who could have done so to *make* anything happen! If nothing has happened on all the resolutions against Israel, for instance, it is because no-one has had the will to enforce it against the risk of reprisal by the US - a clear political decision not to have the will to enforce. Equally with Iraq, for whatever respective political reasons, for the last 12 years. We *all*, as UN members, share complicity for doing nothing, or as citizens of those countries for not forcing our leaders to have the will to enforce what they agree on. But to try and shift the blame for this inaction or impotence from the member countries, including the US, who are directly responsible for moving and resolving these issues, onto the forum which merely creates the consensus on what is brought before it by those members, is grossly disingenuous. Ian

2003-04-22 06:02:07+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in news:hia5avchn3u8sasbhhe1ss5vesb2rk1p25@4ax.com: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:33:30 +0100, Mark Evans > <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>and put on trial? > > I know you are not a reasonable person, but I have to ask anyway: > > Do you even acknowledge that Israel has been attacked by Palestinian > terrorists? > > Or is all that just another myth perpetuated by the jews in the media? There have been some awful atrocities on both sides. At this point they're "both as bad as each other", so I fail to see how pointing out Palestinian terrorism excuses Israeli terrorism. I'd like both Arafat and Sharon taken to task and put before an international criminal court.

2003-04-22 06:02:07+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote in news:hia5avchn3u8sasbhhe1ss5vesb2rk1p25@4ax.com: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:33:30 +0100, Mark Evans > <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>and put on trial? > > I know you are not a reasonable person, but I have to ask anyway: > > Do you even acknowledge that Israel has been attacked by Palestinian > terrorists? > > Or is all that just another myth perpetuated by the jews in the media? There have been some awful atrocities on both sides. At this point they're "both as bad as each other", so I fail to see how pointing out Palestinian terrorism excuses Israeli terrorism. I'd like both Arafat and Sharon taken to task and put before an international criminal court.

2003-04-22 06:08:16+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in news:nieporen-54C6D3.15521621042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I >>> assume you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're >>> now removing them instead. > >>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>and put on trial? > > When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. Is this the famous "mention Israel as anything other than 100% innocent wrt the sufferings of both peoples and suffer accusations of being anti-semitic and/or a nazi sympathiser" play? Interesting concept.

2003-04-22 06:08:16+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in news:nieporen-54C6D3.15521621042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, > Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>In alt.tv.angel Mike Craney <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> If you hated the fact that we used to kiss up to these guys, I >>> assume you're being consistent and applauding the fact that we're >>> now removing them instead. > >>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>and put on trial? > > When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. Is this the famous "mention Israel as anything other than 100% innocent wrt the sufferings of both peoples and suffer accusations of being anti-semitic and/or a nazi sympathiser" play? Interesting concept.

