Dubya luvrs, your star is ascending [Archive]

Lionel

October 27th 03, 11:29 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
> reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
> of a free country."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/slic
>
> That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
> foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
> Horn, we are winning the war. The enemy is bound to get tired of
> slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
> order.
>

How many manifestations against the war have you participated in
February-March 2003 ?
Did you believe in WMD at this time ?
Did you really think that NATO's inspectors was lying to US people ?

I tell you all that and forgetting that you are also a specialist of the
crusade !
Is George a predestined name ?

_bibliography_
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintg05.htm
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/golden184.htm

LOL !

Lionel

October 28th 03, 01:08 AM

Lionel wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>
>> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
>> reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
>> of a free country."
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/slic
>>
>> That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
>> foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
>> Horn, we are winning the war. The enemy is bound to get tired of
>> slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
>> order.
>>
>
> How many manifestations against the war have you participated in
> February-March 2003 ?
> Did you believe in WMD at this time ?
> Did you really think that NATO's inspectors was lying to US people ?
>
> I tell you all that and forgetting that you are also a specialist of the
> crusade !
> Is George a predestined name ?
>
> _bibliography_
> http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintg05.htm
> http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/golden184.htm
>
> LOL !
>

Here for the fans, a RAO daily scene of "George's killing the beast" :
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stg05012.jpg

Interesting information ?
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pst00701.htm

pyjamarama

October 28th 03, 02:46 PM

George M. Middius > wrote in message >...
> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
> reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
> of a free country."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/slic
>
> That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
> foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
> Horn, we are winning the war. The enemy is bound to get tired of
> slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
> order

Hey genius, your own harebrained "analysis" notes that "responsible
Iraqis" and "foreigners" as well as Americans are terror targets in
Iraq.

Why don't you take a deep breath, think about why that might be and
then get back to us.

Arny Krueger

October 28th 03, 03:37 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
> reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
> of a free country."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/slic
>
> That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
> foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
> Horn, we are winning the war.

Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.

>The enemy is bound to get tired of
> slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
> order.

It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that what's
going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally lacking in historical
perspective. One such person appears to be our local hero, George Middius.

Lionel

October 28th 03, 04:05 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>
>
>>"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
>>reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
>>of a free country."
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/slic
>>
>>That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
>>foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
>>Horn, we are winning the war.
>
>
> Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.
>
>
>>The enemy is bound to get tired of
>>slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
>>order.
>
>
> It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that what's
> going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally lacking in historical
> perspective. One such person appears to be our local hero, George Middius.
>
>
The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
considered as heros by French people.
Despite thousands civil deaths in Le Havre, Brest, Rouen, Caen,
Saint-Etienne... bombing by the Brit & USA air forces, the French people
continued to support *their liberators*.
I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or anywhere
else in the Muslim world.

Arny Krueger

October 28th 03, 04:31 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>

>>> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in
>>> Iraq reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the
>>> creation of a free country."

>>> http://tinyurl.com/slic

>>> That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
>>> foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
>>> Horn, we are winning the war.

>> Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.

>>> The enemy is bound to get tired of
>>> slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
>>> short order.

>> It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that
>> what's going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally
>> lacking in historical perspective. One such person appears to be our
>> local hero, George Middius.

> The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
> considered as heroes by French people.

Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three per
day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor Middius uses
is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300 men in less than a day
at little Big Horn.

Radical liberal posturing about US casualties in Iraq is reaching amazing
heights. Yesterday I was watching some posture-matic guest on CNN who was
seriously comparing Sunday's losses to the Tet Offensive. This guy was
obviously old enough to know better.

If you want to compare apples to apples, compare Iraq to Germany, not
France. Normandy was not primarily about liberating France, that was just a
fortuitous side-effect.

It's not clear how big of a difference there is between Iraq and post-war
Germany. For one thing, it's been said that a lot of these suicide bombers
aren't Iraquis. This is supported by the numbers of innocent Iraquis that
the terrorists kill.

> Despite thousands civil deaths in Le Havre, Brest, Rouen, Caen,
> Saint-Etienne... bombing by the Brit & USA air forces, the French
> people continued to support *their liberators*.

I talked with a WWII veteran who stayed on with the occupation army. He told
me that Germany was a very dangerous place for at least 6 months after the
surrender. There were die-hard Nazis who nurtured dreams of getting back
into power if they could keep things disrupted enough. In Sierra Leone,
Sierra Leonese who cooperated with the rebels and foreign terrorists have
somewhat strangely suffered rather high rates of mortality, once some degree
of order was restored. If you are part of the previous violent government,
its either kill or be killed as there are many accounts that need to be
settled.

> I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
> anywhere else in the Muslim world.

The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000 Iraquis
to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the US as their
oppressor. There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in the
street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to become dead meat
in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of fundamentalist
bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand with the US Military.

trotsky

October 28th 03, 04:47 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

>>
>
>>>>"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in
>>>>Iraq reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the
>>>>creation of a free country."
>>>
>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/slic
>>>
>
>>>>That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
>>>>foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
>>>>Horn, we are winning the war.
>>>
>
>>>Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.
>>
>
>>>>The enemy is bound to get tired of
>>>>slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
>>>>short order.
>>>
>
>>>It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that
>>>what's going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally
>>>lacking in historical perspective. One such person appears to be our
>>>local hero, George Middius.
>>
>
>>The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
>>considered as heroes by French people.
>
>
> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three per
> day, with some days zero, in Iraq.

That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.

Arny Krueger

October 28th 03, 04:58 PM

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in
>>>>> Iraq reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the
>>>>> creation of a free country."
>>>>
>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/slic
>>>>
>>
>>>>> That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis
>>>>> and foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little
>>>>> Big Horn, we are winning the war.
>>>>
>>
>>>> Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.
>>>
>>
>>>>> The enemy is bound to get tired of
>>>>> slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
>>>>> short order.
>>>>
>>
>>>> It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that
>>>> what's going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally
>>>> lacking in historical perspective. One such person appears to be
>>>> our local hero, George Middius.
>>>
>>
>>> The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
>>> considered as heroes by French people.

>> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
>> per day, with some days zero, in Iraq.

> That's not a valid comparison.

I agree that there isn't a 1:1 mapping.

> At some point in our existence we are
> going to reach the point where zero causalities is the only think
> acceptable, if we haven't already.

At that point, we effectively hand the keys to our country over to the first
guy who has just one person who is willing to die.

Listening to many young soldiers talk, we're a long way from that.

>In the old days dying in battle was supposed to be a thing of honor, now
it's only a waste of life.

Handing the keys to our country over to the first guy who has just one
person who is willing to die, is a waste of life that many would not
tolerate. It's quite clear that having even 19 people who were willing to
die did absolutely nothing to hurt our resolve to fight.

Lionel

October 28th 03, 08:05 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message

>
>>I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
>>anywhere else in the Muslim world.
>
>
> The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000 Iraquis
> to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the US as their
> oppressor.

I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
Muslim world.

> There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
> have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in the
> street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to become dead meat
> in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of fundamentalist
> bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand with the US Military.
>

I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.

Arny Krueger

October 28th 03, 08:33 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message

>>> I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
>>> anywhere else in the Muslim world.

>> The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000
>> Iraqis to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the
>> US as their oppressor.

> I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.

Good.

> Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
> Muslim world.

Frankly, as far as the radicals go, I don't we could go any lower. As far as
the moderates go, I think they are going to feel more empathy for us, the
worse the radicals beat them up.

>> There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
>> have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in
>> the street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to
>> become dead meat in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are
>> full of fundamentalist bravado and have come to Iraq to go
>> hand-to-hand with the US Military.

> I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.

Thanks. However, I wasn't really being optimistic, because I didn't say what
I think the outcome will be. I don't have a clear idea of what the outcome
will be.

trotsky

October 28th 03, 10:14 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

>>>>
>>>>>>"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in
>>>>>>Iraq reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the
>>>>>>creation of a free country."
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/slic
>>>>>
>>>>>>That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis
>>>>>>and foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little
>>>>>>Big Horn, we are winning the war.
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.
>>>>
>>>>>>The enemy is bound to get tired of
>>>>>>slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
>>>>>>short order.
>>>>>
>>>>>It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that
>>>>>what's going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally
>>>>>lacking in historical perspective. One such person appears to be
>>>>>our local hero, George Middius.
>>>>
>>>>The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
>>>>considered as heroes by French people.
>>>
>
>>>Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>>>casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
>>>per day, with some days zero, in Iraq.
>>
>
>>That's not a valid comparison.
>
>
> I agree that there isn't a 1:1 mapping.
>
>
>> At some point in our existence we are
>>going to reach the point where zero causalities is the only think
>>acceptable, if we haven't already.
>
>
> At that point, we effectively hand the keys to our country over to the first
> guy who has just one person who is willing to die.
>
> Listening to many young soldiers talk, we're a long way from that.

Right. Doesn't sound that different from driving up in a car bomb.

>>In the old days dying in battle was supposed to be a thing of honor, now
>
> it's only a waste of life.
>
> Handing the keys to our country over to the first guy who has just one
> person who is willing to die, is a waste of life that many would not
> tolerate. It's quite clear that having even 19 people who were willing to
> die did absolutely nothing to hurt our resolve to fight.

Arny, how does one "hand over the keys to the country"? Do you think
the U.S. is in danger of being taken over by foreign powers? We're the
ones doing the taking over, remember?

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 28th 03, 10:39 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

> The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
> considered as heros by French people.
> Despite thousands civil deaths in Le Havre, Brest, Rouen, Caen,
> Saint-Etienne... bombing by the Brit & USA air forces, the French people
> continued to support *their liberators*.
> I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or anywhere
> else in the Muslim world.
>

For nowadyas, do we count France as being part of the Muslim world?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 28th 03, 11:00 PM

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >
> >>Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >
> >>>>"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in
> >>>>Iraq reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the
> >>>>creation of a free country."
> >>>
> >
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/slic
> >>>
> >
> >>>>That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
> >>>>foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
> >>>>Horn, we are winning the war.
> >>>
> >
> >>>Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.
> >>
> >
> >>>>The enemy is bound to get tired of
> >>>>slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
> >>>>short order.
> >>>
> >
> >>>It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that
> >>>what's going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally
> >>>lacking in historical perspective. One such person appears to be our
> >>>local hero, George Middius.
> >>
> >
> >>The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
> >>considered as heroes by French people.
> >
> >
> > Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
> > casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three per
> > day, with some days zero, in Iraq.
>
>
> That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
> going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
> acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
> supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.
>

There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it is
necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Lionel

October 28th 03, 11:04 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
>>considered as heros by French people.
>>Despite thousands civil deaths in Le Havre, Brest, Rouen, Caen,
>>Saint-Etienne... bombing by the Brit & USA air forces, the French people
>>continued to support *their liberators*.
>>I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or anywhere
>>else in the Muslim world.
>>
>
>
> For nowadyas, do we count France as being part of the Muslim world?
>
>
Do your best, count France with US friends... or enemies as suggested by
a famous journalist...
You have a government of liars and mystificators, you should better
prove to the rest of the world that you don't like to be manipulated as
you have been recently.

If you sincerely do that the whole antagonism France/USA can be cleaned
during the next rugby match in Australia...
....France will inflict a light defeat only to US "chocolate" team. ;-)

trotsky

October 29th 03, 12:41 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>

>>That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
>>going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
>>acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
>>supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.
>>
>
>
> There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it is
> necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.

I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
religious based government, then we're not really interested in
democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.

ScottW

October 29th 03, 12:47 AM

ScottW

October 29th 03, 12:51 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
> >
> >>I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
> >>anywhere else in the Muslim world.
> >
> >
> > The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000
Iraquis
> > to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the US as their
> > oppressor.
>
> I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
> Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
> Muslim world.

And the Muslim worlds credit is **** in the US. Many people are of
the opinion that these people are incapable of policing themselves.

>
> > There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
> > have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in the
> > street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to become dead
meat
> > in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of fundamentalist
> > bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand with the US Military.
> >
>
> I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.

Except the foreigners are committing more terrorism against the
Iraqis to intimidate against cooperation than direct attacks on US
forces. I hope they accelerate the training and deployment of Iraqi
security forces.

ScottW
>
>
>
>

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra

October 29th 03, 01:06 AM

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:41:52 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>> There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it is
>> necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.
>
>
>I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
>If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
>religious based government, then we're not really interested in
>democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
>have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.

Do you like wallpaper, BTW?

--
td

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 29th 03, 01:22 AM

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
>
> >>That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
> >>going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
> >>acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
> >>supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.
> >>
> >
> >
> > There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it is
> > necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.
>
>
> I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
> If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
> religious based government, then we're not really interested in
> democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
> have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.
>

You made a leap that I never made.

My statement was generalized, about war.
Countries go to war based upon self interest.
That is what we did in Iraq. As it happens,
getting rid of Saddam and establishing a
more or less democratic goverment is in our
self interest.

As far as your comments about a religious based government,
that is not likely to be a demoracy, so, after the initial
vote, the people can never change back to a pluralistic
government. Use common sense, suppose they change their mind
after ten years. TOO BAD! They got a theocratic dictatorship
they can't get rid of.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 29th 03, 01:23 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:5aEnb.45906$gi2.2193@fed1read01...
>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> >
> > >
> > >>I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
> > >>anywhere else in the Muslim world.
> > >
> > >
> > > The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000
> Iraquis
> > > to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the US as
their
> > > oppressor.
> >
> > I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
> > Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
> > Muslim world.
>
> And the Muslim worlds credit is **** in the US. Many people are of
> the opinion that these people are incapable of policing themselves.
>
> >
> > > There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
> > > have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in the
> > > street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to become
dead
> meat
> > > in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of fundamentalist
> > > bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand with the US Military.
> > >
> >
> > I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.
>
> Except the foreigners are committing more terrorism against the
> Iraqis to intimidate against cooperation than direct attacks on US
> forces. I hope they accelerate the training and deployment of Iraqi
> security forces.
>
A big mistake not to do it earlier.
Also a mistake was disbanding the army and not paying the soldiers.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Lionel

October 29th 03, 01:32 AM

ScottW wrote:

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...

>>I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
>>Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
>>Muslim world.

> And the Muslim worlds credit is **** in the US. Many people are of
> the opinion that these people are incapable of policing themselves.

Yes but they haven't 300,000 soldiers in California so you cannot really
compare and know what they are feeling now.
Listen, your George, Dick, Colin... have unshamely lied to the face of
the world (WMD lol!), they have decided over NATO's resolutions that
they should attack Iraq. Now the most of Arabians are sure that all
these invasions : Afganistan, Iraq where perfectly prepared and
scheduled and that they have only one objective : oil and gas.
For them US are stealing their resources. So you can imagine what they
are thinking about your democracy, your security...

>>>There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
>>>have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in the
>>>street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to become dead
>
> meat
>
>>>in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of fundamentalist
>>>bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand with the US Military.
>>>
>>
>>I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.
>
>
> Except the foreigners are committing more terrorism against the
> Iraqis to intimidate against cooperation than direct attacks on US
> forces. I hope they accelerate the training and deployment of Iraqi
> security forces.
>

Everything has a cost, depends on what *you* are prepared to pay.

trotsky

October 29th 03, 01:34 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>
>>>>That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
>>>>going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
>>>>acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
>>>>supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it
>>
> is
>
>>>necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.
>>
>>
>>I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
>>If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
>>religious based government, then we're not really interested in
>>democracy, right?
>
>
> I think we'd like to give them more than one shot to get it
> right. Being new to democracy and all, you really think they
> will get fair and open elections the first time?

What, with Dubya's people monitoring the action? You're probably right.

>>We're *dictating* what form of government they can
>>have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.
>
>
> Only think I'd like to see dictated is that the elections aren't a
> one time event.
>
> ScottW
>
>

trotsky

October 29th 03, 01:45 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>
>>>>That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
>>>>going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
>>>>acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
>>>>supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it is
>>>necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.
>>
>>
>>I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
>>If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
>>religious based government, then we're not really interested in
>>democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
>>have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.
>>
>
>
> You made a leap that I never made.
>
> My statement was generalized, about war.

Was it? Where is this "preservation of liberty" in 2003?

> Countries go to war based upon self interest.

Right. Viva la libertad.

