OT - WMDs... The UN says he had them

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

> Uh huh. I don't suppose you have a source a bit more trustworthy than
> worldtribune.com (whoever the hell that is) to back up this story. The
> UNMOVIC page on the UN web page doesn't seem to mention anything.

Damn. I thought I set the followup header properly.

Did it this time.

Have fun...

The AP, Fox, WaPo?

Hardly reliable sources, wot?

;-)

Now, if it was Al-Reuters doing the reporting, *that* would be
something.

djb

--
"I don't always know what I'm talking about, but I know I'm right." -- Muhammad
Ali

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

> And they were sold "since the fall of Saddam" - in other words,
> after we took over.

Well, since you apparently didn't read the original link, I'll offer it
again.

<http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html>

Pay attention to the first paragraph...

" The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons
of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic
missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in
2003."

Key words in that para:

United Nations <-- not the US led coalition, the UN

determined <-- A conclusion based on evidence

Saddam <-- Not Dubya, Saddam. You know, Hussein?

shipped <-- Hope he didn't use UPS

weapons of mass destruction <-- The stuff you keep asking about

components <-- You'll now argue that mere parts prove nothing, right?

before <-- means "prior to"

during <-- means "scrambling to save his ass"

after <-- means "from areas not under coalition control before
Saddam was captured", I'm guessing

Hope that helps...

djb

--
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a
well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy
free health care and 100 percent literacy." -- John Derbyshire

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

> I guess we'll just have to decide for ourselves
> which is more trustworthy.

Doesn't matter, though. You've already decided.

djb

--
"We have been looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for less time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the billing record from the Rose Law firm.
-And they were in the same building with her." - <http://wizbangblog.com/>

It doesn't matter much what the evidence is, Robert. The LL have
already decided what the truth is, and facts will merely obscure that
truth.

There's ample evidence of Saddams WMD program, and his links to Al
Quaeda, but none of the LL will even acknowledge it's existence never
mind its veracity.

djb

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

> > Al-Qaida want's him out too! I'm sure you'll enjoy voting the same as Bin
> > Laden

The French say "Kerry! Bon!"

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

> What is "LL"

Liberal Left.

> There is no evidence whatsoever of links between the Qaida and Saddam.

Do your research. There's lots of evidence.

If you really can't find the citations, I'll provide them, but it's not
that difficult.

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

> the Qaida really
> prefers Bu

Al-Qaida doesn't care. Radical Islam as espoused by Al-Qaida will only
be satisfied when what we know as western democracy is utterly
destroyed. We are the infidel, and we must die.

If you think the above is not true, you need to report for re-grooving.

This is a good time for the thought experiment "What if Reagan had to
deal with Al-Qaida, instead of Gorbachev?"

Oh. man... would the LL be screaming like a stuck pig or what?

djb

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

> Until you provide evidence I'll continue to believe there was no connection,
> as
> per Rumsfeld (and Dubyas?) own words.


Australo and I are going to move this off list for the time while I
present my evidence and try to convince him I'm right. Once that's over
one of us will most likely post another OT message.

djb

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

> "BTW, equating loyal opposition to supporting terrorism is a
> gross
> violation of the principles of democracy. You have your say,
> which I may
> disagree with, but will defend to the death your right to say,
> and I
> expect the same of you."
>
> I agree with him - do you?

Loyal opposition to specific government policies? Sure, I agree with
him.

Opposition to hunting down islamofascist terrorists and exterminating
them? Not a chance. That means losing the war, which means our
extermination (I say "our" meaning the west in general).

Any opposition that is meant to interfere with winning this war is by
definition supporting terrorism.

djb

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

> I can't belive this asshole. He wants to terminate the
> thread after he puts in his last word.

That's just too funny.

Do you do standup?

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

> By that definition, all Quakers are supporting terrorism.

I suppose one could make that argument. I'm not, but one could.

Pacifism in a struggle to the death (which you've agreed is the case)
could be logically and legitimately construed as giving aid and comfort
to the enemy.

> You're almost as much of a fanatic as the ones we're fighting.

I'm not a fanatic about anything. I'm expressing my opinions in what I
thout was a free exchange of ideas.

> I won't respond to, or even see, any more of your postings.

Your choice of course. That's unfortunate, as I enjoy your postings and
will continue to read them and probably reply from time to time.

But it's a typical response by members of the LL to uncomfortable
arguments and facts, so I'm not terribly surprised.

djb

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

> > Fact 1) Terrorists flew into WTC on 911, our soil, everyday citizens lost
> > their life,
> > Middle east Muslims rejoiced.
> >
> Please explain what a bunch of Saudi terrorist had to do with
> our invasion of Iraq.

I'm compiling cites for that, give me a couple of days and I'll make
that case for your judgment

> For extra credit, explain why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia.

Actually, I've wondered for years why the US didn't pull out of SA a
lot sooner. I'd also like to see a lot more Canadian oil development to
feed the US's need so you folks could seriously consider cutting the
wahabbits off at the knees.

> > Iraq had a dictator who made Hitler look like a wimp
>
> You've got to be kidding!

That one made me laugh out loud. Ludicrous to compare Saddam, as
brutally horrible as his regime was to Hitler.

And it invokes Godwin's Law and SHOULD effectively bring the thread to
an end...

<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/>

"One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you
mention Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever
discussion you were taking part in". Known as Godwin's Law, this rule
of Usenet has along and sordid history on the network - and is
absolutely wrong. This FAQ is an attempt to set straight as much of
the history and meaning of Godwin's Law as possible, and hopefully
encourage users to invoke it a bit more sparingly. Of course, knowing
Usenet, it won't do an ounce of good..."

;-)

djb

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

> Actually, there *is* such proof -- just a couple of years ago, Saddam
> publicly
> offered US $25K to the next-of-kin of any Palestinian suicide bomber who
> murdered Israelis. That certainly is soliciting and supporting terrorism.

And there is evidence Saddam was supporting Al Quaida. The NYT has
reporteded it, though (no surprise).

I'll have that compiled in the next few days so y'all can judge for
yourselves.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Actually, there *is* such proof -- just a couple of years ago, Saddam publicly
> offered US $25K to the next-of-kin of any Palestinian suicide bomber who
> murdered Israelis. That certainly is soliciting and supporting terrorism.

That's not proof of anything other than bandwagon jumping. The PLO
openly decried this, and even Hamas were cagey about it (although they
wanted the money). Both groups knew that associating themselves with
Saddam was a terrible move politically, even if the money was useful.
From SH's viewpoint, he could very cheaply claim to be part of the
great islamist uprising against the infidel (whatever that is) and he
knew that played well in any disadvantaged refugee camp. Good PR for
him, and cheap too.