2003-04-22 06:13:14-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (blucas1@mindspring.com)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<Mg0pa.38669$cO3.2946227@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0304211042.3c456d90@posting.google.com>... > >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:<5BMoa.71133$ja4.4734935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > >> Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > >> > > >> > > >> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > >> >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > >> >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > >> >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries > >> >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is > not > >> >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the > >> >> >> crowds, right now. > >> >> > > >> >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > >> >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > >> >> > >> >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as > usual. > >> >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > >> >> > >> >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. > >> > > >> >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) > were > >> >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and > then > >> >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't > think > >> >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. > > > >Just when I think you couldn't possible get more politically biased, > >you somehow manage to sink to a new low... > > > >> Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. > The > >> US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. > >> And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary > weapons > >> of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and > destruction > >> of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are > those > >> in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. > > > >Of course, it's all about oil. Sure it is. The left has been wearing > >out that tired old rag for decades now, and refuse to abandon it > >simply because it hasn't stuck in a single conflict. > > > >> I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to > loot > >> that building. > > > >It was made fairly plain that the people shooting at the troops get > >first priority attention wise. Looting is non-violent, and could even > >be seen as a form of protest given that the loot being looted was > >truly stolen from the masses to pamper a chosen few. > > Yes indeed: all those pampered patients in hospitals where they were > getting wounds and burns from US bombs. They needed to have the hopitals > looted to the bare walls, leaving doctors with now way to treat them. > That'll teach them a lesson. > > >> All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the > lives > >> of the Iraqi people. > > > >This is the point that marks that new low mentioned above. Can you > >possibly be so monumentally brain dead as to believe the load of bs in > >your above statement ? The people in the new uniforms have no > >official rapists. > Not official, but you might look up the data on how many US military > women were raped in Gulf War 1, and note that they were all raped by US > military men. I don't know how many were USAF academy graduates. The point that you deliberatly misread was that Saddam made a habit of having the wives of those who disagreed with him systematically raped in rooms designated solely for that purpose by people who only job was to brutalize innocent women. Not that you care about that, since it doesn't fit into your anti-us / anti-military view of the world. > >They do not gouge out the eyes of children to > >correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to > >women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for > >them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a > >firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first > >to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. > > So the US military has learned a little since Vietnam, and has also > learned the power of negative propaganda. I haven't seen any civilian TV > shots of soldiers assaulting behind women and children: when did you? I'm > not taking an army spokesman sitting in an office in DC as a source. My source comes for this is CNN, which is hardly a pro-us news outlet. They have been working diligently to find and report any semi-negative news from Iraq. But they were forced to admit to this when their reporters did interviews with American and British troops who were doing the shooting. > > > >Have you completely ignored the news since the major fighting ended ? > >Did you somehow miss the "hospitals" with the hooks hanging from the > >ceilings ? How about the "police stations" with nooses and electrical > >wires hooked to metal bed frames ? > > I've seen picture of dozens and dozens of those world-wide over the last > few decades. A surprising number were funded by the US, and the secret > police that used them were trained in the USA. The USA has been the world's > biggest financer and supporter of terrorist one party regimes. Who sold > Iraq the equipment to make chemical and biological weapons in the first > place? I think you'll find it was the USA. Without USA support Saddam > might well have been deposed `15 years or more ago. Nice job of not admitting that it was happening here as well. Also, look up the CURRENT supporters of Iraqi finances. Russia and China top the list. The US comes in around number seven iirc. And it was France that sold them nuclear facilities, russia that sold them radar systems and jets. > >All that has changed is the uniforms indeed...if Saddam or his family > >were still in power those protesting in the street would be arrested, > >tortured, and or killed. Instead they are being allowed to voice > >their opinions in whatever peacefull manner suits them. > > Sure. It's not as if US troops weren't leading Iraqis in pulling down > that statue, and we know TV reporers just happen to pick the one mad on the > street who speaks English. I'm reading about thousands of people on the > street in Baghdad protesting the lack of hospitals, water, power, sewage > treatment and food. Does your hate-Iraq radio show ignore them? Make that assisting. The Iraqis were trying for about ten minutes to pull down that statue before getting help from that tank mover. And much like Europe, many people speak english in Iraq, they simply choose to speak their native tongue when speaking among themselves. I met over a hundred english speakers in Rabat, Morrocco, which is hardly pro-US. Also, it sounds like your Hate-America newspaper tends to overstate its crowd figures. Cnn, again, hardly pro-us, calls the numbers in the hundreds, and dwindling each day. Try to imagine hundreds of people protesting the lack of water and electricity to Saddam. Most of Bagdad did not have reliable sources of either under Saddam, but speaking out meant prison, torture, and possible death. Did you perchance hear about the mass graves being found containing political prisoners ? Protesting Saddam was a great way to visit one of them permanently. > > > >> At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power. > > > >Had Saddam et al cared about the people they would not have used the > >scorched earth tactics which have led to the lack of utilities and > >facilities. > > So you're claiming Saddam bombed the Baghdad electricity and water > systems? That's not in the news sane people are recieving Now your starting to get it. Strange how the power and water stayed on the whole time we were dropping those highly dangerous bombs, but the day we took the Bagdad airport they both went out of commision. > >It is frightening how the left hates Bush and Blair enough to be > >willing to consign the Iraqi population to torture and death instead > >of admitting to an overwhelming success in terms of lack of civilian > >death and infrastructure damage. > > > >The left in the US has an anti-gun saying "How much is it worth to > >save a single child's life ?" > > What is this absurd belief you have that anyone who doesn't like a war > based on lies must be "a Leftist"? Where you taught as a child to look > under your bed every night in case there was a godless communist hiding > under it? > You throw that word "leftist" about the way religious freaks throw the > word "Heretic". > Why not take the time to type "people who won't agree with me"? Try reading the post above again. Concentrate real hard and count the number of times I used the word "Leftist". If you come up with a number greater than zero, then take you medicine and try again after it takes effect. When I speak of the "left", I am talking about the US political left. They are currently in a complete panic over being completely wrong about the decades long war involving tens of thousands of civilian deaths, complete with dead women and little babies crowding every street. Also, once again, nice job of altering the point so that you don't have to deal with the subject. Keep disecting word usage, and look for a spelling error or two. I'm sure that would be much more comfortable than actually acknowledging your own blind hatred.