> That is what we did in Iraq. As it happens,
> getting rid of Saddam and establishing a
> more or less democratic goverment is in our
> self interest.
>
> As far as your comments about a religious based government,
> that is not likely to be a demoracy, so, after the initial
> vote, the people can never change back to a pluralistic
> government. Use common sense, suppose they change their mind
> after ten years. TOO BAD! They got a theocratic dictatorship
> they can't get rid of.

Of course. Taking over the whole world's the only answer.

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra

October 29th 03, 01:55 AM

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:22:27 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>My statement was generalized, about war.
>Countries go to war based upon self interest.
>That is what we did in Iraq. As it happens,
>getting rid of Saddam and establishing a
>more or less democratic goverment is in our
>self interest.

Conquer Europe next?

--
td

George M. Middius

October 29th 03, 02:04 AM

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra said:

> Conquer Europe next?

Would you Brits object if somebody annexed France?

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra

October 29th 03, 02:22 AM

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:04:32 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>Would you Brits object if somebody annexed France?

Not really, no.

--
td

ScottW

October 29th 03, 02:45 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >>I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
> >>Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
> >>Muslim world.
>
> > And the Muslim worlds credit is **** in the US. Many people are of
> > the opinion that these people are incapable of policing themselves.
>
> Yes but they haven't 300,000 soldiers in California so you cannot really
> compare and know what they are feeling now.
> Listen, your George, Dick, Colin... have unshamely lied to the face of
> the world (WMD lol!), they have decided over NATO's resolutions that
> they should attack Iraq.

You guys need to understand the US is not going to allow these "one world"
governments to dictate our foreign policy. If nothing else, these attempts
to
do so mobilize support for any leader that says it won't be so.
Much like France has rallied behind Chiraque.

ScottW

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 29th 03, 02:48 AM

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "trotsky" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>>"trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>
> >>>>That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
> >>>>going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
> >>>>acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle
was
> >>>>supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it
is
> >>>necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.
> >>
> >>
> >>I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
> >>If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
> >>religious based government, then we're not really interested in
> >>democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
> >>have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You made a leap that I never made.
> >
> > My statement was generalized, about war.
>
>
> Was it? Where is this "preservation of liberty" in 2003?
>

All I was talking about was thet war is sometimes necessary to
prevent greater loss of life or to preserve liberty.
I didn't say those were the only reasons nations got to war.
I didn't say that those were the only valid reasons nations go to war.
I didn't say anything about Iraq.
I didn't say that the reason for the Iraq war was to preserve liberty.

Stop making assumptions, and
stop putting words in my mouth.
Other than that, I am not going to get into an
argument with you for the purpose of supporting statements
that I never made, nor ever intended to be made.

> >
> > As far as your comments about a religious based government,
> > that is not likely to be a demoracy, so, after the initial
> > vote, the people can never change back to a pluralistic
> > government. Use common sense, suppose they change their mind
> > after ten years. TOO BAD! They got a theocratic dictatorship
> > they can't get rid of.
>
>
> Of course. Taking over the whole world's the only answer.
>

Again:
Stop making assumptions, and
stop putting words in my mouth.
Other than that, I am not going to get into an
argument with you for the purpose of supporting statements
that I never made, nor ever intended to be made.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 29th 03, 02:49 AM

"The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra" > wrote in message
news:ec7upvoti677706k558re91j60b3r8d5pv@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:22:27 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>
> >My statement was generalized, about war.
> >Countries go to war based upon self interest.
> >That is what we did in Iraq. As it happens,
> >getting rid of Saddam and establishing a
> >more or less democratic goverment is in our
> >self interest.
>
> Conquer Europe next?
>

Why?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Jacob Kramer

October 29th 03, 03:22 AM

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three per
>day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor Middius uses
>is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300 men in less than a day
>at little Big Horn.

Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.

--

Jacob Kramer

George M. Middius

October 29th 03, 03:26 AM

Jacob Kramer said:

> Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
> France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.

Only if you maintain, as Saddam Hussein and his predecessors did, that
Kuwait and Iran are not sovereign nations but mere offshoots of
Greater Iraq.

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 03:41 AM

Langis wrote:
> You are being a little unfair - Presidenté Bush has done an excellent
> job of liberating Iraq to a whole new wave of terror!

So when will Tony Bush face a no confidence vote?

Nexus 6

George M. Middius

October 29th 03, 03:44 AM

Nexus 6 said:

> So when will Tony Bush face a no confidence vote?

Maybe when he becomes a national hero in France.......

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 03:47 AM

trotsky wrote:

> I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too. If,
> in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a religious
> based government, then we're not really interested in democracy, right?
> We're *dictating* what form of government they can have. That's
> dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.

It will be great for the oil biz.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 03:51 AM

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:22:27 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>My statement was generalized, about war.
>>Countries go to war based upon self interest.
>>That is what we did in Iraq. As it happens,
>>getting rid of Saddam and establishing a
>>more or less democratic goverment is in our
>>self interest.
>
>
> Conquer Europe next?

Wot?

The *curtains*?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 03:53 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

>>Conquer Europe next?
>>
>
>
>
> Why?

Because it's there?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 03:55 AM

Jacob Kramer wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>>casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three per
>>day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor Middius uses
>>is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300 men in less than a day
>>at little Big Horn.
>
>
> Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
> France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.

Yes, but it thought about it.

At least once.

I hear they found the master plan for the Iraqi invasion of
New Hampshire.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 03:55 AM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Jacob Kramer said:
>
>
>>Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
>>France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>
>
> Only if you maintain, as Saddam Hussein and his predecessors did, that
> Kuwait and Iran are not sovereign nations but mere offshoots of
> Greater Iraq.

OKOKOK....sheesh.

They hadn't invaded anyone in a while.

Doesn't that count?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 04:27 AM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Nexus 6 said:
>
>
>>So when will Tony Bush face a no confidence vote?
>
>
> Maybe when he becomes a national hero in France.......

This calls for an invasion!

Nexus 6

Lionel

October 29th 03, 08:31 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>ScottW wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>>I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
>>>>Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
>>>>Muslim world.
>>
>>> And the Muslim worlds credit is **** in the US. Many people are of
>>>the opinion that these people are incapable of policing themselves.
>>
>>Yes but they haven't 300,000 soldiers in California so you cannot really
>>compare and know what they are feeling now.
>>Listen, your George, Dick, Colin... have unshamely lied to the face of
>>the world (WMD lol!), they have decided over NATO's resolutions that
>>they should attack Iraq.
>
>
> You guys need to understand the US is not going to allow these "one world"
> governments to dictate our foreign policy. If nothing else, these attempts
> to
> do so mobilize support for any leader that says it won't be so.
> Much like France has rallied behind Chiraque.
>

US today foreign policy is based on US profit only.
You acknowledge with me that the WMD matter was *THE big lie*, so don't
be surprised if there's a price to pay for that.
Ooops, I forgot that your wealthy life is not really disturbed by these
events.

"Smoke gets in your eyes..."

Lionel

October 29th 03, 08:45 AM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra said:
>
>
>>Conquer Europe next?
>
>
> Would you Brits object if somebody annexed France?
>
>
Yeah I would love to have a George Middius in my country side...
Perhaps after a good surgical cure in a taxidermist lab you would be a
good bird scarer. ;-)

Lionel

October 29th 03, 08:49 AM

Langis wrote:

> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
>>>Conquer Europe next?
>>
>>Would you Brits object if somebody annexed France?
>
>
>
> The populace should be exterminated.
>
> France is a holiday destination, not a country.
>
>
A suggestion :
You should keep the french males alive or your wives will not find
anymore interest in tourism. (lol!)

Lionel

October 29th 03, 08:54 AM

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:04:32 -0500, George M. Middius
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Would you Brits object if somebody annexed France?
>
>
> Not really, no.
>

Perfide Albion... US ass-lickers, European's Juda !

Lionel

October 29th 03, 09:02 AM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Jacob Kramer said:
>
>
>>Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
>>France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>
>
> Only if you maintain, as Saddam Hussein and his predecessors did, that
> Kuwait and Iran are not sovereign nations but mere offshoots of
> Greater Iraq.
>
>
>
Iran-Iraq war...
One of the famous '80s Holywoodian production : 1,000,000 deaths.
Good example George, do you really want to speak about US foreign policy
success ?

Lionel

October 29th 03, 09:14 AM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Nexus 6 said:
>
>
>>So when will Tony Bush face a no confidence vote?
>
>
> Maybe when he becomes a national hero in France.......
>
>
>
George you are a good patriot so you should quietly watch the very
expensive film that you government has imagined for you.
....Stop focus on your cultural frustrations. ;-)

Lionel

October 29th 03, 09:19 AM

Nexus 6 wrote:

>
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>
>> Jacob Kramer said:
>>
>>
>>> Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
>>> France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Only if you maintain, as Saddam Hussein and his predecessors did, that
>> Kuwait and Iran are not sovereign nations but mere offshoots of
>> Greater Iraq.
>
>
> OKOKOK....sheesh.
>
> They hadn't invaded anyone in a while.
>
> Doesn't that count?
>

If you want to kill your dog you should say that it has rabies...

Lionel

October 29th 03, 09:42 AM

Langis wrote:
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Conquer Europe next?
>>>>
>>>>Would you Brits object if somebody annexed France?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The populace should be exterminated.
>>>
>>>France is a holiday destination, not a country.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>A suggestion :
>>You should keep the french males alive or your wives will not find
>>anymore interest in tourism. (lol!)
>
>
> I know of no women that like to have sex with greasy men.
>
>

If you naively believe that... You are cuckolded. ;-)

Lionel

October 29th 03, 09:55 AM

Langis wrote:

> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
>>>>>France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Only if you maintain, as Saddam Hussein and his predecessors did, that
>>>>Kuwait and Iran are not sovereign nations but mere offshoots of
>>>>Greater Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>>OKOKOK....sheesh.
>>>
>>>They hadn't invaded anyone in a while.
>>>
>>>Doesn't that count?
>>>
>>
>>If you want to kill your dog you should say that it has rabies...
>
>
> That's only a plausible in countries where hygiene standards are so
> low that rabies has not been stamped out, such as France.
>
>
You have been spared just because foxes cannot swim through the Channel.
Recently England tried to be the "Lucrece Borgia" of the world, don't
remember ?

Arny Krueger

October 29th 03, 10:21 AM

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
> If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
> religious based government, then we're not really interested in
> democracy, right?

That would be a big "if".

> We're *dictating* what form of government they can
> have.

You're speculating that is the case. Got any proof?

>That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.

You're speculating and presuming it is a fact. That's intellectual
dishonesty. It's also just plain stupid. If you were a good writer, you
could present your speculation properly and have an intersting argument. As
things stand, you're talking trash.

There's a funny saying that goes something like this:

The ultimate tyranny is imposing democracy on people who don't want it.

It probably overstates the problem, but then its supposed to make us think,
not dictate our actions.

Back in the real world, democracy has certain prerequisites. One is a highly
developed hatred of non-representative forms of government together with a
willingness to become personally involved with the logical alternative.
Others include a good communications infrastructure and a populace with a
certain level of education and a personal stake in the continued orderly
operation of the society.

Whether the prerequisites for democracy are present in Iraq remains to be
seen.

Frankly, there seems to be more infrastructure for supporting democracy in
Iraq than in Afghanistan. May the communists rot in hell for what they did
to Afghanistan over 20 years ago. The radical Mullahs should all turn
communist to repay the favor the communists did for them. A true successful
Muslim democracy would help put an end to their weirdness.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 03, 10:27 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
>> per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
>> Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
>> men in less than a day at little Big Horn.

> Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
> France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.

Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of Iran never
happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a thing,
again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and Iraq was a
happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.

Kramer, you're one of the strongest attackers of the liberal viewpoint
around here due to the way you have all your facts wrong and consistently
reach illogical conclusions on those few occasions when you actually get a
few facts right.

chris

October 29th 03, 10:30 AM

"Langis" > wrote in message
...
> Nexus 6 > wrote:
>
> >> You are being a little unfair - Presidenté Bush has done an excellent
> >> job of liberating Iraq to a whole new wave of terror!
> >
> >So when will Tony Bush face a no confidence vote?
>
> Tony Bush.. haha like it sport!!
>
> I don't know about that, but conservative party leader Iain Duncan
> Smith is useless. He's been told repeatedly to F-off by his
> colleagues, the public, even the staff of No.10, but he just doesn't
> take the hint. Even with 25+ MPs demanding a vote of confidence he's
> *still* defiant. Tosser!!
>
> This brings me off on a question : why must conservative party leaders
> be an embarrassment to the human race? We've had the deranged
> Thatcher, stiff-as-a-board Major, spotty teenager Hague, and Iain
> Duncan 'I'm a ****' Smith.
>
So we have only got runsfelt's sockpuppets on both sides on the pond.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 29th 03, 10:39 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:3VGnb.11012$d87.10940@okepread05...
>

>
> I hear they found the master plan for the Iraqi invasion of
> New Hampshire.
>

It was in Howard Dean's coat pocket.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger

October 29th 03, 10:50 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> Yes but they haven't 300,000 soldiers in California so you cannot
> really compare and know what they are feeling now.

There hasn't been any comparison between Iraq and California for about 200
years, so the comparison is invalid.

> Listen, your George, Dick, Colin... have unshamely lied to the face of
> the world (WMD lol!),

Remember, lying presumes that you know the truth. I think the case for
inadequate knowledge of certain specifics is a lot stronger than the case
for lying.

> they have decided over NATO's resolutions that they should attack Iraq.

Since the US invented NATO and forcibly imposed it on Europe, it has no
sovereignty over us.

> Now the most of Arabians are sure that all
> these invasions : Afghanistan, Iraq where perfectly prepared and
> scheduled and that they have only one objective : oil and gas.

What do you mean "now"? They've thought this way for at least 50 years, and
they are right. If there was no oil and gas and world-scale transportation
issues (got to remember the Suez canal) in the mid east, it would all be
Muslim oligarchies with its' rulers still riding around on horses and
camels, no modern infrastructure and one heck of a quaint place for
westerners to visit.

> For them US are stealing their resources.

Money means nothing to these people? The natives in the middle east haven't
got a clue about how to take responsibility for their own actions. Take
Saudi Arabia. The whole country is basically on the dole except for the
foreigners they hire to do their dirty work for them. Their leading problem
is that their income remains the same because of OPEC (which they joined of
their own free will) and their population has doubled. That means everybody
gets half as much per person!

Iraq was at least 40-50% on the dole and ran down their infrastructure
because of their orneriness and their cluelessness.
The scariest thing the Iraqis have to deal with is the fact that they see
the Americans in their midst working their own butts off, and the Iraqis are
beginning to suspect that we're going to expect them to do the same thing!

> So you can imagine what they
> are thinking about your democracy, your security...

They can think what they will, and they can try to pull off whatever stunts
they will, but it's not going to help their situation one bit. If they could
get a clue...

Israel is a perfect example of what happens when the middle east natives try
to have it their way. The standard of living of the Israeli's dropped by
about 30% and that of the Palestinians dropped by at least 70% The Israelis
came out ahead so to speak because they are essentially Europeans, not
middle east natives.

>>>> There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
>>>> have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in
>>>> the street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to
>>>> become dead meat

>>>> in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of
>>>> fundamentalist bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand
>>>> with the US Military.

>>> I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.

>> Except the foreigners are committing more terrorism against the
>> Iraqis to intimidate against cooperation than direct attacks on US
>> forces. I hope they accelerate the training and deployment of Iraqi
>> security forces.

Agreed.

> Everything has a cost, depends on what *you* are prepared to pay.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 29th 03, 10:53 AM

"Langis" > wrote in message
...

>. The rules have changed, and we've
> seen how the US copes with terrorism - impotency, panic, fear.

Yes, Dean will show the world our power, fortitude and resolve.
He'll have those terrorists scurrying for cover. That's the ticket!

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger

October 29th 03, 10:54 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> Langis wrote:
>
>> Lionel > wrote:

>>> If you want to kill your dog you should say that it has rabies...

This was a direct hit on Dormer's dissembling, Lionel. Too bad you let him
distract you with this:

>> That's only a plausible in countries where hygiene standards are so
>> low that rabies has not been stamped out, such as France.

> You have been spared just because foxes cannot swim through the
> Channel.

Good, factual come back. Another practical point is the fact that the
Channel never freezes over shore-to-shore. I could be wrong here, but
another point is the fact that trivial pleasure craft don't make a habit of
crossing the channel. All of these factors have been real problems related
to canine quarantine in parts of the US that are like the UK, islands.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 03, 12:06 PM

"Langis" > wrote in message

> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> You guys need to understand the US is not going to allow these "one
>> world"

> You guys in the US need to understand that this is NOT a movie.