And for that matter, when did Hamas take part in 9/11 ?

SH existed for two reasons; he wasn't a communist, and he wasn't an
islamist. He got to power on the basis of the first, and he stayed
there because of the second. The US created Saddam, and he was left in
place after '91 because Bush senior didn't want a Shia Iraq (and
that's who would probably have been running 2/3rd of the place, with
the Kurds gone independent). A Shia Iraq was going to be far too close
to Iran for Washington's liking, even if that involved murdering
Iraq's emerging opposition in '91 (and make no mistake, that's what we
did when we betrayed them). Just exactly how brutal he was is a
candidate for Goodwin's Law, but there's no question that he hated any
form of religious militancy - he knew where his biggest weakness was.

Right this minute we in the West should be cosying up to Sadra as
someone vaguely civilised who can run the place, and who we can work
with. Instead we're trying to turn him into the next demonic ayatollah
bogeyman and threatening him with helicopter gunships. That's going to
turn around and bite us in a few years....

In article <[email protected]>, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> Maybe in your world. In mine, paying cash rewards for terrorist acts is
>> supporting terrorism, and a public offer to do so is sufficient proof.
>
>
><Damn,damn,damn. I told myself I wasn't going to respond to more
>political threads...Damn.>
>
>And what of US supply and support of the Contra's and the Afghani
>Freedom Fighters? One person's "freedom fighters" are another's
>terrorists.
>
The Contras were resisting a Communist coup d'etat.
The Afghani mujaheddin were fighting to repel a foreign invader.
The Palestinian terrorists are murdering innocent civilians.

It takes a special kind of mind to equate the three.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >
> >Uh huh. I don't suppose you have a source a bit more trustworthy than
> >worldtribune.com (whoever the hell that is) to back up this story. The
> >UNMOVIC page on the UN web page doesn't seem to mention anything.
>
>
> Do you consider the Washington times 'a bit more trustworthy'? <grin>
>
> See: <http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040610-103512-5542r.htm>
>
> 20 banned 'SA-2' missile engines were located in Jordan, subsequent to
> a find of one in a scrapyard in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
>
You left out something - they were found in a scrapyard. The
Washington times said:

"NEW YORK — Twenty engines from banned Iraqi missiles were found
in a Jordanian scrap yard with other equipment that could be
used for weapons of mass destruction, a U.N. official said,
raising new security questions about Iraq's scrap metal sales
since the fall of Saddam Hussein."

I'd like to know what that "other equipment" was, but it appears
the missiles were dismantled and their engines sold as scrap.

And they were sold "since the fall of Saddam" - in other words,
after we took over.

Aside from the point that WMD means biological, chemical, and
nuclear weapons, not missiles and certainly not parts of
dismantled missiles.

You're grabbing at straws :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <120620041117033804%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And they were sold "since the fall of Saddam" - in other words,
> > after we took over.
>
> Well, since you apparently didn't read the original link, I'll offer it
> again.
>
> <http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html>
>
No, I didn't read the original link. Another poster suggested
the Washington Times as a more reliable reference and I read
(and posted) what they said. Since they differ from the
worldtribune, I guess we'll just have to decide for ourselves
which is more trustworthy.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <enalbor_reversed-
[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> How the heck do you get an even coat of shellac on a small object with
> sharp corners? My rubbing pad leaves a big coat on the middle, and
> scants the edges. Unless it drips over.
>
That's strange. I have the opposite problem, the proberbial
"fat edge".

My suggestion is to apply lighter coats and more of them, if
you're not doing that already.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article
<120620042108494164%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca says...
> Al-Qaida doesn't care. Radical Islam as espoused by Al-Qaida will only
> be satisfied when what we know as western democracy is utterly
> destroyed. We are the infidel, and we must die.
>
Believe it or not, Dave, I actually agree with you on this
point.

But you still have an annoying habit of not responding to what
was said. In the post you're replying to, Australopithecus
said:

"BTW, equating loyal opposition to supporting terrorism is a
gross
violation of the principles of democracy. You have your say,
which I may
disagree with, but will defend to the death your right to say,
and I
expect the same of you."

I agree with him - do you?

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <enalbor_reversed-
[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> 1) Nuke everything from 20deg West to 130 E, 25 N to 35 N to glass.
> Screw the orangutans on Gib. And the Likud--Stupid asses.
>
1.5) Put a wall around the whole area, including Israel and the
Likud, and shoot anything going in or out. Let them solve their
own problems.

Oops, that won't work. Then we couldn't steal their oil :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 09:51:10 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Oops, that won't work. Then we couldn't steal their oil :-).

FFS, Larry, whose oil are we stealing? If we're stealing someone's
oil, why is gas $2.30 a gallon? (show your work).

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:09:38 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> I can't belive this asshole. He wants to terminate the
> thread after he puts in his last word.
>
AND, he defines what's acceptable criticism of government
policies :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article
<130620041334342837%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca says...
> Opposition to hunting down islamofascist terrorists and exterminating
> them? Not a chance. That means losing the war, which means our
> extermination (I say "our" meaning the west in general).
>
> Any opposition that is meant to interfere with winning this war is by
> definition supporting terrorism.
>
By that definition, all Quakers are supporting terrorism.
You're almost as much of a fanatic as the ones we're fighting.
I won't respond to, or even see, any more of your postings.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Fact 1) Terrorists flew into WTC on 911, our soil, everyday citizens lost their life,
> Middle east Muslims rejoiced.
>
Please explain what a bunch of Saudi terrorist had to do with
our invasion of Iraq.

For extra credit, explain why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia.

> Iraq had a dictator who made Hitler look like a wimp

You've got to be kidding!

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Actually, there *is* such proof -- just a couple of years ago, Saddam publicly
> offered US $25K to the next-of-kin of any Palestinian suicide bomber who
> murdered Israelis. That certainly is soliciting and supporting terrorism.
>
Oh, that's true all right. Saddam supported the Palestinians.
All the Arab states do, whether openly or clandestinely. But
that's a long way from being a threat to us.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > You made a great distinction between military targets and civilian
> > targets... does that mean that when we a-bombed Hiroshima (targeting the
> > civilian population) we were terrorists?
>
> I think you could make that argument.
>
If so, all of the participants were terrorists, as all bombed
civilian populations - Dresden and London spring to mind.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article
><[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> >
>> >Uh huh. I don't suppose you have a source a bit more trustworthy than
>> >worldtribune.com (whoever the hell that is) to back up this story. The
>> >UNMOVIC page on the UN web page doesn't seem to mention anything.
>>
>>
>> Do you consider the Washington times 'a bit more trustworthy'? <grin>
>>
>> See: <http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040610-103512-5542r.htm>
>>
>> 20 banned 'SA-2' missile engines were located in Jordan, subsequent to
>> a find of one in a scrapyard in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
>>
>You left out something - they were found in a scrapyard.

