Re: OT but very important to us all

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

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

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

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

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

with stability in the middle east the US is safer



Ned wrote:

> On 11 Mar 2005 14:20:18 -0800, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Not what I said. We should not go to war over someone else's problems.
>>And, yeah, this time around it's a Conservative problem. Conservative
>>Republicans, or those claiming to be, got us into this Iraq hole.
>
> Hi Charlie, regarding that hole, are we there yet?

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

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


I should just cite Godwin.

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

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

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

--

FF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See above.

--

FF

Fredfigh responds:
>>Richard Clements wrote:

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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


See above. <<

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

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

Dave Hinz responds:

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



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

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

Nah. Only a True Believer will believe that nonsense.

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


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


> Shipped to Syria?


Maybe. <<

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

Charlie Self wrote:
> Dave Hinz responds:
> >>> Buried in the desert just when he needed them most?
>
>
> Maybe. It's quick to find hidden things when you know where they're
> hidden.
>
>
> > Shipped to Syria?
>
>
> Maybe. <<
>
> And, something too many people don't understand today, 'maybe'
> presupposes 'maybe not' as well. I'm on the side of 'probably not'
> since a lot of experienced people looked in a lot of places for a
long
> time.

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

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

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

--

FF

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

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

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


[email protected] wrote:

>
> Charlie Self wrote:
>> Dave Hinz responds:
>> >>> Buried in the desert just when he needed them most?
>>
>>
>> Maybe. It's quick to find hidden things when you know where they're
>> hidden.
>>
>>
>> > Shipped to Syria?
>>
>>
>> Maybe. <<
>>
>> And, something too many people don't understand today, 'maybe'
>> presupposes 'maybe not' as well. I'm on the side of 'probably not'
>> since a lot of experienced people looked in a lot of places for a
> long
>> time.
>
> David Kay pointed out that finding the weapons could be extremely
> hard so they looked for the factories instead. No factories, no
> weapons.
>
> I suppose some will argue that Sadam Husein buried the factories
> out in the desert and killed all the people who designed and built
> the factories (which would preclude a resumption of production,
> and as we know, his WMD with the exception of mustard, were short-
> lived) and all the people who worked in the factories and all the
> people who buried the factories. The he killed all the people
> that killed the other people.
>
> That hypothesis may fall short of completely indisputibly,
> impossible but it is surely a lot more improbable than the
> obvious one, that Iraq did not resume WMD production and
> Sadam Hussein was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted
> befor doing so.
>

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

Charlie Self wrote:
> Dave Hinz writes:
> >>>> but lets for get all of that and say it was a big lie, nothing
but
> political
> >> Bull. are you saying that the liberation of a people from a
> muderious
> >> dictator, was a bad thing,
>
> > No, just that it wasn't worth one American soldier.
>
>
> > And how many of the worlds numerous murderous dictators would you
> have
> > us overthrow next?
>
>
>
> Well, let's make a list of ones who are known to have used WMD, and
> start there. <<
>
> Why don't we do something a shade more reasonable: list those who are
a
> true, clear and present danger to the U.S., WMDs or no. Then whip
their
> asses, after which it might be time to start trying to change the
> behavior of the rest.

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

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

--

FF

Charlie Self wrote:

> Richard Clements responds:
>>>worst case, the president lied and the world is a better place, I can
> live
> with that<<
>
> You can. To date, more than 1500 young Americans don't live with it,
> and something over 12,000 have been maimed or otherwise wounded.
>
> Can you live with that, when what is happening in the involved country
> is none of our fucking business?

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

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

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

You have friends with doubled chromosome levels?

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

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

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

--

FF

Charlie Self wrote:

> Richard Clements wrote:
>>>I have 6
> friends that were there, and a few more that are diploid<<
>
> Given your level of discourse, I can't really take you at your word.
>
> You have friends with doubled chromosome levels?

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

Richard Clements states:

>>> You have friends with doubled chromosome levels?



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

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

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


Charlie Self wrote:

> Richard Clements states:
>
>>>> You have friends with doubled chromosome levels?
>
>
>
> belive me or not, I don't care, that's what I based part of my
> conclusion on <<
>
> Yeah, well, I suggest you look up "diploid" in a dictionary, if you
> have one.

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

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

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

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

Charlie Self wrote:

> Richard Clements blathers:
>>>well yes I didn't spell it right, sorry, so when you run out of
> arguments
> you start complaining about my spelling, funny that.
> this is boring me, your entitled to think anything you want, even if
> it's
> wrong, that's what great about living here, and what we would like to
> let
> other people do, ah the joy of freedom <<
>
> Let 'em enjoy it. After they make the effort to get it. Or are you
> enlisting in the military to go help out?
>
> Criticizing your spelling is a simple job. You do not even use the
> correct words to describe what you think, so it's up to the reader to
> translate. You're a malapropist, with the concurrent inability to think
> straight that goes along with that problem.

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> Fine - substantiate those claims, then. Especially the one about
the US
> >> government supposedly killing more Iraqis than Saddam. If you
really
> >> believe
> >> that, you're delusional, and you should seek help from a qualified
mental
> >> health professional. [Tip for you in that regard: you won't have
to wait
> >> nearly as long for an appointment if you phone a clinic in the
US.]
> >
> >The combined results of both wars and the sanctions could easily be
> >responsible for over 1 million casualties, and according to Unicef
half of
> >these are children under 5.
>
> As usual, when challenged to substantiate your ridiculous claims, you
start to
> change the subject. I'm still waiting for substantiation.