We kill people making movies, just not as many...

>The US
> (led coalition) has behaved in a manner that is arrogant and intrusive
> by most of the worlds standards.

Most of the world is third world countries who don't know enough to even
have standards.

>The rules have changed, and we've
> seen how the US copes with terrorism - impotency, panic, fear.

No, that's how France and Germany handle terrorism.

>Let's see if you've got mouth when your cosy little world melts away.

That's going to take some time... Meanwhile the UK is a whole lot more
geographically exposed to the middle east than the US.

trotsky

October 29th 03, 12:06 PM

Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>
> trotsky wrote:
>
>
>> I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
>> If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
>> religious based government, then we're not really interested in
>> democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
>> have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.
>
>
> It will be great for the oil biz.

And Halliburton.

trotsky

October 29th 03, 12:22 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
>>If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
>>religious based government, then we're not really interested in
>>democracy, right?
>
>
> That would be a big "if".

No, that wouldn't be a big "if" you ****ing moron. You think it was a
****ing fluke in Iran? You are a moron.

>>We're *dictating* what form of government they can
>>have.
>
>
> You're speculating that is the case. Got any proof?

Do I have any proof that U.S. govt. has said repeatedly that only one
kind of government is acceptable in Iraq? Do you even understand what
is being discussed?

>>That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.
>
>
> You're speculating and presuming it is a fact. That's intellectual
> dishonesty. It's also just plain stupid. If you were a good writer, you
> could present your speculation properly and have an intersting argument. As
> things stand, you're talking trash.

Is that what they told you down at the church? I suppose I'm also
speculating that people have been locked up and detained indefinitely in
the name of "liberty". You're lucky you haven't been accused of
carrying a dirty bomb around in your underpants, otherwise you'd never
be heard from again. "We lock people up and throw away the key the
right way." Hypocritical bull****.

> There's a funny saying that goes something like this:
>
> The ultimate tyranny is imposing democracy on people who don't want it.

I told you you didn't understand the discussion. Replace "ultimate"
with "another form of".

> It probably overstates the problem, but then its supposed to make us think,
> not dictate our actions.
>
> Back in the real world, democracy has certain prerequisites. One is a highly
> developed hatred of non-representative forms of government together with a
> willingness to become personally involved with the logical alternative.

Democracy has hatred as a prerequisite. Yeah, that makes a super lot of
sense.

> Others include a good communications infrastructure and a populace with a
> certain level of education and a personal stake in the continued orderly
> operation of the society.
>
> Whether the prerequisites for democracy are present in Iraq remains to be
> seen.

That's not the position of the U.S. govt.--FLASE CALIM.

> Frankly, there seems to be more infrastructure for supporting democracy in
> Iraq than in Afghanistan. May the communists rot in hell for what they did
> to Afghanistan over 20 years ago. The radical Mullahs should all turn
> communist to repay the favor the communists did for them. A true successful
> Muslim democracy would help put an end to their weirdness.

Right, "the Communists did it." You're just another U.S. apologist.

trotsky

October 29th 03, 12:23 PM

Langis wrote:
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>>>A suggestion :
>>>>You should keep the french males alive or your wives will not find
>>>>anymore interest in tourism. (lol!)
>>>
>>>
>>>I know of no women that like to have sex with greasy men.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If you naively believe that... You are cuckolded. ;-)
>
>
> Not really, it's just that I prefer not to "hang out" with trollops
> and slags.

Have you met "Devil"?

Lionel

October 29th 03, 12:44 PM

Lionel

October 29th 03, 01:23 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
>
>

Langis wrote : ;-)
And the Muslim worlds credit is **** in the US. Many people are of
the opinion that these people are incapable of policing themselves.

I answered : ;-) ;-)
>>Yes but they haven't 300,000 soldiers in California so you cannot
>>really compare and know what they are feeling now.
>
>
> There hasn't been any comparison between Iraq and California for about 200
> years, so the comparison is invalid.

Fully agree with you but I love politic fiction. ;-) ;-) ;-)

>
>>Listen, your George, Dick, Colin... have unshamely lied to the face of
>>the world (WMD lol!),
>
>
> Remember, lying presumes that you know the truth. I think the case for
> inadequate knowledge of certain specifics is a lot stronger than the case
> for lying.
>
I know the true, you know the true, he knows the true, we...
Where are the WMD Mr. Krueger ? Hidden in your garage ?
You cannot cultivate the lie any longer. According to George Bush and
US/British coalition WMD was *THE* reasons of the war.
>
>>they have decided over NATO's resolutions that they should attack Iraq.
>
>
> Since the US invented NATO and forcibly imposed it on Europe, it has no
> sovereignty over us.
>
Don't you feel a little bit "dominatrix" in your way of leading the
discussion here ? :-)

>
>>Now the most of Arabians are sure that all
>>these invasions : Afghanistan, Iraq where perfectly prepared and
>>scheduled and that they have only one objective : oil and gas.
>
>
> What do you mean "now"? They've thought this way for at least 50 years, and
> they are right. If there was no oil and gas and world-scale transportation
> issues (got to remember the Suez canal) in the mid east, it would all be
> Muslim oligarchies with its' rulers still riding around on horses and
> camels, no modern infrastructure and one heck of a quaint place for
> westerners to visit.
>

I'm afraid to be too much stupid to discuss that with you.
All the logic of your demonstrations escapes to my poor attempts to
catch it, sorry.
Just a strange feeling...

>
>>For them US are stealing their resources.
>
>
> Money means nothing to these people? The natives in the middle east haven't
> got a clue about how to take responsibility for their own actions.

And what about your government ?
They are liars is it a way to take responsability for their own actions?

George M. Middius

October 29th 03, 01:29 PM

Langis said:

> This brings me off on a question : why must conservative party leaders
> be an embarrassment to the human race? We've had the deranged
> Thatcher, stiff-as-a-board Major, spotty teenager Hague, and Iain
> Duncan 'I'm a ****' Smith.

Our "conservatives" (aka Republicans) are embarrassing to half of
Americans, and adored by the other half. Must be an eye-of-the-
beholder thing.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 03, 01:53 PM

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>

>>> I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
>>> If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
>>> religious based government, then we're not really interested in
>>> democracy, right?

>> That would be a big "if".

> No, that wouldn't be a big "if" you ****ing moron. You think it was a
> ****ing fluke in Iran?

I missed a fair popular vote with democracy on the ballot in Iran? Silly me!

>You are a moron.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I'm condemned to play nursemaid
to some of the dumbest craps in the world like you, Singh.

>>> We're *dictating* what form of government they can
>>> have.
>
>> You're speculating that is the case. Got any proof?

> Do I have any proof that U.S. govt. has said repeatedly that only one
> kind of government is acceptable in Iraq?

A generic statement was made. I guess that telling someone to buy a car is
identically the same as specifying the make and model.

>Do you even understand what is being discussed?

It is true that watching your multi-polar personality induced manic topic
switching can be a bit hard for an old dude like me to follow.

>>> That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.

>> You're speculating and presuming it is a fact. That's intellectual
>> dishonesty. It's also just plain stupid. If you were a good writer,
>> you could present your speculation properly and have an interesting
>> argument. As things stand, you're talking trash.

> Is that what they told you down at the church?

In a manner of speaking, yes. What did they tell you in church, Singh? How
many years did you go to Sunday School and what was the name of the
evangelical Christian church where this happened?

> I suppose I'm also
> speculating that people have been locked up and detained indefinitely
> in the name of "liberty".

Yes, we usually call people like that "criminals" and the places we put them
are called "jails". Mostly we go through something we call "due process:,
but corners have been cut in the past. Just wanted to get you up to speed,
Singh.

> You're lucky you haven't been accused of
> carrying a dirty bomb around in your underpants, otherwise you'd never
> be heard from again.

While we posture about justice for all, it is true that justice has a price,
and if you don't have that price you are really at the mercy of the state.

>"We lock people up and throw away the key the
> right way." Hypocritical bull****.

Reality. I can live with the truth, can you?

>> There's a funny saying that goes something like this:
>>
>> The ultimate tyranny is imposing democracy on people who don't want
>> it.

> I told you you didn't understand the discussion. Replace "ultimate"
> with "another form of".

That works too. It's good to see that after half a posts worth of posturing,
you're finally thinking.

>> It probably overstates the problem, but then its supposed to make us
>> think, not dictate our actions.

>> Back in the real world, democracy has certain prerequisites. One is
>> a highly developed hatred of non-representative forms of government
>> together with a willingness to become personally involved with the
>> logical alternative.

> Democracy has hatred as a prerequisite. Yeah, that makes a super lot
> of sense.

Like hatred of injustice is a bad thing? I guess you went back to sleep
again.

>> Others include a good communications infrastructure and a populace
>> with a certain level of education and a personal stake in the
>> continued orderly operation of the society.

>> Whether the prerequisites for democracy are present in Iraq remains
>> to be seen.

> That's not the position of the U.S. govt.--FLASE CALIM.

Prove it.

>> Frankly, there seems to be more infrastructure for supporting
>> democracy in Iraq than in Afghanistan. May the communists rot in
>> hell for what they did to Afghanistan over 20 years ago. The radical
>> Mullahs should all turn communist to repay the favor the communists
>> did for them. A true successful Muslim democracy would help put an
>> end to their weirdness.

> Right, "the Communists did it."

Yes, that was the U.S. Military wearing USSR uniforms that marched into
Afghanistan in 1979. Jimmy Carter and the CIA hatched this scheme together
to distract the U.S. voting public from Carter's goofus in Iran. Amazing how
we managed to pick up all those Soviet military vehicles, helicopters and
planes on the surplus market, eh? Then Reagan had so much respect for
Carter's foreign policy that he played along for both terms of office. If
you believe this your name must be Jacob Kramer.

>You're just another U.S. apologist.

Sue me for having at least half a clue about history and politics. Puts me
way ahead of you, and Kramer, Singh.

Jacob Kramer

October 29th 03, 04:36 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>
> > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
> >> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
> >> per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
> >> Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
> >> men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
>
> > Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
> > France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>
> Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of Iran never
> happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a thing,
> again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
> supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and Iraq was a
> happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
> responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.

Our own invasion of Iraq was not to reverse an invasion of Kuwait or
Iran. At the time of the Normandy landing, Germany was still
occupying much of Europe, including France, and in the same conflict
had invaded those other places.

Jacob Kramer

October 29th 03, 04:38 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>
> > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
> >> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
> >> per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
> >> Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
> >> men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
>
> > Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
> > France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>
> Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of Iran never
> happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a thing,
> again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
> supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and Iraq was a
> happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
> responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.

Hrm I can put this in one other way. In the Normandy invasion, we
were liberating France from another country--Germany. In the Iraq
invasion, we were liberating the people of the country from their own
government. I.e. it was regime-change rather than ending an
occupation.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 03, 05:58 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>>>> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to
>>>> three per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer
>>>> metaphor Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost
>>>> about 300 men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
>>
>>> Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia,
>>> Poland, France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>>
>> Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of
>> Iran never happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever
>> try such a thing, again. Also, no matter what the world press
>> reports, Saddam was not supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers
>> or Hammas. Oh yes, and Iraq was a happy liberal democracy whose
>> people and natural resources were being responsibly and humanely
>> managed for the good of all.
>
> Our own invasion of Iraq was not to reverse an invasion of Kuwait or
> Iran.

Irrelevant. I'm obviously speaking to the leadership and recent history of
Iraq, which we overthrew.

>At the time of the Normandy landing, Germany was still
> occupying much of Europe, including France, and in the same conflict
> had invaded those other places.

It's not Iraq's fault that they weren't occupying Iran and Kuwait when we
overthrew them! They gave it a heck of a try!

Also , you haven't addressed the other issues I raised.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 03, 06:02 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>>>> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to
>>>> three per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer
>>>> metaphor Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost
>>>> about 300 men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
>>
>>> Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia,
>>> Poland, France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>>
>> Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of
>> Iran never happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever
>> try such a thing, again. Also, no matter what the world press
>> reports, Saddam was not supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers
>> or Hammas. Oh yes, and Iraq was a happy liberal democracy whose
>> people and natural resources were being responsibly and humanely
>> managed for the good of all.
>
> Hrm I can put this in one other way. In the Normandy invasion, we
> were liberating France from another country--Germany. In the Iraq
> invasion, we were liberating the people of the country from their own
> government. I.e. it was regime-change rather than ending an
> occupation.

Since the Baath party was formed outside of Iraq (generally thought to be
Syria) and invaded and overthrew the then-legitimate government of Iraq,
look at what we did as a somewhat-delayed reversal of the Baath party
occupation of Iraq.

trotsky

October 29th 03, 06:09 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message

>>
>
>>>>I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
>>>>If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
>>>>religious based government, then we're not really interested in
>>>>democracy, right?
>>>
>
>>>That would be a big "if".
>>
>
>>No, that wouldn't be a big "if" you ****ing moron. You think it was a
>>****ing fluke in Iran?
>
>
> I missed a fair popular vote with democracy on the ballot in Iran? Silly me!

Which isn't what you U.S. will allow in Iraq. QED.

>>You are a moron.
>
>
> I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I'm condemned to play nursemaid
> to some of the dumbest craps in the world like you, Singh.

I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like you're coming unglued
again.

>>>>We're *dictating* what form of government they can
>>>>have.
>>>
>>>You're speculating that is the case. Got any proof?
>>
>
>>Do I have any proof that U.S. govt. has said repeatedly that only one
>>kind of government is acceptable in Iraq?
>
>
> A generic statement was made. I guess that telling someone to buy a car is
> identically the same as specifying the make and model.

????

>>Do you even understand what is being discussed?
>
>
> It is true that watching your multi-polar personality induced manic topic
> switching can be a bit hard for an old dude like me to follow.

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

>>>>That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.
>>>
>
>>>You're speculating and presuming it is a fact. That's intellectual
>>>dishonesty. It's also just plain stupid. If you were a good writer,
>>>you could present your speculation properly and have an interesting
>>>argument. As things stand, you're talking trash.
>>
>
>>Is that what they told you down at the church?
>
>
> In a manner of speaking, yes. What did they tell you in church, Singh? How
> many years did you go to Sunday School and what was the name of the
> evangelical Christian church where this happened?

Makes no difference. I renounce all religious teachings and doctrines
I've been presented with. You've done the same thing, but have yet to
admit it.

>>I suppose I'm also
>>speculating that people have been locked up and detained indefinitely
>>in the name of "liberty".
>
>
> Yes, we usually call people like that "criminals" and the places we put them
> are called "jails". Mostly we go through something we call "due process:,
> but corners have been cut in the past. Just wanted to get you up to speed,
> Singh.

Hussein cut corners on "due process" too. Can you explain the
difference, or are you yourself not up to speed yet?

>>You're lucky you haven't been accused of
>>carrying a dirty bomb around in your underpants, otherwise you'd never
>>be heard from again.
>
>
> While we posture about justice for all, it is true that justice has a price,
> and if you don't have that price you are really at the mercy of the state.

Which price is that?

>>"We lock people up and throw away the key the
>>right way." Hypocritical bull****.
>
>
> Reality. I can live with the truth, can you?

Which truth is that?

>>>There's a funny saying that goes something like this:
>>>
>>>The ultimate tyranny is imposing democracy on people who don't want
>>>it.
>>
>
>>I told you you didn't understand the discussion. Replace "ultimate"
>>with "another form of".
>
>
> That works too. It's good to see that after half a posts worth of posturing,
> you're finally thinking.

Tyranny is okay with you? Then you're unAmerican.

>>>It probably overstates the problem, but then its supposed to make us
>>>think, not dictate our actions.
>>
>
>>>Back in the real world, democracy has certain prerequisites. One is
>>>a highly developed hatred of non-representative forms of government
>>>together with a willingness to become personally involved with the
>>>logical alternative.
>>
>
>
>>Democracy has hatred as a prerequisite. Yeah, that makes a super lot
>>of sense.
>
>
> Like hatred of injustice is a bad thing? I guess you went back to sleep
> again.

How is creating injustice showing hatred of it? False claim.