_I_ didn't leave out anything. The AP report I read _did_not_specify_
the location of the material located in Jordan. The source also had
a pointer to the Wash Times, with the story headline, but I didn't
cross-check details.

> The
>Washington times said:
>
>"NEW YORK — Twenty engines from banned Iraqi missiles were found
>in a Jordanian scrap yard with other equipment that could be
>used for weapons of mass destruction, a U.N. official said,
>raising new security questions about Iraq's scrap metal sales
>since the fall of Saddam Hussein."
>
>I'd like to know what that "other equipment" was, but it appears
>the missiles were dismantled and their engines sold as scrap.
>
>And they were sold "since the fall of Saddam" - in other words,
>after we took over.
>
>Aside from the point that WMD means biological, chemical, and
>nuclear weapons, not missiles and certainly not parts of
>dismantled missiles.

"Weapons" _includes_ 'delivery systems'.

And there is still this 'minor' question as to how those _intact_ components
got to the junkyards _after_ Saddam had certified that all those missiles
had been 'destroyed'. Not 'dismantled', but 'destroyed'.

>
>You're grabbing at straws :-).

_You_ are in error.

My only participation was to point out that 'reputable' sources are
reporting _exactly_ the same information as the source you questioned
the veracity of.

However, I _know_ that Hussein was lying about being in total compliance with
the U.N. requirements. There are multiple recorded radar tracks of missiles
fired against U.S. forces where the recorded track is more than 100km _longer_
than the maximum range of any missile he was allowed to have. And those radar
tracks begin _after_ the missile was airborne. Actual flight distance is even
longer than the track. How much longer _is_ unknown, but irrelevant to the
*fact* of non-compliance -- and the *fact* of his continued mis-representation
of the state of compliance.

Being a _proven_ liar on one aspect of compliance, there *is* good reason
to doubt his veracity on any other aspect of compliance.

>--
>Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Credible reports from last summer point to Lebanon's Bakaa Valley as one
the places where some of the inventory was moved to, shortly before the
U.S. led attacks.:

"Please define liberal .... would that be anyone who doesn't think as you?"

Isn't it funny how liberals are ashamed of being called liberal?

"Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
> Mark Twain)" = from the tagline - so true, so I won't bother to argue further.

BUSH 2004!!!!!

Tillius

"Apathy is the hand that opens the door for Tyranny" (Tillman Stevens, 2001)





Mark <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Phil wrote:
>
> > Wer'e doing the right thing, attacking terrorism, sitting back and being
> > nicey-nicey won't work as above shows.
>
>
> And we are doing that where?
>
> Tell you now, if your going to write Iraq your a moron.
>
>
> > Terrorists know the American bleading
> > heart left is only concerned about political power.
>
>
> ?
>
> Think so?
>
>
> > Liberals will raise
> > memorials to all the fallen, and do nothing of any substance to stop the
> > terrorists.
>
>
> This is turning out to be one of the most brainless pieces of drivel I've read
> in a long time.
>
>
> > Terrorists won in Spain, and the liberals are helping them win
> > here in the US of A. And don't give me the UN solution, what a joke!
>
>
> We're all helping them win, they have already divided us.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > With the fall of the USSR we thought the untruthfull TASS was dead, no it's
> > still alive and well, just goes by ABC, NBC, CBS instead.
>
>
> And the Tribune, and FOX, and CBN, and on and on ...
>
>
> Please define liberal .... would that be anyone who doesn't think as you?
>
>
> --
> {neatly edited}
> --
>
> Mark
>
> N.E. Ohio
>
> In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
> there is.
>
> Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
> Mark Twain)
>
> When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
> (Gaz, r.moto)

Australopithecus scobis wrote:

>
> So, some of us desire mightily that Bush II be ousted asap.

> Al-Qaida want's him out too! I'm sure you'll enjoy voting the same as Bin
> Laden

> 2) Stop doing the really stupid things that one Christian doesn't do to
> another person, and tell the Muslim world that we don't hate Islam, we
> hate wackos.

We're not fighting Islam, we are fighting wacko's. They only have one
objective destroy the West and Israel. The Wacko's have been brainwashing
their children for decades. #1 would work, but that would also kill the 98%
that aren't the problem.
Why do you think the insurgents are fighting so hard, because if freedom gets
a foothold in the middle east, what the terrorists really stand for - HATE,
will become obvious and their own people empowered by their government will
fight them.
If you think being nicey-nicey is the answer think about these events since
1979:
1) November 1979 attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran.
2) April of 1983 a vehicle packed with explosives was driven into the US
Embassy compound in Beirut, it killed 63 people.
3) Again in 1983 large truck loaded with TNT smashed through the main gate
of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are
killed.
4) December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US
Embassy in Kuwait
5) April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in
Madrid.
6) August 1985 a explosives loaded vehicel is driven into the main gate of
the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 dead.
7) A few days later, Achille Lauro is hijacked an American in a wheelchair is
singled out of the passenger list and executed.
8) They bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4
9) Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.
10) January 1993, terrorists kill two CIA agents as they enter CIA
headquarters in Langley, Virginia
11) February 1993, terrorists drive a rented van packed with explosives in
the parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are
killed and over 1000 are injured
12) November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.
13) June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US
military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It
destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring
over 500.
14) In a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
They kill 224.
15) Oct 2000, the USS Cole in Yemen for refueling, a small craft attacked
killing 17 US Navy Sailors.
16) -------------- 9/11/2001 WTC ------------------ THOUSANDS DEAD!

Wer'e doing the right thing, attacking terrorism, sitting back and being
nicey-nicey won't work as above shows. Terrorists know the American bleading
heart left is only concerned about political power. Liberals will raise
memorials to all the fallen, and do nothing of any substance to stop the
terrorists. Terrorists won in Spain, and the liberals are helping them win
here in the US of A. And don't give me the UN solution, what a joke!

With the fall of the USSR we thought the untruthfull TASS was dead, no it's
still alive and well, just goes by ABC, NBC, CBS instead.