2003-04-22 06:13:14-07:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (blucas1@mindspring.com)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<Mg0pa.38669$cO3.2946227@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Enkil wrote in message <58e03e6b.0304211042.3c456d90@posting.google.com>... > >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:<5BMoa.71133$ja4.4734935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > >> Papa Smurf wrote in message ... > >> > > >> > > >> >"Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >news:Xns9363CCF13B07Cmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.48... > >> >> "Caffeine Cal" <coconnell@esatclear.ei> wrote in > >> >> news:b7veqf$ii8$1@kermit.esat.net: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > "Mike Craney" <mcraneynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >> > news:Xns9363BDDF899ACmcraneysbcglobalnet@151.164.30.44... > >> >> >> "The Black Sheep" <blacksheep667@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> >> news:b7va9l$4m56u$1 @ID-148573.news.dfncis.de: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > And you do have a great deal of control over how other countries > >> >> >> > see you, here a hint: "You're either with us or against us" is > not > >> >> >> > a great crowd pleaser. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Here's another hint. We're not real interested in pleasing the > >> >> >> crowds, right now. > >> >> > > >> >> > Particularly not the Iraqi crowds, right? Their lives remain the > >> >> > same. Only the people threatening them with guns have changed. > >> >> > >> >> Right now, law abiding citizens are going about their business as > usual. > >> >> Difference is, they now have the right of self-determination. > >> >> > >> >> Non-law abiding citizens, you're right; nothing has changed. > >> > > >> >Actually, if you look at the case of the looters, they (the soldiers) > were > >> >commenting on all they could really do was detain them a few hours and > then > >> >release them. They'd fine the same ones over and over. Somehow I don't > think > >> >Saddam would've reacted the same way. So quite a bit has changed. > > > >Just when I think you couldn't possible get more politically biased, > >you somehow manage to sink to a new low... > > > >> Certainly. The Baathists wanted those government offices intact. > The > >> US doesn't, so the looters were ignored. > >> And now the US is saying that the search for those illusionary > weapons > >> of mass destruction is maybe impossible because of the theft and > destruction > >> of records US troops allowed. The records that matter to the USA are > those > >> in the intact and unlooted ministry of petroleum. > > > >Of course, it's all about oil. Sure it is. The left has been wearing > >out that tired old rag for decades now, and refuse to abandon it > >simply because it hasn't stuck in a single conflict. > > > >> I wouldn't bet 5 cents on the life expectancy of anyone trying to > loot > >> that building. > > > >It was made fairly plain that the people shooting at the troops get > >first priority attention wise. Looting is non-violent, and could even > >be seen as a form of protest given that the loot being looted was > >truly stolen from the masses to pamper a chosen few. > > Yes indeed: all those pampered patients in hospitals where they were > getting wounds and burns from US bombs. They needed to have the hopitals > looted to the bare walls, leaving doctors with now way to treat them. > That'll teach them a lesson. > > >> All that has changed is the uniforms of the troops controlling the > lives > >> of the Iraqi people. > > > >This is the point that marks that new low mentioned above. Can you > >possibly be so monumentally brain dead as to believe the load of bs in > >your above statement ? The people in the new uniforms have no > >official rapists. > Not official, but you might look up the data on how many US military > women were raped in Gulf War 1, and note that they were all raped by US > military men. I don't know how many were USAF academy graduates. The point that you deliberatly misread was that Saddam made a habit of having the wives of those who disagreed with him systematically raped in rooms designated solely for that purpose by people who only job was to brutalize innocent women. Not that you care about that, since it doesn't fit into your anti-us / anti-military view of the world. > >They do not gouge out the eyes of children to > >correct their parent's political views. They do not put a gun to > >women and children's heads in order to force the men to fight for > >them. They do not use the same women and children as shields during a > >firefight. They do not feed people into plastic shredders feet first > >to prolong the screams of agony for their personal pleasure. > > So the US military has learned a little since Vietnam, and has also > learned the power of negative propaganda. I haven't seen any civilian TV > shots of soldiers assaulting behind women and children: when did you? I'm > not taking an army spokesman sitting in an office in DC as a source. My source comes for this is CNN, which is hardly a pro-us news outlet. They have been working diligently to find and report any semi-negative news from Iraq. But they were forced to admit to this when their reporters did interviews with American and British troops who were doing the shooting. > > > >Have you completely ignored the news since the major fighting ended ? > >Did you somehow miss the "hospitals" with the hooks hanging from the > >ceilings ? How about the "police stations" with nooses and electrical > >wires hooked to metal bed frames ? > > I've seen picture of dozens and dozens of those world-wide over the last > few decades. A surprising number were funded by the US, and the secret > police that used them were trained in the USA. The USA has been the world's > biggest financer and supporter of terrorist one party regimes. Who sold > Iraq the equipment to make chemical and biological weapons in the first > place? I think you'll find it was the USA. Without USA support Saddam > might well have been deposed `15 years or more ago. Nice job of not admitting that it was happening here as well. Also, look up the CURRENT supporters of Iraqi finances. Russia and China top the list. The US comes in around number seven iirc. And it was France that sold them nuclear facilities, russia that sold them radar systems and jets. > >All that has changed is the uniforms indeed...if Saddam or his family > >were still in power those protesting in the street would be arrested, > >tortured, and or killed. Instead they are being allowed to voice > >their opinions in whatever peacefull manner suits them. > > Sure. It's not as if US troops weren't leading Iraqis in pulling down > that statue, and we know TV reporers just happen to pick the one mad on the > street who speaks English. I'm reading about thousands of people on the > street in Baghdad protesting the lack of hospitals, water, power, sewage > treatment and food. Does your hate-Iraq radio show ignore them? Make that assisting. The Iraqis were trying for about ten minutes to pull down that statue before getting help from that tank mover. And much like Europe, many people speak english in Iraq, they simply choose to speak their native tongue when speaking among themselves. I met over a hundred english speakers in Rabat, Morrocco, which is hardly pro-US. Also, it sounds like your Hate-America newspaper tends to overstate its crowd figures. Cnn, again, hardly pro-us, calls the numbers in the hundreds, and dwindling each day. Try to imagine hundreds of people protesting the lack of water and electricity to Saddam. Most of Bagdad did not have reliable sources of either under Saddam, but speaking out meant prison, torture, and possible death. Did you perchance hear about the mass graves being found containing political prisoners ? Protesting Saddam was a great way to visit one of them permanently. > > > >> At least before the invasion Baghdad had hospitals, water and power. > > > >Had Saddam et al cared about the people they would not have used the > >scorched earth tactics which have led to the lack of utilities and > >facilities. > > So you're claiming Saddam bombed the Baghdad electricity and water > systems? That's not in the news sane people are recieving Now your starting to get it. Strange how the power and water stayed on the whole time we were dropping those highly dangerous bombs, but the day we took the Bagdad airport they both went out of commision. > >It is frightening how the left hates Bush and Blair enough to be > >willing to consign the Iraqi population to torture and death instead > >of admitting to an overwhelming success in terms of lack of civilian > >death and infrastructure damage. > > > >The left in the US has an anti-gun saying "How much is it worth to > >save a single child's life ?" > > What is this absurd belief you have that anyone who doesn't like a war > based on lies must be "a Leftist"? Where you taught as a child to look > under your bed every night in case there was a godless communist hiding > under it? > You throw that word "leftist" about the way religious freaks throw the > word "Heretic". > Why not take the time to type "people who won't agree with me"? Try reading the post above again. Concentrate real hard and count the number of times I used the word "Leftist". If you come up with a number greater than zero, then take you medicine and try again after it takes effect. When I speak of the "left", I am talking about the US political left. They are currently in a complete panic over being completely wrong about the decades long war involving tens of thousands of civilian deaths, complete with dead women and little babies crowding every street. Also, once again, nice job of altering the point so that you don't have to deal with the subject. Keep disecting word usage, and look for a spelling error or two. I'm sure that would be much more comfortable than actually acknowledging your own blind hatred.