>>>Others include a good communications infrastructure and a populace
>>>with a certain level of education and a personal stake in the
>>>continued orderly operation of the society.
>>
>
>>>Whether the prerequisites for democracy are present in Iraq remains
>>>to be seen.
>>
>
>>That's not the position of the U.S. govt.--FLASE CALIM.
>
>
> Prove it.

It's not my fault if you can't follow what the media presents to you.

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 06:38 PM

Lionel wrote:
> Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Jacob Kramer said:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
>>>> France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Only if you maintain, as Saddam Hussein and his predecessors did, that
>>> Kuwait and Iran are not sovereign nations but mere offshoots of
>>> Greater Iraq.
>>
>>
>>
>> OKOKOK....sheesh.
>>
>> They hadn't invaded anyone in a while.
>>
>> Doesn't that count?
>>
>
> If you want to kill your dog you should say that it has rabies...

This is Oklahoma, baby.

I don't need rabies as an excuse.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 06:41 PM

Langis wrote:

> Nexus 6 > wrote:
>
>
>>>You are being a little unfair - Presidenté Bush has done an excellent
>>>job of liberating Iraq to a whole new wave of terror!
>>
>>So when will Tony Bush face a no confidence vote?
>
>
> Tony Bush.. haha like it sport!!

GEorge Blair, etc.

>
> I don't know about that, but conservative party leader Iain Duncan
> Smith is useless. He's been told repeatedly to F-off by his
> colleagues, the public, even the staff of No.10, but he just doesn't
> take the hint. Even with 25+ MPs demanding a vote of confidence he's
> *still* defiant. Tosser!!

Sounds like all of our leaders in recent decades.

>
> This brings me off on a question : why must conservative party leaders
> be an embarrassment to the human race? We've had the deranged
> Thatcher, stiff-as-a-board Major, spotty teenager Hague, and Iain
> Duncan 'I'm a ****' Smith.

John Major was The Walrus.

You leave him be.

>
> Did you get my email?

No. Damn.

Did you send to this address?

Give it another try if you would, please.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 06:45 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:3VGnb.11012$d87.10940@okepread05...
>
>
>>I hear they found the master plan for the Iraqi invasion of
>>New Hampshire.
>>
>
>
>
> It was in Howard Dean's coat pocket.

<thud>

Ouch!

Actually it's in John Kerry's ass - it's the only way he'll
carry the state. :)

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 06:46 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Langis" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>. The rules have changed, and we've
>>seen how the US copes with terrorism - impotency, panic, fear.
>
>
> Yes, Dean will show the world our power, fortitude and resolve.
> He'll have those terrorists scurrying for cover. That's the ticket!

Instead of posturing and butchering the language while he
strikes a pose, Dean might actually do something *useful*.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 06:48 PM

trotsky wrote:

>
>
> Nexus 6 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> trotsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
>>> If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
>>> religious based government, then we're not really interested in
>>> democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
>>> have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.
>>
>>
>>
>> It will be great for the oil biz.
>
>
>
> And Halliburton.

Hallelujah!

Nexus 6

George M. Middius

October 29th 03, 07:06 PM

Nexus 6 said:

> > Did you get my email?

> No. Damn.

Look, Arnii -- they're sending "private posts" in order to conspire
against you. My plan is coming to pass exactly as planned. You will
taste the cold steel of humanity's blade soon. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

George M. Middius

October 29th 03, 07:07 PM

Nexus 6 said:

> Instead of posturing and butchering the language while he
> strikes a pose, Dean might actually do something *useful*.

Apparently he spotted Dubya's BS about the invasion early on. He also
wants to extend health care to all U.S. citizens and legal aliens. Can
you imagine? Such a pinko!

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 07:23 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Nexus 6 said:
>
>
>>Instead of posturing and butchering the language while he
>>strikes a pose, Dean might actually do something *useful*.
>
>
> Apparently he spotted Dubya's BS about the invasion early on. He also
> wants to extend health care to all U.S. citizens and legal aliens. Can
> you imagine? Such a pinko!

He, Kucinish, and Sharpton are the only ones who took that
position before the war actually started.

Sharpton has proven himself the life of the debates. :)

Dean really is a commie - he's got a 100% rating from the NRA...

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 29th 03, 07:25 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Nexus 6 said:
>
>
>>>Did you get my email?
>
>
>>No. Damn.
>
>
> Look, Arnii -- they're sending "private posts" in order to conspire
> against you. My plan is coming to pass exactly as planned. You will
> taste the cold steel of humanity's blade soon. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Dammit!

GeorgeOurLeader, you must restrain yourself.

Gloating and cackling come after ArnyBeast is slain.

Nexus 6

Jacob Kramer

October 29th 03, 07:37 PM

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:06:46 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>Nexus 6 wrote:
>>
>>
>> trotsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
>>> If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
>>> religious based government, then we're not really interested in
>>> democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
>>> have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.
>>
>>
>> It will be great for the oil biz.
>
>
>And Halliburton.

Halliburton reported earnings today:

" Halliburton reported revenues rose 39 percent to $4.1 billion,
boosted mainly by the government contracts."

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=580&e=2&u=/nm/20031029/bs_nm/energy_halliburton_earns_dc>

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer

October 29th 03, 07:40 PM

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:06:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Most of the world is third world countries who don't know enough to even
>have standards.

Well now there's a whopper. Is it your contention that people in
Third World countries are ignorant?

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer

October 29th 03, 07:40 PM

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:50:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Remember, lying presumes that you know the truth. I think the case for
>inadequate knowledge of certain specifics is a lot stronger than the case
>for lying.

No it doesn't. Someone can lie about his or her uncertainty.

--

Jacob Kramer

George M. Middius

October 29th 03, 08:01 PM

Jacob Kramer said to ****-for-Brains:

> Well now there's a whopper. Is it your contention that people in
> Third World countries are ignorant?

Yes, certainly. They don't know that Mercury Villagers are better in
poor driving conditions than AWD SUVs. Nor do they know that the
Only True Religion is Christianity and that Krooger is a model
Christian. And they certainly don't know that the Manifest Destiny
doctrine of the early 19th century would be extended to include any
land with substantial reserves of petroleum.

George M. Middius

October 29th 03, 08:03 PM

Nexus 6 said:

> > Look, Arnii -- they're sending "private posts" in order to conspire
> > against you. My plan is coming to pass exactly as planned. You will
> > taste the cold steel of humanity's blade soon. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

> Dammit!

Best you be covering your tracks a little deeper, Commander.

> GeorgeOurLeader, you must restrain yourself.

You is in the fire, 'droid. I is on high where it be safe.

> Gloating and cackling come after ArnyBeast is slain.

Just a little foretaste of the Beast's terror. I'm entitled. So are
you.

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra

October 29th 03, 08:16 PM

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:06:32 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Nexus 6 said:
>
>> > Did you get my email?
>
>> No. Damn.
>
>Look, Arnii -- they're sending "private posts" in order to conspire
>against you. My plan is coming to pass exactly as planned. You will
>taste the cold steel of humanity's blade soon. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Which reminds me . . .

Stephen, please check your email! Urgent!

--
td

trotsky

October 29th 03, 09:27 PM

Jacob Kramer wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:06:46 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Nexus 6 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
>>>>If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
>>>>religious based government, then we're not really interested in
>>>>democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
>>>>have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.
>>>
>>>
>>>It will be great for the oil biz.
>>
>>
>>And Halliburton.
>
>
> Halliburton reported earnings today:
>
> " Halliburton reported revenues rose 39 percent to $4.1 billion,
> boosted mainly by the government contracts."

Clearly screwing the American and Iraqi people is a recession proof
business.

Lionel

October 29th 03, 09:28 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
> Since the Baath party was formed outside of Iraq (generally thought to be
> Syria) and invaded and overthrew the then-legitimate government of Iraq,
> look at what we did as a somewhat-delayed reversal of the Baath party
> occupation of Iraq.
>
>

Why didn't you do the same thing in South America in the '70s ?
Remember Salvatore Aliende Mr. Krueger ?

You aren't speaking as a democrate. In fact, according to your
phraseology, you love a "dominatrix" America.
You are surely a peace lover but a "Pax Americana" one.

I'm not interested in watching the futur through your American's
telescope, it is too much cloudy.

Lionel

October 29th 03, 09:40 PM

Nexus 6 wrote:

>
>
> Lionel wrote:
>
>> Nexus 6 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> George M. Middius wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jacob Kramer said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
>>>>> France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only if you maintain, as Saddam Hussein and his predecessors did, that
>>>> Kuwait and Iran are not sovereign nations but mere offshoots of
>>>> Greater Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OKOKOK....sheesh.
>>>
>>> They hadn't invaded anyone in a while.
>>>
>>> Doesn't that count?
>>>
>>
>> If you want to kill your dog you should say that it has rabies...
>
>
> This is Oklahoma, baby.
>
> I don't need rabies as an excuse.
>

So kill as many dogs as you want...
....But my phrase wasn't addressed to you, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 03, 10:42 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:06:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Most of the world is third world countries who don't know enough to
>> even have standards.
>
> Well now there's a whopper.

It's also violently out of context.

> Is it your contention that people in Third World countries are ignorant?

It's my contention Kramer that like so many other things that are common
knowledge, you wouldn't know intellectual honesty if it bit you in the hand.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 03, 10:42 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:50:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Remember, lying presumes that you know the truth. I think the case
>> for inadequate knowledge of certain specifics is a lot stronger than
>> the case for lying.
>
> No it doesn't. Someone can lie about his or her uncertainty.

True since certainty or uncertainty is knowable.

Arny Krueger

October 29th 03, 10:45 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Since the Baath party was formed outside of Iraq (generally thought
>> to be Syria) and invaded and overthrew the then-legitimate
>> government of Iraq, look at what we did as a somewhat-delayed
>> reversal of the Baath party occupation of Iraq.
>>
>>
>
> Why didn't you do the same thing in South America in the '70s ?
> Remember Salvatore Aliende Mr. Krueger ?

True.

> You aren't speaking as a democrate. In fact, according to your
> phraseology, you love a "dominatrix" America.

Being the surviving superpower does make the US dominant. As you observe, we
did some high-handed things when the superpower count was two.

> You are surely a peace lover but a "Pax Americana" one.

My feelings are more complex than that.

> I'm not interested in watching the future through your American's
> telescope, it is too much cloudy.

I've got the same complaint.

Lionel

October 29th 03, 11:34 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Being the surviving superpower does make the US dominant. As you observe, we
> did some high-handed things when the superpower count was two.
>
>
You shouldn't believe that US are so "dominant".
This is one of today US terrible faults. Your government lies to the
rest of the world and the rest of the world thinks that you are a
country of arrogant morons

Just to illustrate that for you.

Do you remember this article from Dennis Prager :
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030902.shtml

He wrote :
"As I wrote in a previous column, the future of the world is either
European secular socialism, Islamic totalitarianism, or the unique
American combination of Judeo-Christian religiosity and political and
economic liberty."

Dennis Prager in his prediction "à la Middius" is so arrogant that he
forgot 3/5 of the humanity.

Such oversimplification summarized in your word "dominant" could be the
premise of very important worldwide troubles.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 29th 03, 11:55 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> >
> > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
> > >> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
> > >> per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
> > >> Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
> > >> men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
> >
> > > Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
> > > France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
> >
> > Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of Iran
never
> > happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a
thing,
> > again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
> > supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and Iraq
was a
> > happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
> > responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.
>
> Our own invasion of Iraq was not to reverse an invasion of Kuwait or
> Iran. At the time of the Normandy landing, Germany was still
> occupying much of Europe, including France, and in the same conflict
> had invaded those other places.

Yes it was. The first one was. The second one was for Iraq not
adhering to the terms of the cease fire of the first one

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 29th 03, 11:56 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> >
> > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
> > >> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
> > >> per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
> > >> Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
> > >> men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
> >
> > > Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
> > > France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
> >
> > Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of Iran
never
> > happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a
thing,
> > again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
> > supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and Iraq
was a
> > happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
> > responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.
>
> Hrm I can put this in one other way. In the Normandy invasion, we
> were liberating France from another country--Germany. In the Iraq
> invasion, we were liberating the people of the country from their own
> government. I.e. it was regime-change rather than ending an
> occupation.

It was for not complying with the terms of the previous cease fire

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Lionel

October 30th 03, 12:06 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> >...
>
>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>>>>>casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
>>>>>per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
>>>>>Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
>>>>>men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
>>>
>>>>Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
>>>>France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>>>
>>>Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of Iran
>
> never
>
>>>happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a
>
> thing,
>
>>>again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
>>>supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and Iraq
>
> was a
>
>>>happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
>>>responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.
>>
>>Our own invasion of Iraq was not to reverse an invasion of Kuwait or
>>Iran. At the time of the Normandy landing, Germany was still
>>occupying much of Europe, including France, and in the same conflict
>>had invaded those other places.
>
>
> Yes it was. The first one was. The second one was for Iraq not
> adhering to the terms of the cease fire of the first one
>
>
World is still waiting for evidence of the above.

Lionel

October 30th 03, 12:07 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> >...
>
>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>>>>>casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
>>>>>per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
>>>>>Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
>>>>>men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
>>>
>>>>Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
>>>>France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>>>
>>>Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of Iran
>
> never
>
>>>happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a
>
> thing,
>
>>>again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
>>>supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and Iraq
>
> was a
>
>>>happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
>>>responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.
>>
>>Hrm I can put this in one other way. In the Normandy invasion, we
>>were liberating France from another country--Germany. In the Iraq
>>invasion, we were liberating the people of the country from their own
>>government. I.e. it was regime-change rather than ending an
>>occupation.
>
>
> It was for not complying with the terms of the previous cease fire
>
>
World is still waiting for evidences of the above.

Lionel

October 30th 03, 12:11 AM

Glans, I wrote:

> trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>A suggestion :
>>>>>>You should keep the french males alive or your wives will not find
>>>>>>anymore interest in tourism. (lol!)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I know of no women that like to have sex with greasy men.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you naively believe that... You are cuckolded. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Not really, it's just that I prefer not to "hang out" with trollops
>>>and slags.
>>
>>Have you met "Devil"?
>
> Like I said - no trollops.
>
>
Never ?

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 12:13 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:HvUnb.13092$d87.9756@okepread05...
>

>
> Sharpton has proven himself the life of the debates. :)
>

Agreed. For all his faults, he is the most intelligent person up there.
If you can put aside his previous misbehavior and current bombast,
and listen tohis more serious discussions, you will find out that
he has a lot to say, and that it will stimulate you to think. he is much
better than the usual liberal talking points and dogma.

Even though he criticizes Bush, if he were
in the "chair', I think he would be somewhat similar, in that he
has that streak in him, like bush. He just doesn't refuses to
take **** from nobody.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Jacob Kramer

October 30th 03, 12:19 AM

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:55:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
>> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>> > >> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
>> > >> per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
>> > >> Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
>> > >> men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
>> >
>> > > Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
>> > > France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>> >
>> > Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of Iran
>never
>> > happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a
>thing,
>> > again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
>> > supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and Iraq
>was a
>> > happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
>> > responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.
>>
>> Our own invasion of Iraq was not to reverse an invasion of Kuwait or
>> Iran. At the time of the Normandy landing, Germany was still
>> occupying much of Europe, including France, and in the same conflict
>> had invaded those other places.
>
>Yes it was. The first one was. The second one was for Iraq not
>adhering to the terms of the cease fire of the first one

We're talking about the second one. And while the rationale of using
the U.N. resolutions that ended the 1991 Gulf War was floated as a
possible justification by some in the administration, in fact its case
rested on Resolution 1441, which was the last resolution issued by the
Security Council, saying there would be "serious consequences" if Iraq
did not cooperate fully with weapons inspections.

--

Jacob Kramer

Marc Phillips

October 30th 03, 12:23 AM

Nexus 6 said:

>William Westmoreland, where are you when we need you?
>
>Nexus 6

Nex, you magnificent *******! You're back! And Sander de Waal, too! Calloo,
callay!