When I challenge your rediculous claims you don't even reply.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >>
> >> As usual, when challenged to substantiate your ridiculous claims,
you
> >start to
> >> change the subject. I'm still waiting for substantiation.
> >
> >When I challenge your rediculous claims you don't even reply.
> >
> Clearly false;

No, that's true. For example you made the rediculous claim that
Saddam Hussein had more than ten years to hide WMD. I pointed out
that UN inspectors didn't leave Iraq until 1998 and returned in
2002. That's less than five years, to both manufacture and hide
WMD, not more than ten. You never replied to that.

> but after having observed you continually ducking and evading
> Dave Hinz, I expected nothing less from you, and I was not
disappointed.

That of course, is false and easily verified to be false by
reviewing the thread. OTOH, by way of example, I repeatedly
asked Mr Hinz why he thought hydrogen generators would be
anything other than conventional military assets and he NEVER
provided any answer that addressed the question. Maybe he
though Iraq was going to use the hydrogen for hydrogen bombs.
I dunno, your guess is as good as mine because he refused to
answer the question.

--

FF

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>Not likely. You have no idea how many people were killed under Saddam. One
>>thing is very likely though, that the US government is responsible for
>>killing far more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. And most Iraqi citizens
>>were
>>better off under Saddam than they are now.
>
> Can I have some of what you've been smoking?

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

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

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

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fine - substantiate those claims, then. Especially the one about the US
>> government supposedly killing more Iraqis than Saddam. If you really
>> believe
>> that, you're delusional, and you should seek help from a qualified mental
>> health professional. [Tip for you in that regard: you won't have to wait
>> nearly as long for an appointment if you phone a clinic in the US.]
>
>The combined results of both wars and the sanctions could easily be
>responsible for over 1 million casualties, and according to Unicef half of
>these are children under 5.

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

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

Thanks for playing.




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

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

On 16 Mar 2005 01:01:51 -0800, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Fred, you can't change their minds. Their leader has admitted to their
> being no WMDs,

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

On 16 Mar 2005 10:28:39 -0800, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz responds:
>
>>>> Fred, you can't change their minds. Their leader has admitted to
> their
>> being no WMDs,
>
>
>
> "We can't find them" isn't the same as "they aren't there", Charlie.<<
>
> Yeah, it is.

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

> Buried in the desert just when he needed them most?

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

> Shipped to Syria?

Maybe.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:06:23 -0800, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> but lets for get all of that and say it was a big lie, nothing but political
>> Bull. are you saying that the liberation of a people from a muderious
>> dictator, was a bad thing,
>>
>
> No, just that it wasn't worth one American soldier.
>
> And how many of the worlds numerous murderous dictators would you have
> us overthrow next?

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

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:03:43 -0800, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:06:23 -0800, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > And how many of the worlds numerous murderous dictators would you have
>> > us overthrow next?
>>
>> Well, let's make a list of ones who are known to have used WMD, and
>> start there.

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

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

On 18 Mar 2005 12:00:07 -0800, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz writes:
>
>> Well, let's make a list of ones who are known to have used WMD, and
>> start there.

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

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

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

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> in Iraq, just like in WWII you had a murdering dictator, who
> had goals of expansion, Hitler wanted Europe, Saddam wanted more middle
> east oil.
>
Comparing Saddam to Hitler is like comparing Harry Truman to Thomas
Jefferson :-).

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

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

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

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

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

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:06:23 -0800, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > And how many of the worlds numerous murderous dictators would you have
> > us overthrow next?
>
> Well, let's make a list of ones who are known to have used WMD, and
> start there.
>
I don't know, Dave, Pol Pot seemed to do quite well without WMD :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Not likely. You have no idea how many people were killed under Saddam. One
>>>thing is very likely though, that the US government is responsible for
>>>killing far more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. And most Iraqi citizens
>>>were
>>>better off under Saddam than they are now.
>>
>> Can I have some of what you've been smoking?
>
>Not smoking, drinking. You can have all you want. It's called truth serum.

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

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

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

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

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

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

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

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

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

:> Shipped to Syria?

: Maybe.


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

-- Andy Barss

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

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

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

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

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> >> Fine - substantiate those claims, then. Especially the one about
>the US
>> >> government supposedly killing more Iraqis than Saddam. If you
>really
>> >> believe
>> >> that, you're delusional, and you should seek help from a qualified
>mental
>> >> health professional. [Tip for you in that regard: you won't have
>to wait
>> >> nearly as long for an appointment if you phone a clinic in the
>US.]
>> >
>> >The combined results of both wars and the sanctions could easily be
>> >responsible for over 1 million casualties, and according to Unicef
>half of
>> >these are children under 5.
>>
>> As usual, when challenged to substantiate your ridiculous claims, you
>start to
>> change the subject. I'm still waiting for substantiation.
>
>When I challenge your rediculous claims you don't even reply.
>
Clearly false; but after having observed you continually ducking and evading
Dave Hinz, I expected nothing less from you, and I was not disappointed.

Bye, Fred.

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

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