2003-04-22 06:30:57+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in news:nieporen-0CB06F.01523322042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > In <1050960708.58968.0@doris.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >>Papa Smurf wrote: > >>> If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to >>> do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of >>> view. > >>And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your >>point? > > No, Blair had a majority of Britain supporting his stance. Earlier in > the year, it's true that he didn't. But after the French perfidy, the > British -- the Robert Fisks of the world excepted -- supported Blair. > Before the bombing had started, the figures were around 70% against the invasion. Soon after "our boys" had started engaging the Iraqi troops, however, the figures edged in the opposite direction. The last figures I saw, at the height of the fighting, were in the region of 52% for, 48% against. So while you're technically correct when you talk of a majority, it's rather disingenuous to use "the British supported Blair" as a blanket statement.

2003-04-22 06:30:57+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in news:nieporen-0CB06F.01523322042003@news.fu-berlin.de: > In <1050960708.58968.0@doris.uk.clara.net>, "Guig" <guig@home> wrote: >>Papa Smurf wrote: > >>> If you take Quebec out of the equation (something we always try to >>> do) then you only have 36% and dropping supporting the PM's point of >>> view. > >>And Blair had a minority of Britain supporting his stance? What's your >>point? > > No, Blair had a majority of Britain supporting his stance. Earlier in > the year, it's true that he didn't. But after the French perfidy, the > British -- the Robert Fisks of the world excepted -- supported Blair. > Before the bombing had started, the figures were around 70% against the invasion. Soon after "our boys" had started engaging the Iraqi troops, however, the figures edged in the opposite direction. The last figures I saw, at the height of the fighting, were in the region of 52% for, 48% against. So while you're technically correct when you talk of a majority, it's rather disingenuous to use "the British supported Blair" as a blanket statement.