Boon

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 12:23 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:55:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
> >> > >> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to
three
> >> > >> per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
> >> > >> Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
> >> > >> men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
> >> >
> >> > > Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia,
Poland,
> >> > > France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
> >> >
> >> > Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of
Iran
> >never
> >> > happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a
> >thing,
> >> > again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
> >> > supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and
Iraq
> >was a
> >> > happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
> >> > responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.
> >>
> >> Our own invasion of Iraq was not to reverse an invasion of Kuwait or
> >> Iran. At the time of the Normandy landing, Germany was still
> >> occupying much of Europe, including France, and in the same conflict
> >> had invaded those other places.
> >
> >Yes it was. The first one was. The second one was for Iraq not
> >adhering to the terms of the cease fire of the first one
>
> We're talking about the second one. And while the rationale of using
> the U.N. resolutions that ended the 1991 Gulf War was floated as a
> possible justification by some in the administration, in fact its case
> rested on Resolution 1441, which was the last resolution issued by the
> Security Council, saying there would be "serious consequences" if Iraq
> did not cooperate fully with weapons inspections.
>

The second one is really 1B.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Jacob Kramer

October 30th 03, 12:23 AM

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:55:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
>> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>> > >> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
>> > >> per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
>> > >> Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
>> > >> men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
>> >
>> > > Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
>> > > France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>> >
>> > Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of Iran
>never
>> > happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a
>thing,
>> > again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
>> > supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and Iraq
>was a
>> > happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
>> > responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.
>>
>> Our own invasion of Iraq was not to reverse an invasion of Kuwait or
>> Iran. At the time of the Normandy landing, Germany was still
>> occupying much of Europe, including France, and in the same conflict
>> had invaded those other places.
>
>Yes it was. The first one was. The second one was for Iraq not
>adhering to the terms of the cease fire of the first one

Hrm I should also point out that this, if true, would be another
distinction between Iraq and Normandy. The U.S.--although it was so
far from a possibility that the real countries in question are France
and Britain--did _not_ invade Germany for violating the terms of the
Versailles Treaty.

--

Jacob Kramer

Lionel

October 30th 03, 12:33 AM

Glans, I wrote:

> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>A suggestion :
>>>>>>>>You should keep the french males alive or your wives will not find
>>>>>>>>anymore interest in tourism. (lol!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I know of no women that like to have sex with greasy men.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you naively believe that... You are cuckolded. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not really, it's just that I prefer not to "hang out" with trollops
>>>>>and slags.
>>>>
>>>>Have you met "Devil"?
>>>
>>>Like I said - no trollops.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Never ?
>
>
> I quit drinking.
>

I don't think that it's a good idea to take such decision just before
winter.

George M. Middius

October 30th 03, 12:33 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> The second one is really 1B.

Unless it's just Dubya getting revenge for the plot against GHWB.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 12:43 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:55:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
> >> > >> casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to
three
> >> > >> per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
> >> > >> Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
> >> > >> men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
> >> >
> >> > > Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia,
Poland,
> >> > > France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
> >> >
> >> > Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of
Iran
> >never
> >> > happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a
> >thing,
> >> > again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
> >> > supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and
Iraq
> >was a
> >> > happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
> >> > responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.
> >>
> >> Our own invasion of Iraq was not to reverse an invasion of Kuwait or
> >> Iran. At the time of the Normandy landing, Germany was still
> >> occupying much of Europe, including France, and in the same conflict
> >> had invaded those other places.
> >
> >Yes it was. The first one was. The second one was for Iraq not
> >adhering to the terms of the cease fire of the first one
>
> Hrm I should also point out that this, if true, would be another
> distinction between Iraq and Normandy. The U.S.--although it was so
> far from a possibility that the real countries in question are France
> and Britain--did _not_ invade Germany for violating the terms of the
> Versailles Treaty.
>

Tsk, tsk, they didn't do anything to address the problem.
And look what ensued!!! World War II.
Do you actually admire the appeasers?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 12:45 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > The second one is really 1B.
>
> Unless it's just Dubya getting revenge for the plot against GHWB.
>

I might agree a little, if it had worked.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

October 30th 03, 01:06 AM

Glans, I said:

> Bull - Iraq was invaded because Saddam became increasingly hostile in
> response to increasing US demands. You remember the reports Iraq
> produced, the whole lead up to this thing? This never had anything to
> do with liberating the people of Iraq - that's just PC crap to get
> public support.

It had a lot to do with liberating oil, though.

Lionel

October 30th 03, 01:09 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:55:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>
>...
>>>
>>>>>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message

>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>
> >
>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
>>>>>>>casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to
>
> three
>
>>>>>>>per day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor
>>>>>>>Middius uses is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300
>>>>>>>men in less than a day at little Big Horn.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia,
>
> Poland,
>
>>>>>>France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes Kramer, the invasion of Kuwait, and the attempted invasion of
>
> Iran
>
>>>never
>>>
>>>>>happened. There was zero chance that Hussein would ever try such a
>>>
>>>thing,
>>>
>>>>>again. Also, no matter what the world press reports, Saddam was not
>>>>>supporting the Palestinian suicide bombers or Hammas. Oh yes, and
>
> Iraq
>
>>>was a
>>>
>>>>>happy liberal democracy whose people and natural resources were being
>>>>>responsibly and humanely managed for the good of all.
>>>>
>>>>Our own invasion of Iraq was not to reverse an invasion of Kuwait or
>>>>Iran. At the time of the Normandy landing, Germany was still
>>>>occupying much of Europe, including France, and in the same conflict
>>>>had invaded those other places.
>>>
>>>Yes it was. The first one was. The second one was for Iraq not
>>>adhering to the terms of the cease fire of the first one
>>
>>Hrm I should also point out that this, if true, would be another
>>distinction between Iraq and Normandy. The U.S.--although it was so
>>far from a possibility that the real countries in question are France
>>and Britain--did _not_ invade Germany for violating the terms of the
>>Versailles Treaty.
>>
>
>
> Tsk, tsk, they didn't do anything to address the problem.
> And look what ensued!!! World War II.
> Do you actually admire the appeasers?
>
>
We should stop here this stupid comparison with the World War II. It has
been introduced just to prove that Frenches are ingrate... Just to hide
the real and basic datas :
US/Brits have invaded Iraq under the fallacious pretext of WMD.
Everybody except Michael knows that it's a lie. I hope that US will be
able to tame the monster that this lie has created.

Lionel

October 30th 03, 01:16 AM

Glans, you wrote:

> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>A suggestion :
>>>>>>>>>>You should keep the french males alive or your wives will not find
>>>>>>>>>>anymore interest in tourism. (lol!)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I know of no women that like to have sex with greasy men.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you naively believe that... You are cuckolded. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not really, it's just that I prefer not to "hang out" with trollops
>>>>>>>and slags.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have you met "Devil"?
>>>>>
>>>>>Like I said - no trollops.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Never ?
>>>
>>>
>>>I quit drinking.
>>>
>>
>>I don't think that it's a good idea to take such decision just before
>>winter.
>
>
> Why?
>
>
Alcohol is sometime helpful to fight the cold, blues and winter spleen,
dreaming to your next holidays in France... Ooops sorry !

Lionel

October 30th 03, 01:42 AM

Glans, you wrote:
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I quit drinking.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't think that it's a good idea to take such decision just before
>>>>winter.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Alcohol is sometime helpful to fight the cold, blues and winter spleen,
>>dreaming to your next holidays in France... Ooops sorry !
>
>
> I'll be wearing a union jack T-shirt when the winter chill comes,
> that's all one needs.

Union jack, empire, cornemuse, nostalgy, cicadas, french ennemies...
You're right, you don't need to drink anymore.

> My next holiday outing will be to Iceland, btw.
>
Good destination, geysers are much more powerful than in France, your
wife will love too.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 01:42 AM

"Glans, I" > wrote in message
...
> Jacob Kramer > wrote:
>
> >>Yes it was. The first one was. The second one was for Iraq not
> >>adhering to the terms of the cease fire of the first one
> >

>
> Oh - so you do remember then. Thing is- Iraq was making positive steps
> toward co-operation, according to the U.N.....

......which would say ANYTHING to preclude our action.
>

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 01:44 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Glans, I said:
>
> > Bull - Iraq was invaded because Saddam became increasingly hostile in
> > response to increasing US demands. You remember the reports Iraq
> > produced, the whole lead up to this thing? This never had anything to
> > do with liberating the people of Iraq - that's just PC crap to get
> > public support.
>
> It had a lot to do with liberating oil, though.
>
>

It is still Iraq's oil. Maybe its citizens will see a greater benefit from
it than they had under Saddam.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 01:45 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > >
> We should stop here this stupid comparison with the World War II. It has
> been introduced just to prove that Frenches are ingrate... Just to hide
> the real and basic datas :

I didn't say anything about France being an ingrate.
Thanks for reminding me.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Lionel

October 30th 03, 01:48 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Glans, I" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jacob Kramer > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Yes it was. The first one was. The second one was for Iraq not
>>>>adhering to the terms of the cease fire of the first one
>>>
>
>>Oh - so you do remember then. Thing is- Iraq was making positive steps
>>toward co-operation, according to the U.N.....
>
>
>
> .....which would say ANYTHING to preclude our action.
>
>
>
Good, you are a good American boy. You just need to find a way to kill
all the arabs now.
....Perhaps an accident in a manufacture of WMD ? Do you thing that CIA
could be interested ? ;O)

Lionel

October 30th 03, 01:51 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>We should stop here this stupid comparison with the World War II. It has
>>been introduced just to prove that Frenches are ingrate... Just to hide
>>the real and basic datas :
>
>
> I didn't say anything about France being an ingrate.
> Thanks for reminding me.
>

Your welcome but please save the wine.

Lionel

October 30th 03, 01:52 AM

Lionel wrote:

> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> We should stop here this stupid comparison with the World War II. It has
>>> been introduced just to prove that Frenches are ingrate... Just to hide
>>> the real and basic datas :
>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't say anything about France being an ingrate.
>> Thanks for reminding me.
>>
>
> Your welcome but please save the wine.
>
_Correction :_

You're welcome but please, save the wine.

ScottW

October 30th 03, 02:41 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

> > You guys need to understand the US is not going to allow these "one
world"
> > governments to dictate our foreign policy. If nothing else, these
attempts
> > to
> > do so mobilize support for any leader that says it won't be so.
> > Much like France has rallied behind Chiraque.
> >
>
> US today foreign policy is based on US profit only.

Sure, we will make money on this Iraq deal.
Thats a ridiculous premise.
Since we now realize we can't make a profit,
why aren't we pulling out?

> You acknowledge with me that the WMD matter was *THE big lie*, so don't
> be surprised if there's a price to pay for that.

What price? I am not happy that our governement was wrong.
Do I think they were lying? Maybe, maybe not.
Question is, what do we do now. Go home and
say, Ooops, we're sorry? I don't think so.

> Ooops, I forgot that your wealthy life is not really disturbed by these
> events.

Ooops, there goes another attempt at intelligent discourse.
>
> "Smoke gets in your eyes..."

Tell it to the fireman and his family who died today, asshole.

ScottW

ScottW

October 30th 03, 02:59 AM

"Langis" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > You guys need to understand the US is not going to allow these "one
world"
>
> You guys in the US need to understand that this is NOT a movie. The US
> (led coalition) has behaved in a manner that is arrogant and intrusive
> by most of the worlds standards.

Arrogant and intrusive? Is that it?
And I thought we were the great Satan.

>The rules have changed, and we've
> seen how the US copes with terrorism - impotency, panic, fear. Let's
> see if you've got mouth when your cosy little world melts away.

So the terrorist control your mouth already.
That was a quicker surrender than the French.
Ok, it was a tie. Luckily your leaders aren't so quick to fold.
Are you still an infidel or are you fixing that Islamic affront as well?

ScottW

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 03:35 AM

"Glans, I" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >> >>Yes it was. The first one was. The second one was for Iraq not
> >> >>adhering to the terms of the cease fire of the first one
> >
> >> Oh - so you do remember then. Thing is- Iraq was making positive steps
> >> toward co-operation, according to the U.N.....
> >
> >.....which would say ANYTHING to preclude our action.
>
> That's supposition - you have no way of knowing that. Certainly the UN
> inspectors were outspoken at times, and from an independant observers
> view the UN produced balanced (observably accurate) claims to support
> their proposed actions, rather than the slightly deranged jingoistic
> blather one has come to expect from the mouthpiece of your US govt.
>

you've got to be kidding.
The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 03:36 AM

"Glans, I" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >> > Bull - Iraq was invaded because Saddam became increasingly hostile in
> >> > response to increasing US demands. You remember the reports Iraq
> >> > produced, the whole lead up to this thing? This never had anything to
> >> > do with liberating the people of Iraq - that's just PC crap to get
> >> > public support.
> >>
> >> It had a lot to do with liberating oil, though.
> >
> >It is still Iraq's oil.
>
> In practical terms?
>

Heading in that diection.
Certainly notheading in the direction of us prctically stealing it,
like the French were doing.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

October 30th 03, 03:53 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > Certainly the UN
> > inspectors were outspoken at times, and from an independant observers
> > view the UN produced balanced (observably accurate) claims to support
> > their proposed actions, rather than the slightly deranged jingoistic
> > blather one has come to expect from the mouthpiece of your US govt.

> you've got to be kidding.
> The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.

I think it's a mistake to view "the U.N." as a unified entity. It's
the one forum in today's world where the smallest and weakest
nations can have an equal voice with the rich and powerful ones.

If you were a citizen of a poor, third-world country that is
exploited by the U.S. or another big country, wouldn't you use such
a forum to extract some small benefit for your country by using your
vote as leverage against the big exploiters? It's human nature.

Jacob Kramer

October 30th 03, 04:05 AM

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:43:39 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message

>> Hrm I should also point out that this, if true, would be another
>> distinction between Iraq and Normandy. The U.S.--although it was so
>> far from a possibility that the real countries in question are France
>> and Britain--did _not_ invade Germany for violating the terms of the
>> Versailles Treaty.
>>
>Tsk, tsk, they didn't do anything to address the problem.
>And look what ensued!!! World War II.
>Do you actually admire the appeasers?

Appeasment is such an easy target that this is a non-question. The
point is the comparison with Normandy is off-base.

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer

October 30th 03, 04:07 AM

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:43:33 +0000, "Glans, I" >
wrote:

(Jacob Kramer) wrote:
>
>>Hrm I can put this in one other way. In the Normandy invasion, we
>>were liberating France from another country--Germany. In the Iraq
>>invasion, we were liberating the people of the country from their own
>>government. I.e. it was regime-change rather than ending an
>>occupation.
>
>Bull - Iraq was invaded because Saddam became increasingly hostile in
>response to increasing US demands. You remember the reports Iraq
>produced, the whole lead up to this thing? This never had anything to
>do with liberating the people of Iraq - that's just PC crap to get
>public support.

Well I don't mean to reify those terms. I don't think it was a
liberation either--it was an invasion largely for economic reasons in
my opinion. But I'm trying to draw a comparison here. One was
reversing an occupation. The other was a coup d'etat.

--

Jacob Kramer

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 04:58 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > Certainly the UN
> > > inspectors were outspoken at times, and from an independant observers
> > > view the UN produced balanced (observably accurate) claims to support
> > > their proposed actions, rather than the slightly deranged jingoistic
> > > blather one has come to expect from the mouthpiece of your US govt.
>
> > you've got to be kidding.
> > The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
>
> I think it's a mistake to view "the U.N." as a unified entity. It's
> the one forum in today's world where the smallest and weakest
> nations can have an equal voice with the rich and powerful ones.
>
> If you were a citizen of a poor, third-world country that is
> exploited by the U.S. or another big country, wouldn't you use such
> a forum to extract some small benefit for your country by using your
> vote as leverage against the big exploiters? It's human nature.
>
>
And that's your justification of why we should submit
our foreign policy for their approval.?

And do you honest think that the your poor little citizen would
be better off if there were no U.S.?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 05:03 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...

> Appeasment is such an easy target ................

Then stop being an appeaser.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

October 30th 03, 05:05 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > > > Certainly the UN
> > > > inspectors were outspoken at times, and from an independant observers
> > > > view the UN produced balanced (observably accurate) claims to support
> > > > their proposed actions, rather than the slightly deranged jingoistic
> > > > blather one has come to expect from the mouthpiece of your US govt.
> >
> > > you've got to be kidding.
> > > The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
> >
> > I think it's a mistake to view "the U.N." as a unified entity. It's
> > the one forum in today's world where the smallest and weakest
> > nations can have an equal voice with the rich and powerful ones.
> >
> > If you were a citizen of a poor, third-world country that is
> > exploited by the U.S. or another big country, wouldn't you use such
> > a forum to extract some small benefit for your country by using your
> > vote as leverage against the big exploiters? It's human nature.

> And that's your justification of why we should submit
> our foreign policy for their approval.?