>
> With all respect to all posters,
> --
> "Keep your ass behind you."

jo4hn wrote:

> It is always difficult to understand why some people are devoted to Bush
> and his administration and ignore facts and the well being of our country.
> jo4hn

It is always difficult to understand why some people hate Bush and his administration
and ignore
facts and the well being of our country:
Fact 1) Terrorists flew into WTC on 911, our soil, everyday citizens lost their life,
Middle east Muslims rejoiced.
Fact 2) Reagan took on comunism as the suppression of individual freedom, Bush is
taking on terrorism and and a brutal dictator in Iraq as the suppression of
individual freedom.
Fact 3) Afghanistan was run by and harbored Terrorism. It was a safehaven for
Terrorism planning. Women were enslaved and mistreated.
Fact 4) Iraq had a dictator who made Hitler look like a wimp and utilized money's
made of Iraqi resources for personal opulance, gave the finger to the UN. Sadaam
could have opened up the gates to the UN inspectors unencombered, started treating
people humainly or could have takend safe haven and allowed the UN in to bring some
humanity to that country, he didn't.
Fact 5) The American economy was headed to the dumps as Clintons era was comming to a
close.
Fact 6) 9-11 had a devastating effect on our economy.
Fact 7) Tax cuts are turning the economy positive. More work, investment and jobs.

While this can't be staed as fact, history has shown taxation is a fundamental
economic problem that is like a snowball that gains steam as it rolls down the hill.
The tax cuts of the 80's increased government tax receipts, through the late 80's and
90's. Tax increases in the early 90's (Started by Bush Sr. then added to by
Clinton) caused a hot economy to cool off in 2000. Also the major news media is
controlled by the left. It gloses over positive conservative events, and leaves out
liberal failures.

I'd go on, but I have other things to do.

Phil



Phil

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > Fact 1) Terrorists flew into WTC on 911, our soil, everyday citizens lost their life,
> > Middle east Muslims rejoiced.
> >
> Please explain what a bunch of Saudi terrorist had to do with
> our invasion of Iraq.

Duh, READ "MIDDLE EAST MUSLIMS REJOYCED", Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria all are
terrorists nations. Iraq oil money was going to Sadaam and his cronies. Yea I know, no
proof it was supporting terrorism. Well it sure wasn't supporting feeding his people, yes
he was lavisly opulent, go figure where the rest went..

>
>
> For extra credit, explain why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia.
>

Because we're too damn dependent on the Saudi Oil fields, they cut us off, and we are all
hosed.

>
> > Iraq had a dictator who made Hitler look like a wimp
>
> You've got to be kidding!
>

My point was the individual. Hitler was responsible for more documented deaths, true. But
it was Hitler's SS that did the dirty deads, Hitler was a politician with a passion for
power and a desire to create a pure racial state. He didn't sit and shot his brother
across a table.

>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Syria then to Jordan to try to kill 100,000.

Soften the edges ever so slightly.

> How the heck do you get an even coat of shellac on a small object >with
> sharp corners? My rubbing pad leaves a big coat on the middle, and
> scants the edges. Unless it drips over.



--
Think thrice, measure twice and cut once.

Sanding is like paying taxes ... everyone has to do it, but it is
important to take steps to minimize it.

There is only one period and no underscores in the real email address.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

tillius wrote:
> "Please define liberal .... would that be anyone who doesn't think as you?"
>
> Isn't it funny how liberals are ashamed of being called liberal?
>
> "Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
>
>>Mark Twain)" = from the tagline - so true, so I won't bother to argue further.
>
>
> BUSH 2004!!!!!
>
> Tillius
>
It is always difficult to understand why some people are devoted to Bush
and his administration and ignore facts and the well being of our country.
jo4hn

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote :

> This is a good time for the thought experiment "What if Reagan had to
> deal with Al-Qaida, instead of Gorbachev?"

Well, I'd guess we might have a few more allies, we might have better
international cooperation on intelligence, and we might not have
invaded a country that had absolutely zero to do with Al Qaeda. We
might have done a lot of things smarter. Reagan had much better
judgement, much better diplomatic skills, and a much clearer vision of
how to lead by consensus.

Comparing Bush to Reagan is really just silly. To co-opt Lloyd
Bentsen's famous line against Dan Quayle, "We know Ronald Reagan and
George Bush is no Ronald Reagan."

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:>

[excerpt from crackpot rightist web site snipped]

This is really silly. This website has zero credibility. The article
you mention in another post (from the Wash Post) does have a lot more
credibility, but it says something completely different.

What that WP article says is that scrap parts of the Al Samoud 2
missiles, scrapped in Feb 2003 and under US control since the
invasion, are now showing up in scrapyards in Jordan. You might want
to note that the Al Samoud 2 missiles are hardly WMDs, and only break
the 95 mile treaty limit if they are stripped of guidance systems and
payloads. You can look up UNMOVIC's articles on this, as well as
several articles done by Time and documentaries done by PBS/Frontline.
They are not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons despite how
revisionists are trying to redefine what a WMD is. You might also
want to notice that since we invaded Iraq, those scrap parts are
supposed to be under our control and it looks like we are not keeping
good enough watch on them.

> Can we now move this off the wreck to alt.bushishilter or some ofther
> equally fanciful waste of bandwidth?

We could if you would stop generating new threads like this one.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Andy Dingley) wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Actually, there *is* such proof --

[that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism]

> just a couple of years ago, Saddam publicly
>> offered US $25K to the next-of-kin of any Palestinian suicide bomber who
>> murdered Israelis. That certainly is soliciting and supporting terrorism.
>
>That's not proof of anything other than bandwagon jumping.

Maybe in your world. In mine, paying cash rewards for terrorist acts is
supporting terrorism, and a public offer to do so is sufficient proof.

[snip]
>
>And for that matter, when did Hamas take part in 9/11 ?

No-one said they did. Your point was...?

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> <http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html>
>

> Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic
> missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite
> image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had
> disappeared."



If this is true we've got a real problem as this site was photographed OUTSIDE
Baghdad AFTER the war and then disappeared out from under our very noses.


There you go, either the people in the military are complete idiots, and that
would have to be an understatement, or the Trib is taking liberties with it's
reporting.


>
> So there. It's not Bush, Cheney and Enron saying it.


Judging from your tone it would suit you better if the Tribune is lying, or not
reporting the complete truth.



--
{neatly edited}
--

Mark

N.E. Ohio

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.

Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > > You made a great distinction between military targets and civilian
> > > targets... does that mean that when we a-bombed Hiroshima (targeting
the
> > > civilian population) we were terrorists?
> >
> > I think you could make that argument.
> >
> If so, all of the participants were terrorists, as all bombed
> civilian populations - Dresden and London spring to mind.