2003-04-22 06:38:12+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:07o9avsbuoi6f5p7pl1a5ic703b04aah77@4ax.com: > On 22 Apr 2003 06:08:16 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > >>David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >>news:nieporen-54C6D3.15521621042003@news.fu-berlin.de: >> >>> In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, >>> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>>>and put on trial? >>> >>> When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. >> >>Is this the famous "mention Israel as anything other than 100% >>innocent wrt the sufferings of both peoples and suffer accusations of >>being anti-semitic and/or a nazi sympathiser" play? >> >>Interesting concept. > > Actually you've got it backwards. It's usually Marc blaming Israel > and the jews for every problem under the sun. I see. I don't read this group on a regular basis. As such, I'm rather distanced from its politics and relationships. It stands as a fair comment though - Sharon should be put up in front of some kind of international criminal court. > It was Israeli agents who sent planes in to the World Trade Center to > frame innocent arabs, dont you know? We all have our crosses to bear... ;)

2003-04-22 06:38:12+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:07o9avsbuoi6f5p7pl1a5ic703b04aah77@4ax.com: > On 22 Apr 2003 06:08:16 GMT, Paul Smith <net.lineone@ozric99> wrote: > >>David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in >>news:nieporen-54C6D3.15521621042003@news.fu-berlin.de: >> >>> In article <q1tt7b.vo9.ln@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>, >>> Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>>>So when can we expect to see Ariel Sharon captured by US commandos >>>>and put on trial? >>> >>> When you and the rest of the Nazi party take power. >> >>Is this the famous "mention Israel as anything other than 100% >>innocent wrt the sufferings of both peoples and suffer accusations of >>being anti-semitic and/or a nazi sympathiser" play? >> >>Interesting concept. > > Actually you've got it backwards. It's usually Marc blaming Israel > and the jews for every problem under the sun. I see. I don't read this group on a regular basis. As such, I'm rather distanced from its politics and relationships. It stands as a fair comment though - Sharon should be put up in front of some kind of international criminal court. > It was Israeli agents who sent planes in to the World Trade Center to > frame innocent arabs, dont you know? We all have our crosses to bear... ;)

2003-04-22 07:08:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 01:15:36 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 05:01:01 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: > >>I can't help wondering what you think the UN actually *is*! > >A useless organization of politicians all bent on feathering their own >nests. Maybe, but representing their respective countries and given their political instructions by *national* politicians who are by and large bent on some ego trip or financial scam by the simple virtue of being in power... since I suppose we can agree there's no such thing as a truly idealistic politician. You are merely denying the link back to the countries which sponsor these UN representatives, who therefore must ultimately take complete responsibility for what gets discussed there and acted upon. You have no reply, which must be why you deliberately ignored that part of my post to make a cheap jibe. Ian

2003-04-22 07:08:26+00:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 01:15:36 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 05:01:01 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: > >>I can't help wondering what you think the UN actually *is*! > >A useless organization of politicians all bent on feathering their own >nests. Maybe, but representing their respective countries and given their political instructions by *national* politicians who are by and large bent on some ego trip or financial scam by the simple virtue of being in power... since I suppose we can agree there's no such thing as a truly idealistic politician. You are merely denying the link back to the countries which sponsor these UN representatives, who therefore must ultimately take complete responsibility for what gets discussed there and acted upon. You have no reply, which must be why you deliberately ignored that part of my post to make a cheap jibe. Ian

2003-04-22 07:33:45-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:14:31 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >>>EVERYTHING is the US's fault, whether we are too involved (butting in >>>and doing something) or not involved enough (sitting back idly while >>>the world goes to hell in a handbasket). At least that is what I have >>>learned here. >> >>That's what the whole rest of the planet thinks, there's more of them >>collectively than there are of us, they must be right. (eyeroll) > > >How can you be so arrogant? > >What the rest of the planet thinks IS important. If you value any >sense of democracy at all, you have to accept that however large, >influential and important the US is, it is part of a *much* larger >global humanity, and we *all* deserve a voice in how this planet works >together to avoid destroying each other. I wasn't being arrogant, I was stating a fact. As I said in another post - if we "help" someone we're meddlesome interventionists and if we "stay out of it" we're ivory-tower isolationists and either way, as far as the rest of the planet is concerned, we're fucked.