Who was just complaining to Gregipus about putting words in his
mouth? That was you, wasn't it?

> And do you honest think that the your poor little citizen would
> be better off if there were no U.S.?

That's you again! Are you sure you want to take Gregipus to task for
this "debating trade" tactic?

Here's how I think discussions should go: If you want to know what I
think about something, ask me rather than telling me. K?

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 05:09 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:43:33 +0000, "Glans, I" >

>
> Well I don't mean to reify those terms. I don't think it was a
> liberation either--it was an invasion largely for economic reasons in
> my opinion. But I'm trying to draw a comparison here. One was
> reversing an occupation. The other was a coup d'etat.
>

Destroying your enemy...its one of the things you try to
do when you are fighting a war. That usually
means removing the defeated goveernment.
It happened time and again in WWII and it happened in Iraq I(b).
The problem was that it didn't happen in Iraq I(a).
It is a legitimate goal of war.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 05:22 AM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > > > Certainly the UN
> > > > > inspectors were outspoken at times, and from an independant
observers
> > > > > view the UN produced balanced (observably accurate) claims to
support
> > > > > their proposed actions, rather than the slightly deranged
jingoistic
> > > > > blather one has come to expect from the mouthpiece of your US
govt.
> > >
> > > > you've got to be kidding.
> > > > The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
> > >
> > > I think it's a mistake to view "the U.N." as a unified entity. It's
> > > the one forum in today's world where the smallest and weakest
> > > nations can have an equal voice with the rich and powerful ones.
> > >
> > > If you were a citizen of a poor, third-world country that is
> > > exploited by the U.S. or another big country, wouldn't you use such
> > > a forum to extract some small benefit for your country by using your
> > > vote as leverage against the big exploiters? It's human nature.
>
> > And that's your justification of why we should submit
> > our foreign policy for their approval.?
>
> Who was just complaining to Gregipus about putting words in his
> mouth? That was you, wasn't it?
>

Point taken, but only to a point. My response was based on more than
Signal's previous statement, it was based upon his positions
taken in long running arguments on this subject.

> > And do you honest think that the your poor little citizen would
> > be better off if there were no U.S.?
>
> That's you again! Are you sure you want to take Gregipus to task for
> this "debating trade" tactic?
>
>
> Here's how I think discussions should go: If you want to know what I
> think about something, ask me rather than telling me. K?
>

Do you think it is ok for Signal to address his points by posing questions,
while it is not ok for me to do so?

Do you think that maybe the reason I posed my response as a question was
to make the same point to Signal that you just made to me, but
in a more obtuse style?

FYI - Signal's previous post: "If you were a citizen of a poor, third-world
country that is exploited by the U.S. or another big country, wouldn't you
use such
a forum to extract some small benefit for your country by using your
vote as leverage against the big exploiters?"

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

George M. Middius

October 30th 03, 06:11 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > Here's how I think discussions should go: If you want to know what I
> > think about something, ask me rather than telling me. K?

> Do you think it is ok for Signal to address his points by posing questions,
> while it is not ok for me to do so?

By "not ok", do you mean he attacked or mocked you for doing that?

Hahaha. My little joke. In general, that is a cowardly way of
advancing an argument. Notice, if you will, that nobody does it more
than Krooger, e.g. "Prove that's what I meant!" or "Its like you, had
a lot to say when Aktinsoin said the opposite when I caught him ly'ing
sockPuppet Yustabee."

However, you can be dogmatic too. And the big picture, for me, is that
very few -- if any -- posters on RAO have anything like a full set of
facts regarding decisions affecting international war and peace.
Despite occasional appearances to the contrary, military organizations
are very good at keeping secrets. So for most of us, "discussing" war
and politics is little more than giving vent to cherished feelings and
beliefs. For example, you think Dubya is a good Prez, for reasons I
can't fathom; and I think he's a tool and a fool and a huge ****ing
disaster, and I wouldn't be surprised if you think that opinion comes
from outer space as well. You think the U.S.'s free-market economy is
a great beneficence to our country, and I think our political
"leaders" are venal lackeys of despicably greedy corporate predators.
Two sides of the same coin: There are benefits to a relatively
unfettered economy, but the prices we pay are often way too steep, and
must be paid in blood.

So mostly it's prejudice and bedrock beliefs about society that drives
what passes for "debate" on this group. I believe that P.D., despite
his protestations, truly despises the U.S. government. I also believe
that politics as backward-looking as yours are anathema to an
enlightened society.

> Do you think that maybe the reason I posed my response as a question was
> to make the same point to Signal that you just made to me, but
> in a more obtuse style?

If you say so. I'm not sure why you're focusing on the statement-by-
question tactic. However, I wasn't arguing with the main point, which
was so far up the thread I didn't see it. My disagreement was with
your implication that the U.N. has a single agenda. I believe there
are as many agendas as there are member nations. In short, it's a
free-for-all with each nation attempting to win political currency in
exchange for supporting other nations' attempts to do the same. In
other words, politics as usual.

> FYI - Signal's previous post: "If you were a citizen of a poor, third-world
> country that is exploited by the U.S. or another big country, wouldn't you
> use such a forum to extract some small benefit for your country by using your
> vote as leverage against the big exploiters?"

Actually, I said that, not Dormer.

Lionel

October 30th 03, 07:06 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "Glans, I" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Bull - Iraq was invaded because Saddam became increasingly hostile in
>>>>>response to increasing US demands. You remember the reports Iraq
>>>>>produced, the whole lead up to this thing? This never had anything to
>>>>>do with liberating the people of Iraq - that's just PC crap to get
>>>>>public support.
>>>>
>>>>It had a lot to do with liberating oil, though.
>>>
>>>It is still Iraq's oil.
>>
>>In practical terms?
>>
>
>
> Heading in that diection.
> Certainly notheading in the direction of us prctically stealing it,
> like the French were doing.
>

Nice, how lucky you are, your political life is like your RAO one : it's
black OR white, this explains why your Holywood star have so much
success in politic.
I haven't read anything concerning your above information, could you
please provide me few links...

Lionel

October 30th 03, 07:25 AM

ScottW wrote:

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>> You guys need to understand the US is not going to allow these "one
>
> world"
>
>>>governments to dictate our foreign policy. If nothing else, these
>
> attempts
>
>>>to
>>>do so mobilize support for any leader that says it won't be so.
>>>Much like France has rallied behind Chiraque.
>>>
>>
>>US today foreign policy is based on US profit only.
>
>
> Sure, we will make money on this Iraq deal.
> Thats a ridiculous premise.
> Since we now realize we can't make a profit,
> why aren't we pulling out?
>
There's no "small profit" and money is taboo.

>
>>You acknowledge with me that the WMD matter was *THE big lie*, so don't
>>be surprised if there's a price to pay for that.
>
>
> What price? I am not happy that our governement was wrong.
> Do I think they were lying? Maybe, maybe not.
> Question is, what do we do now. Go home and
> say, Ooops, we're sorry? I don't think so.
>

The price your government have chosen to not share with international
community, stupid guy... The price of the war, this is what we are
speaking about.
Your government wasn't wrong your government was *lying*. This will
increase the "price" that US people will pay to follow so passively the
crazy politic of your government of warriors.

>
>>Ooops, I forgot that your wealthy life is not really disturbed by these
>>events.
>
>
> Ooops, there goes another attempt at intelligent discourse.
>
>>"Smoke gets in your eyes..."
>
>
> Tell it to the fireman and his family who died today, asshole.
>
Ooops, there goes another attempt at intelligent discourse... Asshole.

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 07:39 AM

Lionel wrote:

>>> If you want to kill your dog you should say that it has rabies...
>>
>>
>>
>> This is Oklahoma, baby.
>>
>> I don't need rabies as an excuse.
>>
>
> So kill as many dogs as you want...
> ...But my phrase wasn't addressed to you, sorry for the misunderstanding.

And here I am without even owning a gun.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 07:46 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:HvUnb.13092$d87.9756@okepread05...
>
>
>>Sharpton has proven himself the life of the debates. :)
>>
>
>
> Agreed. For all his faults, he is the most intelligent person up there.
> If you can put aside his previous misbehavior and current bombast,
> and listen tohis more serious discussions, you will find out that
> he has a lot to say, and that it will stimulate you to think. he is much
> better than the usual liberal talking points and dogma.

My memory goes back far enough to recall Sharpton as a rank
opportunist, looking to make a name for himself any way he
could.

In the debates, regardless of his past, he has been
outstanding, sharp witted, and funny. I'm not sure I agree
he is the "most intelligent" of the candidates.

>
> Even though he criticizes Bush, if he were
> in the "chair', I think he would be somewhat similar, in that he
> has that streak in him, like bush. He just doesn't refuses to
> take **** from nobody.

Could be.

I doubt Dean would take **** from anybody - that man has a
sharp tongue and a somewhat short fuse. Neither is
necessarily a bad thing.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 07:49 AM

Marc Phillips wrote:

> Nexus 6 said:
>
>
>>William Westmoreland, where are you when we need you?
>>
>>Nexus 6
>
>
> Nex, you magnificent *******! You're back! And Sander de Waal, too! Calloo,
> callay!

Yahoo, Wahoo, Yippee!

"Magnificent *******."

I"m off to the courthouse in the morning to hcange my name. :)

Keep your hose primed, man, it's getting hairy out there.

Nexus 6

P.S. Sander? Where?

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 07:50 AM

George M. Middius wrote:

> It had a lot to do with liberating oil, though.

Oil just wanna be free.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 07:52 AM

Glans, I wrote:

> Lionel > wrote:
ohol is sometime helpful to fight the cold, blues and winter
spleen,
>>dreaming to your next holidays in France... Ooops sorry !
>
>
> I'll be wearing a union jack T-shirt when the winter chill comes,
> that's all one needs. My next holiday outing will be to Iceland, btw.

How manly of you!

Will that union jack t-shirt be soaked in gas and up in flames?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 07:54 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...

>>It had a lot to do with liberating oil, though.
>>
>>
>
>
> It is still Iraq's oil. Maybe its citizens will see a greater benefit from
> it than they had under Saddam.

Hehe...

Haha...

You're kidding, right?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 07:59 AM

ScottW wrote:

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...

>>US today foreign policy is based on US profit only.
>
>
> Sure, we will make money on this Iraq deal.

Yep.

> Thats a ridiculous premise.

Nope.

> Since we now realize we can't make a profit,
> why aren't we pulling out?

We are, quick as we can. Note the dmeands made to the UN to
provide soldiers and support for our unilateral action.
Thought they were irrelevant, but it turns out they feel
asense of responsibility, and will do what can be done to
alleviate the mess we've made on the ground.

And we will be outta there as soon as the oil is absolutely
secuire for us to make bucks on.

>
>
>>You acknowledge with me that the WMD matter was *THE big lie*, so don't
>>be surprised if there's a price to pay for that.
>
>
> What price? I am not happy that our governement was wrong.
> Do I think they were lying? Maybe, maybe not.
> Question is, what do we do now. Go home and
> say, Ooops, we're sorry? I don't think so.

But that is essentially what is already happening. Remember
the solemn rtalk by the Shrubites about "ten years, perhpas
twenty" to get Iraq turned around? War is well under a year
old and already they are dying to get out, as long as the
money making machine they will leave behind is functioning
properly.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 07:59 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> you've got to be kidding.
> The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.

Who drives their agenda?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 08:03 AM

Jacob Kramer wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:43:33 +0000, "Glans, I" >
> wrote:

>>Bull - Iraq was invaded because Saddam became increasingly hostile in
>>response to increasing US demands. You remember the reports Iraq
>>produced, the whole lead up to this thing? This never had anything to
>>do with liberating the people of Iraq - that's just PC crap to get
>>public support.
>
>
> Well I don't mean to reify those terms. I don't think it was a
> liberation either--it was an invasion largely for economic reasons in
> my opinion. But I'm trying to draw a comparison here. One was
> reversing an occupation. The other was a coup d'etat.

The other was a hostile takeover.

Now there will be oil aplenty, the Saudi monopoly can be
broken, and we have a jumping off point to close in on
Central Asian oil in tandem with the permamnent bases
established during the Afghanistan invasion with its neighbors.

There are pipelines to be built!

Halliburton rules!

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 08:13 AM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Nexus 6 said:
>
>
>>>Look, Arnii -- they're sending "private posts" in order to conspire
>>>against you. My plan is coming to pass exactly as planned. You will
>>>taste the cold steel of humanity's blade soon. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
>
>
>>Dammit!
>
>
> Best you be covering your tracks a little deeper, Commander.

Oh me oh my oh!

>
>
>>GeorgeOurLeader, you must restrain yourself.
>
>
> You is in the fire, 'droid. I is on high where it be safe.

Me wanna be high like you.

Where's my pipe?

>
>
>>Gloating and cackling come after ArnyBeast is slain.
>
>
> Just a little foretaste of the Beast's terror. I'm entitled. So are
> you.

Thank you GreatFearlessLeader.

Nexus 6

Sander deWaal

October 30th 03, 08:25 AM

Nexus 6 > said:

>And here I am without even owning a gun.

I always knew you're not a real Okie *grin*

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 08:28 AM

Sander deWaal wrote:

> Nexus 6 > said:
>
>
>>And here I am without even owning a gun.
>
>
> I always knew you're not a real Okie *grin*

Aw, crap, I outed myself. :)

Still working on the truck thing, the dog thing, and all of
that. Gonna get Okified someday!

Nexus 6

Lionel

October 30th 03, 09:27 AM

ScottW wrote:

>
> So the terrorist control your mouth already.
> That was a quicker surrender than the French.
> Ok, it was a tie. Luckily your leaders aren't so quick to fold.
> Are you still an infidel or are you fixing that Islamic affront as well?
>

Please, just your point of view on what I call a paradox of your today
politic.

US has suffered the most tragic and perfid attack from fanatic Muslims.
Nobody will never forget the 9/11 tragedy. France take his part of the
necessary cleaning job which has followed in Afganistan. We still have
soldiers in the north, France is still part of the "peace keeper" in
this country.

During this war in Afganistan the world have learnt :
- That major part of the fanatic religious responsible of the 9/11
attack were coming from Saudi Arabia.
- Bin Laden is coming from Saudi Arabia
- The money of the fanatic religious come from Saudi Arabia
- Saudi Arabia and his money is behind 95% of Madrasa in Pakistan but
also in the rest of the world, where taliban and other hysteric
religious come from.
- In a famous film found during the war in Afganistan we can see well
known Saudi religious discussing with Bin Laden
-.......
-.......

So please explain me why your government has chosen to invade the only
one "lay state"(*) in this area ?
Scott do you really know who are your enemies ?
Stop cultivate the lie, the most you do the most they hate your country
because they are using exactly the same weapon : *lie*.

(*)# adjective: concerning those not members of the clergy (Example:
"The lay ministry")

Arny Krueger

October 30th 03, 11:17 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>> Being the surviving superpower does make the US dominant. As you
>> observe, we did some high-handed things when the superpower count
>> was two.
>>
>>
> You shouldn't believe that US are so "dominant".
> This is one of today US terrible faults. Your government lies to the
> rest of the world and the rest of the world thinks that you are a
> country of arrogant morons

Many of the same people thought we were arrogant morons when we weren't
dominant. At least now, we get to BE dominant!

> Just to illustrate that for you.
>
> Do you remember this article from Dennis Prager :
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030902.shtml

> He wrote :
> "As I wrote in a previous column, the future of the world is either
> European secular socialism, Islamic totalitarianism, or the unique
> American combination of Judeo-Christian religiosity and political and
> economic liberty."

> Dennis Prager in his prediction "à la Middius" is so arrogant that he
> forgot 3/5 of the humanity.

Did he ignore them or did he conclude that they lacked the potential to
become the dominant culture?

> Such oversimplification summarized in your word "dominant" could be
> the premise of very important worldwide troubles.