I think that could be argued as well.

todd

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:110620042009387165%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> <http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html>
>
> Excerpt:
>
> "Friday, June 11, 2004
>
> The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons
> of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic
> missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in
> 2003.
<snip>
> So there. It's not Bush, Cheney and Enron saying it.
>
> It's UNMOVIC, briefing the Security Council.
>
> Can we now move this off the wreck to alt.bushishilter or some ofther
> equally fanciful waste of bandwidth?
>
> Thank you.
>
> djb
>
> --
> "It's not bragging if you can back it up." -- Muhammad Ali

Uh huh. I don't suppose you have a source a bit more trustworthy than
worldtribune.com (whoever the hell that is) to back up this story. The
UNMOVIC page on the UN web page doesn't seem to mention anything.

todd

In article <[email protected]>, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> >I agree that Hamas and the other misdirected Palastinian groups are
>> >terrorists
>>
>> Half-way there. Do you also agree that the Contras, the Afghan mujaheddin,
>> and
>> the French Resistance in WW2 were *not* ?
>
>It doesn't really matter what I consider the above groups

Yes, I think it does. In an earlier post, you equated those groups with the
Palestinian terrorists who murder innocent civilians. I said before, and I
repeat, that it takes a special kind of mind to see moral equivalence between
guerilla warfare directed at the soldiers of an occupying army, and terrorist
acts directed at an innocent civilian population.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> You made a great distinction between military targets and civilian
> >> targets... does that mean that when we a-bombed Hiroshima (targeting
the
> >> civilian population) we were terrorists?
> >
> >I think you could make that argument.
> >
> I don't.
>
> Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were home to several military installations
and to
> industries that were actively engaged in producing war materiel. Nagasaki,
for
> instance, had naval shipyards, and Hiroshima IIRC had among other things
an
> enormous ball-bearing factory. Kyoto was on the list of proposed targets,
and
> stricken from that list by Truman's Secretary of War because it was a
cultural
> center and *not* a military target.

Well, I'm pretty right-wing, but 90,000-140,000 civilian dead (some right
away and the rest within five years) is a little too much collateral damage
for my taste.

todd

In article <[email protected]>, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> The Contras were resisting a Communist coup d'etat.
>> The Afghani mujaheddin were fighting to repel a foreign invader.
>> The Palestinian terrorists are murdering innocent civilians.
>>
>> It takes a special kind of mind to equate the three.
>
>All I think it takes is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of
>another:
>
>So because the Communists are always the enemy to US view, supporting
>the Contras was justified. From the viewpoint of the Communist
>supporters, the Contras were terrorists.
>
>You obviously don't see the parallel to the Iraqi insurgent's resistance
>to our own occupation to that of the Russians in Afghanistan...
>
>You think the Palestinians view their fight as terroristic in nature?
>
>Likewise, the French Underground during WW2 was quite possibly a
>terrorist organization to the German view while we largely would not
>view their efforts under such light.
>
>It's all about perspective.
>
No, it's not "all about perspective." It's about being able to distinguish
between legitimate rebellion and terrorism.

You missed the point on a grand scale.

The Contras fought against the Nicaraguan _military_ and police.
The Afghans fought against the Soviet _military_.
The French Underground fought against the German _military_.

The Palestinian terrorists target and murder Israeli _civilians_.

Do you see the difference?

If not, re-read as needed, until you understand the difference between a rebel
and a terrorist.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Duh, READ "MIDDLE EAST MUSLIMS REJOYCED", Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria all
>are terrorists nations. Iraq oil money was going to Sadaam and his cronies. Yea I
> know, no proof it was supporting terrorism.

Actually, there *is* such proof -- just a couple of years ago, Saddam publicly
offered US $25K to the next-of-kin of any Palestinian suicide bomber who
murdered Israelis. That certainly is soliciting and supporting terrorism.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> You made a great distinction between military targets and civilian
>> targets... does that mean that when we a-bombed Hiroshima (targeting the
>> civilian population) we were terrorists?
>
>I think you could make that argument.
>
I don't.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were home to several military installations and to
industries that were actively engaged in producing war materiel. Nagasaki, for
instance, had naval shipyards, and Hiroshima IIRC had among other things an
enormous ball-bearing factory. Kyoto was on the list of proposed targets, and
stricken from that list by Truman's Secretary of War because it was a cultural
center and *not* a military target.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Well, I'm pretty right-wing, but 90,000-140,000 civilian dead (some right
> >away and the rest within five years) is a little too much collateral
damage
> >for my taste.
> >
> I don't like it either; on the other hand, when a nation locates its
military
> facilities in population centers, and then starts a war, the
responsibility
> for the inevitable civilian deaths when those military facilities are
attacked
> rests in at least as great a measure upon the leaders of that nation as
upon
> its adversary IMO.
>
> In a similar vein, if we were at war with, say, China, and they nuked the
huge
> Navy base at San Diego, it seems to me that we wouldn't have much right to
> complain about civilian deaths. San Diego *is* a legitimate military
target.

If you accept that nuclear weapons are moral weapons to use near a civilian
population in the first place, then I guess you're right. IMHO, I don't
believe they are, because of the very fact that their destuction is so
wide-scale, that the number of civilian casualties greatly exceeds the
military.

todd

Dave Balderstone wrote:


> From someone else:
>> There is no evidence whatsoever of links between the Qaida and Saddam.
>
>
> Do your research. There's lots of evidence.
>
> If you really can't find the citations, I'll provide them, but it's not
> that difficult.


That's a child's trick, to get others to do research to prove a point that's
known false, and when they fail to look for non existent information you claim
'victory'.


Doesn't work. It's not up to us to prove your point for you.

Until you provide evidence I'll continue to believe there was no connection, as
per Rumsfeld (and Dubyas?) own words.






--
{neatly edited}
--

Mark

N.E. Ohio

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.

Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> writes:

> I'm not a fanatic about anything. I'm expressing my opinions in what I
> thout was a free exchange of ideas.

There are other forums where you can discuss this topic.

If you want to bring up politics, add the new newsgroups to the
subject, and change the Follow-up to header.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
>news:110620042009387165%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
>> <http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html>
>>
>> Excerpt:
>>
>> "Friday, June 11, 2004
>>
>> The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons
>> of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic
>> missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in
>> 2003.
><snip>
>> So there. It's not Bush, Cheney and Enron saying it.
>>
>> It's UNMOVIC, briefing the Security Council.
>>
>> Can we now move this off the wreck to alt.bushishilter or some ofther
>> equally fanciful waste of bandwidth?
>>
>
>Uh huh. I don't suppose you have a source a bit more trustworthy than
>worldtribune.com (whoever the hell that is) to back up this story. The
>UNMOVIC page on the UN web page doesn't seem to mention anything.


The _exact_ same information is being reported by the Associated Press.
Also, Fox News.