2003-04-22 07:33:45-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:14:31 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >>>EVERYTHING is the US's fault, whether we are too involved (butting in >>>and doing something) or not involved enough (sitting back idly while >>>the world goes to hell in a handbasket). At least that is what I have >>>learned here. >> >>That's what the whole rest of the planet thinks, there's more of them >>collectively than there are of us, they must be right. (eyeroll) > > >How can you be so arrogant? > >What the rest of the planet thinks IS important. If you value any >sense of democracy at all, you have to accept that however large, >influential and important the US is, it is part of a *much* larger >global humanity, and we *all* deserve a voice in how this planet works >together to avoid destroying each other. I wasn't being arrogant, I was stating a fact. As I said in another post - if we "help" someone we're meddlesome interventionists and if we "stay out of it" we're ivory-tower isolationists and either way, as far as the rest of the planet is concerned, we're fucked.

2003-04-22 07:36:05-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 05:01:01 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >The UN has no force of its own to enforce its own resolutions, it must >rely on the willingness of those members to take action. Ergo, if >nothing has happened over Iraq for 12 years, it is *only* because it >was simply not in the political interest of the US or any other >powerful player who could have done so to *make* anything happen! It BECAME "in the interest" of the US, but the rest of the UN said we weren't allowed. So we told them where they could stick it. More or less.

2003-04-22 07:36:05-04:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 05:01:01 +0000, ianboy <nospam@ianboy.com> wrote: >The UN has no force of its own to enforce its own resolutions, it must >rely on the willingness of those members to take action. Ergo, if >nothing has happened over Iraq for 12 years, it is *only* because it >was simply not in the political interest of the US or any other >powerful player who could have done so to *make* anything happen! It BECAME "in the interest" of the US, but the rest of the UN said we weren't allowed. So we told them where they could stick it. More or less.

2003-04-22 08:18:46+01:00 - Re: Winning The Peace OT - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


In alt.tv.angel EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:00:35 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>EGK wrote: >>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:03 +0100, "Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>>> EGK wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What exactly is patience for you? The 12 years we'd already spent >>>>> waiting for Iraq to comply? Fifteen years? Twenty? Perhaps we >>>>> should have waited for the next century to roll around? >>>> >>>> Wait another 2-3 months for the inspections to either complete, with >>>> the resultant disarmament of Iraq, or for the Franco-Russian plan to >>>> be blocked, bringing about a *legitimate* deposal of Saddam, >>>> probably unanimously backed by the Security Council, and a majority >>>> of the neighbouring countries. >>> >>> After 12 years of UN resolutions and impotence, why would anyone >>> believe this time would be any different? >> >>Because, as I've explained twice already, the coming war would have the >>sanction of the Security Council, international law, and the surrounding >>Islamic countries, many of whom share the same language as the Iraqis. It >>would have *legitimacy*, and popular support across the political spectrum. > You're missing the point i'm making. You say that as if it was sure to > happen. When we've watched the UN's impotence for 12 years, why should we One of the major reasons for the UN's "impotence" is the ability of the 5 permement members of the security council to veto things they don't like. With the US being very keen on using it's veto in Middle East matters. > believe it would be any different now? The UN was just as likely to sit on > it's hands again and do nothing. Or maybe they'd issue another toothless > resolution in 2-3 more months. The UN was Saddam Hussein's best friend in > all of this. Whilst the inspections were going on there wasn't a risk of the kind of disaster which has now happened. Anyway it was the warmongering countries who demanded another resolution before accepting the return of UN inspectors. If Iraq feared inspectors why did they invite inspectors, including those from the US government into the country in the summer of 2002? >>> I assume you're talkinga bout the IRA again. American individual's >>> private money is a lot different then the federal government giving >>> money to terrorists. How do you propose we stop individuals from >>> doing what they want with their money? We haven't even been able to >>> stop variousislamic groups from setting up various charities and >>> funneling mon