Remember Lionel, that in the world, culturally there is little difference
between the US and Europe. We may like to pretend that there are
differences, and of course there are differences, but they are relatively
small.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 12:44 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > Here's how I think discussions should go: If you want to know what I
> > > think about something, ask me rather than telling me. K?
>
> > Do you think it is ok for Signal to address his points by posing
questions,
> > while it is not ok for me to do so?
>
> By "not ok", do you mean he attacked or mocked you for doing that?
>
> Hahaha. My little joke. In general, that is a cowardly way of
> advancing an argument. Notice, if you will, that nobody does it more
> than Krooger, e.g. "Prove that's what I meant!" or "Its like you, had
> a lot to say when Aktinsoin said the opposite when I caught him ly'ing
> sockPuppet Yustabee."
>
> However, you can be dogmatic too. And the big picture, for me, is that
> very few -- if any -- posters on RAO have anything like a full set of
> facts regarding decisions affecting international war and peace.
> Despite occasional appearances to the contrary, military organizations
> are very good at keeping secrets. So for most of us, "discussing" war
> and politics is little more than giving vent to cherished feelings and
> beliefs. For example, you think Dubya is a good Prez, for reasons I
> can't fathom; and I think he's a tool and a fool and a huge ****ing
> disaster, and I wouldn't be surprised if you think that opinion comes
> from outer space as well. You think the U.S.'s free-market economy is
> a great beneficence to our country, and I think our political
> "leaders" are venal lackeys of despicably greedy corporate predators.
> Two sides of the same coin: There are benefits to a relatively
> unfettered economy, but the prices we pay are often way too steep, and
> must be paid in blood.
>

It's fair and balanced statement.

> So mostly it's prejudice and bedrock beliefs about society that drives
> what passes for "debate" on this group. I believe that P.D., despite
> his protestations, truly despises the U.S. government. I also believe
> that politics as backward-looking as yours are anathema to an
> enlightened society.
>

Who, me? I am a progressive, always have been. The only changes
I ever made concerned the means to arrive at a vibrant, nonracist,
multicultural,
economically healthy, free society whereby any resident has a fair
opportunity to
achieve his or her goals.

> > Do you think that maybe the reason I posed my response as a question was
> > to make the same point to Signal that you just made to me, but
> > in a more obtuse style?
>
> If you say so. I'm not sure why you're focusing on the statement-by-
> question tactic. However, I wasn't arguing with the main point, which
> was so far up the thread I didn't see it. My disagreement was with
> your implication that the U.N. has a single agenda. I believe there
> are as many agendas as there are member nations. In short, it's a
> free-for-all with each nation attempting to win political currency in
> exchange for supporting other nations' attempts to do the same. In
> other words, politics as usual.
>
>

I don't remember if I said 'single agenda'. A better description
would be 'current primary agenda.'

> > FYI - Signal's previous post: "If you were a citizen of a poor,
third-world
> > country that is exploited by the U.S. or another big country, wouldn't
you
> > use such a forum to extract some small benefit for your country by using
your
> > vote as leverage against the big exploiters?"
>
> Actually, I said that, not Dormer.
>

Provided more jobs at wages equal to, or better than, prevailing rates is
not exploitation.
Such as US companies setting up telephone boiler rooms in Calcutta or Delhi.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 12:48 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:ln3ob.14141$d87.91@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:HvUnb.13092$d87.9756@okepread05...
> >
> >
> >>Sharpton has proven himself the life of the debates. :)
> >>
> >
> >
> > Agreed. For all his faults, he is the most intelligent person up there.
> > If you can put aside his previous misbehavior and current bombast,
> > and listen tohis more serious discussions, you will find out that
> > he has a lot to say, and that it will stimulate you to think. he is much
> > better than the usual liberal talking points and dogma.
>
> My memory goes back far enough to recall Sharpton as a rank
> opportunist, looking to make a name for himself any way he
> could.
>

Yep.

> In the debates, regardless of his past, he has been
> outstanding, sharp witted, and funny. I'm not sure I agree
> he is the "most intelligent" of the candidates.
>

That part I got from a number of appearances on talk new shows.

> >
> > Even though he criticizes Bush, if he were
> > in the "chair', I think he would be somewhat similar, in that he
> > has that streak in him, like bush. He just doesn't refuses to
> > take **** from nobody.
>
> Could be.
>
> I doubt Dean would take **** from anybody - that man has a
> sharp tongue and a somewhat short fuse. Neither is
> necessarily a bad thing.
>

Then he is hypocrite about our war on terror.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 12:50 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:1v3ob.14145$d87.13745@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >>It had a lot to do with liberating oil, though.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > It is still Iraq's oil. Maybe its citizens will see a greater benefit
from
> > it than they had under Saddam.
>
> Hehe...
>
> Haha...
>
> You're kidding, right?
>
No, I am not. Iraqi's didn't see much in oil benefits under Saddam. Maybe
the profits will now be used to benefit more of I raqi society as a whole,
rather
than to line the pockets of Saddam and hsi gang of thugs.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 12:53 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:oA3ob.14147$d87.11815@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> > you've got to be kidding.
> > The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
>
> Who drives their agenda?
>

Tinpot dictators, Jew hating Moslems, and, alas, France.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 04:51 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:ln3ob.14141$d87.91@okepread05...

>>>Even though he criticizes Bush, if he were
>>>in the "chair', I think he would be somewhat similar, in that he
>>>has that streak in him, like bush. He just doesn't refuses to
>>>take **** from nobody.
>>
>>Could be.
>>
>>I doubt Dean would take **** from anybody - that man has a
>>sharp tongue and a somewhat short fuse. Neither is
>>necessarily a bad thing.
>>
>
>
> Then he is hypocrite about our war on terror.

Not at all.

Invading Iraq bears no relation to the war against terrorism.

Dean supported the Afghanistan invasion.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 04:53 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:1v3ob.14145$d87.13745@okepread05...

>>>It is still Iraq's oil. Maybe its citizens will see a greater benefit
>
> from
>
>>>it than they had under Saddam.
>>
>>Hehe...
>>
>>Haha...
>>
>>You're kidding, right?
>>
>
> No, I am not. Iraqi's didn't see much in oil benefits under Saddam. Maybe
> the profits will now be used to benefit more of I raqi society as a whole,
> rather
> than to line the pockets of Saddam and hsi gang of thugs.

What oil benefits are beginning to appear are simultaneously
disappearing into the pockets of American companies,
allegedly as part of those profits paying for Iraqi
"reconstruction," which is being carried out by US companies.

Companies who will remain in control of the oil for as long
as it takes to "pay back" all the costs of reconstruction.

"As long."

Uh-huh.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 04:54 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:oA3ob.14147$d87.11815@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>you've got to be kidding.
>>>The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
>>
>>Who drives their agenda?
>>
>
>
> Tinpot dictators, Jew hating Moslems, and, alas, France.

What about the US?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 05:33 PM

Glans, I wrote:

> Nexus 6 > wrote:
>
>
>>And here I am without even owning a gun.
>
>
> You don't own a gun!!

Nope.

>
> Is that wise???

I'm already missing three toes.

Nexus 6

Jacob Kramer

October 30th 03, 05:36 PM

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:27:32 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>ScottW wrote:
>
>>
>> So the terrorist control your mouth already.
>> That was a quicker surrender than the French.
>> Ok, it was a tie. Luckily your leaders aren't so quick to fold.
>> Are you still an infidel or are you fixing that Islamic affront as well?
>>
>
>Please, just your point of view on what I call a paradox of your today
>politic.
>
>US has suffered the most tragic and perfid attack from fanatic Muslims.
>Nobody will never forget the 9/11 tragedy. France take his part of the
>necessary cleaning job which has followed in Afganistan. We still have
>soldiers in the north, France is still part of the "peace keeper" in
>this country.
>
>During this war in Afganistan the world have learnt :
>- That major part of the fanatic religious responsible of the 9/11
>attack were coming from Saudi Arabia.
>- Bin Laden is coming from Saudi Arabia
>- The money of the fanatic religious come from Saudi Arabia
>- Saudi Arabia and his money is behind 95% of Madrasa in Pakistan but
>also in the rest of the world, where taliban and other hysteric
>religious come from.
>- In a famous film found during the war in Afganistan we can see well
>known Saudi religious discussing with Bin Laden
>-.......
>-.......
>
>So please explain me why your government has chosen to invade the only
>one "lay state"(*) in this area ?

Because Saudi Arabia was starting to look flaky as an Arab ally,
military base and source of oil. So now Kuwait/Iraq are under U.S.
control, Saudi Arabia can be quietly abandoned.

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer

October 30th 03, 05:38 PM

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:58:39 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>
>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>>
>> > > Certainly the UN
>> > > inspectors were outspoken at times, and from an independant observers
>> > > view the UN produced balanced (observably accurate) claims to support
>> > > their proposed actions, rather than the slightly deranged jingoistic
>> > > blather one has come to expect from the mouthpiece of your US govt.
>>
>> > you've got to be kidding.
>> > The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
>>
>> I think it's a mistake to view "the U.N." as a unified entity. It's
>> the one forum in today's world where the smallest and weakest
>> nations can have an equal voice with the rich and powerful ones.
>>
>> If you were a citizen of a poor, third-world country that is
>> exploited by the U.S. or another big country, wouldn't you use such
>> a forum to extract some small benefit for your country by using your
>> vote as leverage against the big exploiters? It's human nature.
>>
>>
>And that's your justification of why we should submit
>our foreign policy for their approval.?
>
>And do you honest think that the your poor little citizen would
>be better off if there were no U.S.?

If there were no U.S. is impossible to answer, but many thousands were
killed due to counterinsurgencies financed by the United States and
instigated by the CIA, not to mention the millions in Vietnam.

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer

October 30th 03, 05:39 PM

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:03:58 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> Appeasment is such an easy target ................
>
>
>Then stop being an appeaser.

Well if you're referring to Appeasement in the sense of the actual
policy carried out by Britain and France, this was a terrible policy.
If you are equating oppostion to the recent invasion of Iraq with
appeasement, you are making an invalid comparison.

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer

October 30th 03, 05:41 PM

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:09:22 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:43:33 +0000, "Glans, I" >
>
>>
>> Well I don't mean to reify those terms. I don't think it was a
>> liberation either--it was an invasion largely for economic reasons in
>> my opinion. But I'm trying to draw a comparison here. One was
>> reversing an occupation. The other was a coup d'etat.
>>
>
>Destroying your enemy...its one of the things you try to
>do when you are fighting a war. That usually
>means removing the defeated goveernment.
>It happened time and again in WWII and it happened in Iraq I(b).
>The problem was that it didn't happen in Iraq I(a).
>It is a legitimate goal of war.

The comparison was in terms of the number of casualties with respect
to the invasion of Normandy in 1944, not the invasion of Germany in
1945.

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer

October 30th 03, 05:43 PM

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:03:41 -0600, Nexus 6 >
wrote:

>
>
>Jacob Kramer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:43:33 +0000, "Glans, I" >
>> wrote:
>
>>>Bull - Iraq was invaded because Saddam became increasingly hostile in
>>>response to increasing US demands. You remember the reports Iraq
>>>produced, the whole lead up to this thing? This never had anything to
>>>do with liberating the people of Iraq - that's just PC crap to get
>>>public support.
>>
>>
>> Well I don't mean to reify those terms. I don't think it was a
>> liberation either--it was an invasion largely for economic reasons in
>> my opinion. But I'm trying to draw a comparison here. One was
>> reversing an occupation. The other was a coup d'etat.
>
>The other was a hostile takeover.
>
>Now there will be oil aplenty, the Saudi monopoly can be
>broken, and we have a jumping off point to close in on
>Central Asian oil in tandem with the permamnent bases
>established during the Afghanistan invasion with its neighbors.

The stated policy of the United States with respect to the Middle East
since Jimmy Carter has been to use military force when necessary to
preserve the uninterrupted flow of oil. This is distinct from seizure
of oil assets or deriving profit from controlled assets. We're
willing to buy it, even from a brutal regime if necessary. The key
question is whether the flow continues interrupted. If the flow is
threatened, military force will be used. This explains most of the
U.S. involvement in conflicts in the Middle East since World War II.

--

Jacob Kramer

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 05:58 PM

Jacob Kramer wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:03:41 -0600, Nexus 6 >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Jacob Kramer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:43:33 +0000, "Glans, I" >
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Bull - Iraq was invaded because Saddam became increasingly hostile in
>>>>response to increasing US demands. You remember the reports Iraq
>>>>produced, the whole lead up to this thing? This never had anything to
>>>>do with liberating the people of Iraq - that's just PC crap to get
>>>>public support.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well I don't mean to reify those terms. I don't think it was a
>>>liberation either--it was an invasion largely for economic reasons in
>>>my opinion. But I'm trying to draw a comparison here. One was
>>>reversing an occupation. The other was a coup d'etat.
>>
>>The other was a hostile takeover.
>>
>>Now there will be oil aplenty, the Saudi monopoly can be
>>broken, and we have a jumping off point to close in on
>>Central Asian oil in tandem with the permamnent bases
>>established during the Afghanistan invasion with its neighbors.
>
>
> The stated policy of the United States with respect to the Middle East
> since Jimmy Carter has been to use military force when necessary to
> preserve the uninterrupted flow of oil. This is distinct from seizure
> of oil assets or deriving profit from controlled assets. We're
> willing to buy it, even from a brutal regime if necessary. The key
> question is whether the flow continues interrupted. If the flow is
> threatened, military force will be used. This explains most of the
> U.S. involvement in conflicts in the Middle East since World War II.

You are right about the policy of force to keep oil flowing,
but it does not explain our involvement in the current invasion.

The policy has changed. Breaking the Saudi mon opoly on the
worldwide oil market, and especially uS imports is the goal,
and IUraq is seen as the lynchpin. It also happens to be a
country where an invasion is nominally defensible in
political trerms, though barely so even after all of the
intensive propaganda, much if it utterly false.

Assets have been seized, prfits will be derived from that,
and other ventures, and we have a big stick in the middle of
a volatile playground.

Nexus 6

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 11:00 PM

"Glans, I" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >> > you've got to be kidding.
> >> > The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
> >>
> >> Who drives their agenda?
> >
> >Tinpot dictators, Jew hating Moslems, and, alas, France.
>
> C'mon Art, you can't be serious!
>
Absolutley.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 11:04 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:Imbob.14291$d87.4813@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:ln3ob.14141$d87.91@okepread05...
>
> >>>Even though he criticizes Bush, if he were
> >>>in the "chair', I think he would be somewhat similar, in that he
> >>>has that streak in him, like bush. He just doesn't refuses to
> >>>take **** from nobody.
> >>
> >>Could be.
> >>
> >>I doubt Dean would take **** from anybody - that man has a
> >>sharp tongue and a somewhat short fuse. Neither is
> >>necessarily a bad thing.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Then he is hypocrite about our war on terror.
>
> Not at all.
>
> Invading Iraq bears no relation to the war against terrorism.
>
> Dean supported the Afghanistan invasion.
>

Once started, it became part and parcel. To cut and run
would be disasterous on our war on terror.
It would validate what Oasma has been saying about the U.S.,
that we are weak and divided.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 11:07 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:Qobob.14292$d87.6760@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:1v3ob.14145$d87.13745@okepread05...
>
> >>>It is still Iraq's oil. Maybe its citizens will see a greater benefit
> >
> > from
> >
> >>>it than they had under Saddam.
> >>
> >>Hehe...
> >>
> >>Haha...
> >>
> >>You're kidding, right?
> >>
> >
> > No, I am not. Iraqi's didn't see much in oil benefits under Saddam.
Maybe
> > the profits will now be used to benefit more of I raqi society as a
whole,
> > rather
> > than to line the pockets of Saddam and hsi gang of thugs.
>
> What oil benefits are beginning to appear are simultaneously
> disappearing into the pockets of American companies,
> allegedly as part of those profits paying for Iraqi
> "reconstruction," which is being carried out by US companies.
>
> Companies who will remain in control of the oil for as long
> as it takes to "pay back" all the costs of reconstruction.
>
> "As long."
>
> Uh-huh.
>

Our government is paying the companies doing the reconstruction.
The Iraqi oil belongs to Iraq, and finally, after deposing Saddam, its
people.
The sale or lease of oil rights brings money to the Iraqi government
and its people. It is Iraq's oil to sell

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 30th 03, 11:11 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:58:39 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> >>
> >> > > Certainly the UN
> >> > > inspectors were outspoken at times, and from an independant
observers
> >> > > view the UN produced balanced (observably accurate) claims to
support
> >> > > their proposed actions, rather than the slightly deranged
jingoistic
> >> > > blather one has come to expect from the mouthpiece of your US govt.
> >>
> >> > you've got to be kidding.
> >> > The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
> >>
> >> I think it's a mistake to view "the U.N." as a unified entity. It's
> >> the one forum in today's world where the smallest and weakest
> >> nations can have an equal voice with the rich and powerful ones.
> >>
> >> If you were a citizen of a poor, third-world country that is
> >> exploited by the U.S. or another big country, wouldn't you use such
> >> a forum to extract some small benefit for your country by using your
> >> vote as leverage against the big exploiters? It's human nature.
> >>
> >>
> >And that's your justification of why we should submit
> >our foreign policy for their approval.?
> >
> >And do you honest think that the your poor little citizen would
> >be better off if there were no U.S.?
>
> If there were no U.S. is impossible to answer, but many thousands were
> killed due to counterinsurgencies financed by the United States and
> instigated by the CIA, not to mention the millions in Vietnam.
>

And count up all the deaths from the Commies and the smaller tinhorn
dictators. Multi mlillions. Viet Nam was a wrong headed, disaster, but it
"at least"
began as a much more noble enterprise than it ended.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 11:18 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:Imbob.14291$d87.4813@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>>>news:ln3ob.14141$d87.91@okepread05...
>>
>>>>>Even though he criticizes Bush, if he were
>>>>>in the "chair', I think he would be somewhat similar, in that he
>>>>>has that streak in him, like bush. He just doesn't refuses to
>>>>>take **** from nobody.
>>>>
>>>>Could be.
>>>>
>>>>I doubt Dean would take **** from anybody - that man has a
>>>>sharp tongue and a somewhat short fuse. Neither is
>>>>necessarily a bad thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Then he is hypocrite about our war on terror.
>>
>>Not at all.
>>
>>Invading Iraq bears no relation to the war against terrorism.
>>
>>Dean supported the Afghanistan invasion.
>>
>
>
>
> Once started, it became part and parcel. To cut and run
> would be disasterous on our war on terror.
> It would validate what Oasma has been saying about the U.S.,
> that we are weak and divided.