Do you consider the Washington times 'a bit more trustworthy'? <grin>

See: <http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040610-103512-5542r.htm>

20 banned 'SA-2' missile engines were located in Jordan, subsequent to
a find of one in a scrapyard in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message news:<110620042009387165%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>...
> <http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html>
>
> Excerpt:
>
> "Friday, June 11, 2004
>
> The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons
> of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic
> missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in
> 2003.
>
> The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the
> Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts
> of Saddam's missile and WMD program.
>
> The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the
> speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and
> during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic
> missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite
> image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had
> disappeared."
>

Missles are not weapons of mass destruction.

Here's a part you declined to quote:

"Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile
components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags."

The UN inspection tags make it clear that these were not hidden materials,
they were materials that had been declared to the UN.

ALso:

"In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general
Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities
were being smuggled out of the country. "

THis is a full year after the US took control of Iraq. SInce taking
control, the US has refused to allow the IAEA to return and reinspect
Iraqi nuclear facilities. Why?

>
> It's UNMOVIC, briefing the Security Council.
>
> Can we now move this off the wreck to alt.bushishilter or some ofther
> equally fanciful waste of bandwidth?


Uh, why didn't you post it where it belonged in the first place?

--

FF

Dave Balderstone <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<120620041117033804%[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And they were sold "since the fall of Saddam" - in other words,
> > after we took over.
>
> Well, since you apparently didn't read the original link, I'll offer it
> again.
>
> <http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html>
>
> Pay attention to the first paragraph...
>
> " The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons
> of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic
> missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in

If you read past that paragraph you will find that support for much of
that paragraph is lacking.

> 2003."
>
> Key words in that para:
>
> United Nations <-- not the US led coalition, the UN
>
> determined <-- A conclusion based on evidence

Uh, no, determined can mean based on anything. Read to see the
evidence that is actually cited in the article.

>
> Saddam <-- Not Dubya, Saddam. You know, Hussein?

Not supported by the content of the article. Just how did SH coordinate
the shipments from his spider hole?

>
> shipped <-- Hope he didn't use UPS
>
> weapons of mass destruction <-- The stuff you keep asking about

Specifically, what, exactly?

>
> components <-- You'll now argue that mere parts prove nothing, right?

DIsmantled and scrapped. Some with UN inspection tags intact.

>
> before <-- means "prior to"

Yep, SH would have been involved in that.

>
> during <-- means "scrambling to save his ass"

SH pretty much lost communication and control in the first few days
of the invasion.

>
> after <-- means "from areas not under coalition control before
> Saddam was captured", I'm guessing

I do not share your guesswork.

>
> Hope that helps...

--

FF

Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message news:<120620042059210112%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> > > There is no evidence whatsoever of links between the Qaida and Saddam.
>
> Do your research. There's lots of evidence.
>
> If you really can't find the citations, I'll provide them, but it's not
> that difficult.


Please do and also please post htem somewhere where they are on topic
like maybe alt.politics.bush.

--

FF

Mark <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > <http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html>
> >
>
> > Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic
> > missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite
> > image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had
> > disappeared."
>
>
>
> If this is true we've got a real problem as this site was photographed OUTSIDE
> Baghdad AFTER the war and then disappeared out from under our very noses.

Note also the part about the UN inspection tags remaining intact. These
had been declared and inspected.

>
>
> There you go, either the people in the military are complete idiots, and that
> would have to be an understatement, or the Trib is taking liberties with it's
> reporting.
>

The military is not in control of the reconstruction.

--

FF

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

> Australopithecus scobis wrote:
>
> >
> > So, some of us desire mightily that Bush II be ousted asap.
>
> > Al-Qaida want's him out too! I'm sure you'll enjoy voting the same as Bin
> > Laden

I read somewhere (some e-paper, don't remember...) that the Qaida really
prefers Bush. He generates many more recruits for them. Whether you are
pro- or anti- Bush, this is true _in_the_short_run_. Longer term, we'll
have to see. Remember, Kerry wants to bring in the rest of the world, no
more unilateralism. Again, proB or antiB, more of the world happily
zapping twits is a good thing.

BTW, equating loyal opposition to supporting terrorism is a gross
violation of the principles of democracy. You have your say, which I may
disagree with, but will defend to the death your right to say, and I
expect the same of you. (I humbly suggest that in the meantime we listen
to one another, and, maybe, find some common ground.)
--
"Keep your ass behind you."

In article <120620041800406835%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> It doesn't matter much what the evidence is, Robert. The LL have
> already decided what the truth is, and facts will merely obscure that
> truth.
>
> There's ample evidence of Saddams WMD program, and his links to Al
> Quaeda, but none of the LL will even acknowledge it's existence never
> mind its veracity.

What is "LL"?

There is no evidence whatsoever of links between the Qaida and Saddam.
Cheney and the Fox propaganda network keep playing that tune, but it's a
lie. Yes, Saddam is a creep. Yes, the neocons cooked the books to
generate support for the war.

BTW, I'm a Goldwater Republican, and the only honest Republican at the
national level today is John McCain. Used to be two, but Powell failed
to resign upon learning he'd been used. The New Mexico congresscritter,
whatshername, is honest too, but dumb as a brick.

See, the differences twixt the "LL" (liberal left?) and the "RR"
(reactionary right--just made that up...) are confounded because the two
sides aren't arguing about the same thing. I can't abide lies, so I
can't understand the "RR" point of view vis a vis the PNAC twerps. I'm
not a "LL", so I don't know what, exactly, it is that you think that
they think. However, and I include this seriously, I would welcome a
discussion offline among proponents of the various points of view so we
can, perhaps, figure out what the other sides are really concerned about.

I just generated a throwaway email account for this purpose. Write,
considered discussion only, no flames please, to
"[email protected]". Don't read anything one way or another into
that address, btw. Then we can take this offline and get back to
woodworking.

Wanted: wrecker in the greater Milwaukee area who would loan me an
e-camera, or take the pictures him/herself. I owe a bunch of photos to
abpw, and don't have an ecamera.

regards,
(can't bring myself to post my real name on newsgroups. Write, and I'll
send back with my real email.)
--
"Keep your ass behind you."

In article <120620042108494164%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > the Qaida really
> > prefers Bu
>
> Al-Qaida doesn't care. Radical Islam as espoused by Al-Qaida will only
> be satisfied when what we know as western democracy is utterly
> destroyed. We are the infidel, and we must die.
>
> If you think the above is not true, you need to report for re-grooving.
>
> This is a good time for the thought experiment "What if Reagan had to
> deal with Al-Qaida, instead of Gorbachev?"
>
> Oh. man... would the LL be screaming like a stuck pig or what?
>
> djb

I agree entirely. Where we disagree is in the methods. Crusades don't
work. (Christendom tried it. Saladin was a hero...) Hearts and minds is
a bitter memory. OK, let's look at some options. Please, interpolate
other ideas into this list... (Really. These are straw men. Let's talk.)

1) Nuke everything from 20deg West to 130 E, 25 N to 35 N to glass.
Screw the orangutans on Gib. And the Likud--Stupid asses.

2) Stop doing the really stupid things that one Christian doesn't do to
another person, and tell the Muslim world that we don't hate Islam, we
hate wackos.

3) Convert to Islam, and hand Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to the
wacko-du-jour for disposal.

I suspect the best course of action is somewhere around 1.9, but I'm
open to suggestions from 1.75 to 1.98. (If I were a 1.0 voter, I'd also
send the BUFs to eradicate the illegal fortifications Israel erected in
defiance of international law. Screw the UN, I'm for reality.)

Purely by coincidence I was reading Herodotus and Xenophon about the
time this all blew up (Oh, gee, I forgot the date... ;-|). You gotta
read those guys. Really, everything that is happening now is already
recorded. It's uncanny. "Those who do not know history," or something
like that.

With all respect to all posters,
--
"Keep your ass behind you."

In article <120620042059210112%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> > There is no evidence whatsoever of links between the Qaida and Saddam.
>
> Do your research. There's lots of evidence.
>
> If you really can't find the citations, I'll provide them, but it's not
> that difficult.

(Dave Balderstone sent me an email whilst I was composing a reply.
Here's to considered discussion. ) *I sent what I'd composed to Dave.
Please, let's take this offline. Wood doesn't argue. It just is. I
suspect that the messy rest of the world is the same. Let's plane this
down a few mils at a time.*

How the heck do you get an even coat of shellac on a small object with
sharp corners? My rubbing pad leaves a big coat on the middle, and
scants the edges. Unless it drips over.
--
"Keep your ass behind you."

In article <110620042009387165%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> So there. It's not Bush, Cheney and Enron saying it.
>
> It's UNMOVIC, briefing the Security Council.
>
> Can we now move this off the wreck to alt.bushishilter or some ofther
> equally fanciful waste of bandwidth?
>
> Thank you.

Here is my attempt to get around the polarized positions of the various
posters. I watch the news (not the infotainment on the networks) as best
I can.
1. Saddam is a very bad person.
2. Saddam had, used, and wanted better WMD.
3. PNAC wanted Saddam at any cost, by any means.

Here is my read on the sittyation:
The PNAC neocons wanted Saddam so bad, they cooked up a casus belli.
They cherrypicked intelligence to make the case. They put Colin Powell
up as front man because he was an honest guy. Now, the case for war
against Saddam was kinda like OJ: they framed the perp. Here's where the
trouble starts. The intelligence was bad. The INC fed the hawks what the
hawks wanted to hear. Looks like a strong possibility that Iran had a
hand in that. So the cooked up casus belli was weak to begin with, and
turns out to have been twice cooked.

The trouble with taking action based on belief and wishes instead of
cold, hard fact is that someone wilier and smarter will feed you rope.

So, some of us desire mightily that Bush II be ousted asap.

I'm squaring up a piece of Ash with really gnarly grain. I have to go at
the piece (2x18) from both ends. Every time I get close to getting the
pits out, I get another tear-out. I'm using two planes on it, #4 and #5,
and sharpening frequently. Had to widen the mouth on the #4 cuz I was
getting accordion bits. Situation isn't helped by the slight curvature I
discovered in the #4 blade: when the bite is a half-gnat's whisker, only
a half inch of the blade bites. Back to the sharpening.

Made another project from the same board and it was no problem.
--
"Keep your ass behind you."

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> > No, it's not "all about perspective." It's about being able to
distinguish
> > between legitimate rebellion and terrorism.
> >
> > You missed the point on a grand scale.
> >
> > The Contras fought against the Nicaraguan _military_ and police.
> > The Afghans fought against the Soviet _military_.
> > The French Underground fought against the German _military_.
> >
> > The Palestinian terrorists target and murder Israeli _civilians_.
> >
> > Do you see the difference?
> >
> > If not, re-read as needed, until you understand the difference between a
> > rebel
> > and a terrorist.
>
> So, the roadside bombs, suicide cars and walk-up bombers who target our
> military folks aren't the efforts of terrorists, you say? Maybe you
> should tell Washington they're rebels - seems I hear often about how our
> military is over in Iraq fighting terrorists not rebels.

You don't get to be taken off the terrorist list just because you throw in a
few attacks on military targets along with the killing of unarmed civilians.

> I agree that Hamas and the other misdirected Palastinian groups are
> terrorists and have their heads on backwards (at least temporarily) and
> it's abhorent that they target civilians (or anyone for that matter) but
> *my* point was that I'd guess they believe themselves to be freedom
> fighters and totally justified in taking the course of action they've
> chosen.

I don't give a crap what they believe themselves to be. Radical Islam
believes that it would be best if you and I didn't exist. Is that a valid
position just because they believe it?

> You made a great distinction between military targets and civilian
> targets... does that mean that when we a-bombed Hiroshima (targeting the
> civilian population) we were terrorists?

I think you could make that argument.

todd

Doug Miller wrote:

> I don't like it either; on the other hand, when a nation locates its military
> facilities in population centers, and then starts a war,

It's a bit ambiguous to say that Japan started the war.
It is no secret that the then US government wanted a war with Japan and
was prepared to do almost anything to provoke Japan into making the
first strike.

What made those engines/missles banned was they had a range of over the
90 mile limit. 94 to be accurate.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>And they were sold "since the fall of Saddam" - in other words,
>>after we took over.
>
>
> Well, since you apparently didn't read the original link, I'll offer it
> again.
>
> <http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html>
>
> Pay attention to the first paragraph...
>
> " The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons
> of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic
> missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in
> 2003."
>
> Key words in that para:
>
> United Nations <-- not the US led coalition, the UN
>
> determined <-- A conclusion based on evidence
>
> Saddam <-- Not Dubya, Saddam. You know, Hussein?
>
> shipped <-- Hope he didn't use UPS
>
> weapons of mass destruction <-- The stuff you keep asking about
>
> components <-- You'll now argue that mere parts prove nothing, right?
>
> before <-- means "prior to"
>
> during <-- means "scrambling to save his ass"
>
> after <-- means "from areas not under coalition control before
> Saddam was captured", I'm guessing
>
> Hope that helps...
>
> djb
>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> No, it's not "all about perspective." It's about being able to distinguish
> between legitimate rebellion and terrorism.
>
> You missed the point on a grand scale.
>
> The Contras fought against the Nicaraguan _military_ and police.
> The Afghans fought against the Soviet _military_.
> The French Underground fought against the German _military_.
>
> The Palestinian terrorists target and murder Israeli _civilians_.
>
> Do you see the difference?
>
> If not, re-read as needed, until you understand the difference between a
> rebel
> and a terrorist.

So, the roadside bombs, suicide cars and walk-up bombers who target our
military folks aren't the efforts of terrorists, you say? Maybe you
should tell Washington they're rebels - seems I hear often about how our
military is over in Iraq fighting terrorists not rebels.

I agree that Hamas and the other misdirected Palastinian groups are
terrorists and have their heads on backwards (at least temporarily) and
it's abhorent that they target civilians (or anyone for that matter) but
*my* point was that I'd guess they believe themselves to be freedom
fighters and totally justified in taking the course of action they've
chosen.

You made a great distinction between military targets and civilian
targets... does that mean that when we a-bombed Hiroshima (targeting the
civilian population) we were terrorists?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> The Contras were resisting a Communist coup d'etat.
> The Afghani mujaheddin were fighting to repel a foreign invader.
> The Palestinian terrorists are murdering innocent civilians.
>
> It takes a special kind of mind to equate the three.

All I think it takes is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of
another:

So because the Communists are always the enemy to US view, supporting
the Contras was justified. From the viewpoint of the Communist
supporters, the Contras were terrorists.

You obviously don't see the parallel to the Iraqi insurgent's resistance
to our own occupation to that of the Russians in Afghanistan...

You think the Palestinians view their fight as terroristic in nature?

Likewise, the French Underground during WW2 was quite possibly a
terrorist organization to the German view while we largely would not
view their efforts under such light.

It's all about perspective.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> >I agree that Hamas and the other misdirected Palastinian groups are
> >terrorists
>
> Half-way there. Do you also agree that the Contras, the Afghan mujaheddin,
> and
> the French Resistance in WW2 were *not* ?

It doesn't really matter what I consider the above groups - You and I
have biases toward believing one definition, whereas the folks holding
the opposing veiw, I'm sure, have a different definition for the same
group. That's been my point all along.

> [small snip]
> >
> >You made a great distinction between military targets and civilian
> >targets... does that mean that when we a-bombed Hiroshima (targeting the
> >civilian population) we were terrorists?
> >
> Your argument here is based upon a false premise. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
> both *military* targets.

Perhaps then the a-bomb was a poor example... how about the fire-bombing
of Tokyo, the forest-fire bombs in the NW or the nightly bombing of
London? These actions, AFAIK, were intended to terrorize and break the
people's will.

Well, I've got to let these political threads go - just gets me too
wound up - and I don't need to cause myself more thought on this stuff
- I come here for a diversion from such concerns. You, sir, may have the
last word if you like.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> Maybe in your world. In mine, paying cash rewards for terrorist acts is
> supporting terrorism, and a public offer to do so is sufficient proof.


<Damn,damn,damn. I told myself I wasn't going to respond to more
political threads...Damn.>

And what of US supply and support of the Contra's and the Afghani
Freedom Fighters? One person's "freedom fighters" are another's
terrorists.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:09:38 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
I can't belive this asshole. He wants to terminate the
thread after he puts in his last word.


><http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html>
>
>Excerpt:
>
>"Friday, June 11, 2004
>
> The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons
>of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic
>missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in
>2003.
>
> The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the
>Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts
>of Saddam's missile and WMD program.
>
> The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the
>speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and
>during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic
>missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite
>image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had
>disappeared."
>
>So there. It's not Bush, Cheney and Enron saying it.
>
>It's UNMOVIC, briefing the Security Council.
>
>Can we now move this off the wreck to alt.bushishilter or some ofther
>equally fanciful waste of bandwidth?
>
>Thank you.
>
>djb

In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Well, I'm pretty right-wing, but 90,000-140,000 civilian dead (some right
>away and the rest within five years) is a little too much collateral damage
>for my taste.
>
I don't like it either; on the other hand, when a nation locates its military
facilities in population centers, and then starts a war, the responsibility
for the inevitable civilian deaths when those military facilities are attacked
rests in at least as great a measure upon the leaders of that nation as upon
its adversary IMO.

In a similar vein, if we were at war with, say, China, and they nuked the huge
Navy base at San Diego, it seems to me that we wouldn't have much right to
complain about civilian deaths. San Diego *is* a legitimate military target.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article <[email protected]>, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> No, it's not "all about perspective." It's about being able to distinguish
>> between legitimate rebellion and terrorism.
>>
>> You missed the point on a grand scale.
>>
>> The Contras fought against the Nicaraguan _military_ and police.
>> The Afghans fought against the Soviet _military_.
>> The French Underground fought against the German _military_.
>>
>> The Palestinian terrorists target and murder Israeli _civilians_.
>>
>> Do you see the difference?
>>
>> If not, re-read as needed, until you understand the difference between a
>> rebel
>> and a terrorist.
>
>So, the roadside bombs, suicide cars and walk-up bombers who target our
>military folks aren't the efforts of terrorists, you say?

The acts themselves, when directed against our military personnel, I would
classify as guerilla warfare. Those committing them may be terrorists, or not,
depending on whether they do, or do not, *also* commit similar acts against
the civilian population.

>I agree that Hamas and the other misdirected Palastinian groups are
>terrorists

Half-way there. Do you also agree that the Contras, the Afghan mujaheddin, and
the French Resistance in WW2 were *not* ?

[small snip]
>
>You made a great distinction between military targets and civilian
>targets... does that mean that when we a-bombed Hiroshima (targeting the
>civilian population) we were terrorists?
>
Your argument here is based upon a false premise. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
both *military* targets.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Phil wrote:

> Wer'e doing the right thing, attacking terrorism, sitting back and being
> nicey-nicey won't work as above shows.


And we are doing that where?

Tell you now, if your going to write Iraq your a moron.


> Terrorists know the American bleading
> heart left is only concerned about political power.


?

Think so?


> Liberals will raise
> memorials to all the fallen, and do nothing of any substance to stop the
> terrorists.


This is turning out to be one of the most brainless pieces of drivel I've read
in a long time.


> Terrorists won in Spain, and the liberals are helping them win
> here in the US of A. And don't give me the UN solution, what a joke!


We're all helping them win, they have already divided us.




>
> With the fall of the USSR we thought the untruthfull TASS was dead, no it's
> still alive and well, just goes by ABC, NBC, CBS instead.


And the Tribune, and FOX, and CBN, and on and on ...


Please define liberal .... would that be anyone who doesn't think as you?


--
{neatly edited}
--

Mark

N.E. Ohio

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.

Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)