"Once started."

It never should have been, and Dean has been right about it.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 11:22 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:Qobob.14292$d87.6760@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>>>news:1v3ob.14145$d87.13745@okepread05...
>>
>>>>>It is still Iraq's oil. Maybe its citizens will see a greater benefit
>>>
>>>from
>>>
>>>
>>>>>it than they had under Saddam.
>>>>
>>>>Hehe...
>>>>
>>>>Haha...
>>>>
>>>>You're kidding, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, I am not. Iraqi's didn't see much in oil benefits under Saddam.
>
> Maybe
>
>>>the profits will now be used to benefit more of I raqi society as a
>
> whole,
>
>>>rather
>>>than to line the pockets of Saddam and hsi gang of thugs.
>>
>>What oil benefits are beginning to appear are simultaneously
>>disappearing into the pockets of American companies,
>>allegedly as part of those profits paying for Iraqi
>>"reconstruction," which is being carried out by US companies.
>>
>>Companies who will remain in control of the oil for as long
>>as it takes to "pay back" all the costs of reconstruction.
>>
>>"As long."
>>
>>Uh-huh.
>>
>
>
> Our government is paying the companies doing the reconstruction.
> The Iraqi oil belongs to Iraq, and finally, after deposing Saddam, its
> people.
> The sale or lease of oil rights brings money to the Iraqi government
> and its people. It is Iraq's oil to sell

Incorrect.

Iraqi oil profits were supposed to be part of the method of
financing this reconstruction. Any profit derived from oil
sales for the forseeable future will go to those companies
administering the oil production, and also to those other
companies doing work in other sectors. Profits allegedly
will return also to the US government to pay it back for the
enormous expenditures involved.

In other words, they are not seeing a dime now, and will not
for years to come, if ever. Who do you think will have the
bulk of the sweetheart oil contracts in the new Iraq?

The beauty of this scam is that the companies who are doing
reconstruction work are basically accountable to no one,
with open ended contracts, paid by the government. Oil
companies will suckle at the public tit and the Iraqi oil tit.

Nice "work" if you can get it.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

October 30th 03, 11:24 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> And count up all the deaths from the Commies and the smaller tinhorn
> dictators. Multi mlillions. Viet Nam was a wrong headed, disaster, but it
> "at least"
> began as a much more noble enterprise than it ended.

Vietnam was not a noble enterprise, not at the start, in the
middle, nor the end.

The US goto involved to prop up a bogus French colonial
claim after the second world war. When they got in trouble,
we decided we could make it "safe for democracy," and 58,000
Americans and "at least" 2 million Vietnamese lost their lives.

Nexus 6

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 31st 03, 02:09 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:03:58 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >> Appeasment is such an easy target ................
> >
> >
> >Then stop being an appeaser.
>
> Well if you're referring to Appeasement in the sense of the actual
> policy carried out by Britain and France, this was a terrible policy.
> If you are equating oppostion to the recent invasion of Iraq with
> appeasement, you are making an invalid comparison.
>
> --
>
That is exactly what I am doing. The whole prewar ritual of
negotiations regarding the inspections is like the negotiations
over violations of the Vesrailles treaty. This tiem, the
agreement being broken was the 1991 cease fire.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 31st 03, 02:12 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:09:22 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:43:33 +0000, "Glans, I" >
> >
> >>
> >> Well I don't mean to reify those terms. I don't think it was a
> >> liberation either--it was an invasion largely for economic reasons in
> >> my opinion. But I'm trying to draw a comparison here. One was
> >> reversing an occupation. The other was a coup d'etat.
> >>
> >
> >Destroying your enemy...its one of the things you try to
> >do when you are fighting a war. That usually
> >means removing the defeated goveernment.
> >It happened time and again in WWII and it happened in Iraq I(b).
> >The problem was that it didn't happen in Iraq I(a).
> >It is a legitimate goal of war.
>
> The comparison was in terms of the number of casualties with respect
> to the invasion of Normandy in 1944, not the invasion of Germany in
> 1945.
>

Good one!!!
We should have stopped at the border and not gone into
Germany to oust Hitler's regime! That would be regime
change, and we all know how rude that is.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger

October 31st 03, 02:21 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:09:22 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:43:33 +0000, "Glans, I" >
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well I don't mean to reify those terms. I don't think it was a
>>>> liberation either--it was an invasion largely for economic reasons
>>>> in my opinion. But I'm trying to draw a comparison here. One was
>>>> reversing an occupation. The other was a coup d'etat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Destroying your enemy...its one of the things you try to
>>> do when you are fighting a war. That usually
>>> means removing the defeated goveernment.
>>> It happened time and again in WWII and it happened in Iraq I(b).
>>> The problem was that it didn't happen in Iraq I(a).
>>> It is a legitimate goal of war.
>>
>> The comparison was in terms of the number of casualties with respect
>> to the invasion of Normandy in 1944, not the invasion of Germany in
>> 1945.

> Good one!!!

Kramer finally got one right.

> We should have stopped at the border and not gone into
> Germany to oust Hitler's regime! That would be regime
> change, and we all know how rude that is.

<Sarcasm alert> Sockpuppet Yustabe finally got one right.

Jacob Kramer

October 31st 03, 03:09 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message >...
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:09:22 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:43:33 +0000, "Glans, I" >
>
> > >>
> > >> Well I don't mean to reify those terms. I don't think it was a
> > >> liberation either--it was an invasion largely for economic reasons in
> > >> my opinion. But I'm trying to draw a comparison here. One was
> > >> reversing an occupation. The other was a coup d'etat.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Destroying your enemy...its one of the things you try to
> > >do when you are fighting a war. That usually
> > >means removing the defeated goveernment.
> > >It happened time and again in WWII and it happened in Iraq I(b).
> > >The problem was that it didn't happen in Iraq I(a).
> > >It is a legitimate goal of war.
> >
> > The comparison was in terms of the number of casualties with respect
> > to the invasion of Normandy in 1944, not the invasion of Germany in
> > 1945.
> >
>
> Good one!!!
> We should have stopped at the border and not gone into
> Germany to oust Hitler's regime! That would be regime
> change, and we all know how rude that is.

Iraq was not occupying any other countries at the time of the
invasion, while Germany was. Iraq also did not invade any other
countries to provoke this conflict, while Germany did. These are
factual statements. You may not like the moral implications of them,
but to suggest they have an unsavory moral implication doesn't make
them false.

Do you think these two conflicts are identical? If not, why not
(beyond the fact that they were in different times and places)?

Michael Mckelvy

October 31st 03, 08:45 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
> reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
> of a free country."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/slic
>
> That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
> foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
> Horn, we are winning the war. The enemy is bound to get tired of
> slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
> order.
>
>
>
They already lost. Do some research on what happend in Germany after WWII.
The people fighting in iraq know they lost the war and know they are ****ed
if they get caught so they might as well keep on fighting. The amount of
Americans being killed is sad but in terms of the effort small. 90% of the
country is at peace and stable. The remaining 10% is the area Sadaam's
loyalists are in, then there are the imports from surrounding countries.

Jacob Kramer

October 31st 03, 10:38 PM

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:09:50 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:03:58 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Appeasment is such an easy target ................
>> >
>> >
>> >Then stop being an appeaser.
>>
>> Well if you're referring to Appeasement in the sense of the actual
>> policy carried out by Britain and France, this was a terrible policy.
>> If you are equating oppostion to the recent invasion of Iraq with
>> appeasement, you are making an invalid comparison.
>>
>> --
>>
>That is exactly what I am doing. The whole prewar ritual of
>negotiations regarding the inspections is like the negotiations
>over violations of the Vesrailles treaty. This tiem, the
>agreement being broken was the 1991 cease fire.

I don't think the comparison is valid because the U.N. was in fact
carrying out weapons inspections and much of the country was occupied.

The violations of the Versailles Treaty involved a very public--as in
not an allegation that may or may not have been true--reoccupation of
the Ruhr Valley and rearmament program. But the worst aspects of
Appeasement were not the lax enforcement of the Versailles Treaty, but
first the refusal to stand up to Germany in 1938 when it annexed
Austria in 1938, and then, even worse, the outright pressuring by
Britain and France of Czechoslovakia to accede to dismemberment by the
Germans later in the year.

None of these are paralleled by the weapons inspections, which were in
fact being vigorously pursued not only by the U.N. but also by the
U.S., backed by military strikes at times.

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer

October 31st 03, 10:42 PM

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:45:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>
>> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
>> reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
>> of a free country."
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/slic
>>
>> That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
>> foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
>> Horn, we are winning the war. The enemy is bound to get tired of
>> slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
>> order.
>>
>>
>>
>They already lost. Do some research on what happend in Germany after WWII.
>The people fighting in iraq know they lost the war and know they are ****ed
>if they get caught so they might as well keep on fighting. The amount of
>Americans being killed is sad but in terms of the effort small. 90% of the
>country is at peace and stable. The remaining 10% is the area Sadaam's
>loyalists are in, then there are the imports from surrounding countries.

They are very far from ****ed. This is essentially a political effort
to drive the U.S. out. If it succeeds the Baathists can resume power,
which would probably be followed by a liquidation of their enemies on
a vastly greater scale than occurred in the past. The political will
may be there to sustain the U.S. occupation, but the risk is very
great. This is one of the reasons why it is vital to turn this over
to the U.N., vigorously insured by the U.S., as quickly as possible.
This could happen tomorrow if Bush were willing to concede control of
the country to the U.N. Even the French are saying a pullout right
now by the U.S. would be a disaster.

Bush has to give up on unilateralism. It just doesn't work. The U.S.
doesn't have the economic means to sustain it.

--

Jacob Kramer

Michael Mckelvy

October 31st 03, 11:17 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:l7hob.14322$d87.11760@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> > And count up all the deaths from the Commies and the smaller tinhorn
> > dictators. Multi mlillions. Viet Nam was a wrong headed, disaster, but
it
> > "at least"
> > began as a much more noble enterprise than it ended.
>
> Vietnam was not a noble enterprise, not at the start, in the
> middle, nor the end.
>
> The US goto involved to prop up a bogus French colonial
> claim after the second world war. When they got in trouble,
> we decided we could make it "safe for democracy," and 58,000
> Americans and "at least" 2 million Vietnamese lost their lives.
>
> Nexus 6
>
How many did the U.S. kill and how many did the VC kill?

Michael Mckelvy

October 31st 03, 11:24 PM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:45:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
> >> reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
> >> of a free country."
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/slic
> >>
> >> That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
> >> foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
> >> Horn, we are winning the war. The enemy is bound to get tired of
> >> slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
> >> order.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >They already lost. Do some research on what happend in Germany after
WWII.
> >The people fighting in iraq know they lost the war and know they are
****ed
> >if they get caught so they might as well keep on fighting. The amount of
> >Americans being killed is sad but in terms of the effort small. 90% of
the
> >country is at peace and stable. The remaining 10% is the area Sadaam's
> >loyalists are in, then there are the imports from surrounding countries.
>
> They are very far from ****ed. This is essentially a political effort
> to drive the U.S. out.

Not by the Iraqi people, only by Sadaam loayalists and outside terrorists
from Syria and Iran.

If it succeeds the Baathists can resume power,
> which would probably be followed by a liquidation of their enemies on
> a vastly greater scale than occurred in the past.

Which is exactly why we won't be leaving.

The political will
> may be there to sustain the U.S. occupation, but the risk is very
> great. This is one of the reasons why it is vital to turn this over
> to the U.N., vigorously insured by the U.S., as quickly as possible.

The UN can't find it's ass with both hands. the UN had Syria as host for a
conference on human rights!

> This could happen tomorrow if Bush were willing to concede control of
> the country to the U.N. Even the French are saying a pullout right
> now by the U.S. would be a disaster.
>
> Bush has to give up on unilateralism. It just doesn't work. The U.S.
> doesn't have the economic means to sustain it.
>
You've already proven you don't know squat about economics or history, maybe
youcan confer with another pop star for better guidance.

> --
>
> Jacob Kramer

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 1st 03, 12:56 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:cpbob.14293$d87.12501@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:oA3ob.14147$d87.11815@okepread05...
> >
> >>
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>you've got to be kidding.
> >>>The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
> >>
> >>Who drives their agenda?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Tinpot dictators, Jew hating Moslems, and, alas, France.
>
> What about the US?
>

You've got to be kidding. Otherwise you are simply delusional.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 1st 03, 01:14 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:c1hob.14320$d87.12379@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:Imbob.14291$d87.4813@okepread05...
> >
> >>
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> >>>news:ln3ob.14141$d87.91@okepread05...
> >>
> >>>>>Even though he criticizes Bush, if he were
> >>>>>in the "chair', I think he would be somewhat similar, in that he
> >>>>>has that streak in him, like bush. He just doesn't refuses to
> >>>>>take **** from nobody.
> >>>>
> >>>>Could be.
> >>>>
> >>>>I doubt Dean would take **** from anybody - that man has a
> >>>>sharp tongue and a somewhat short fuse. Neither is
> >>>>necessarily a bad thing.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then he is hypocrite about our war on terror.
> >>
> >>Not at all.
> >>
> >>Invading Iraq bears no relation to the war against terrorism.
> >>
> >>Dean supported the Afghanistan invasion.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Once started, it became part and parcel. To cut and run
> > would be disasterous on our war on terror.
> > It would validate what Oasma has been saying about the U.S.,
> > that we are weak and divided.
>
> "Once started."
>
> It never should have been, and Dean has been right about it.
>
But it is.
The Democratic candidates had better face that reality.
Whether liberal or conservative, the public wants a President
who looks forwards, not backwards.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 1st 03, 01:20 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:r5hob.14321$d87.2744@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:Qobob.14292$d87.6760@okepread05...
> >
> >>
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> >>>news:1v3ob.14145$d87.13745@okepread05...
> >>
> >>>>>It is still Iraq's oil. Maybe its citizens will see a greater benefit
> >>>
> >>>from
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>it than they had under Saddam.
> >>>>
> >>>>Hehe...
> >>>>
> >>>>Haha...
> >>>>
> >>>>You're kidding, right?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>No, I am not. Iraqi's didn't see much in oil benefits under Saddam.
> >
> > Maybe
> >
> >>>the profits will now be used to benefit more of I raqi society as a
> >
> > whole,
> >
> >>>rather
> >>>than to line the pockets of Saddam and hsi gang of thugs.
> >>
> >>What oil benefits are beginning to appear are simultaneously
> >>disappearing into the pockets of American companies,
> >>allegedly as part of those profits paying for Iraqi
> >>"reconstruction," which is being carried out by US companies.
> >>
> >>Companies who will remain in control of the oil for as long
> >>as it takes to "pay back" all the costs of reconstruction.
> >>
> >>"As long."
> >>
> >>Uh-huh.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Our government is paying the companies doing the reconstruction.
> > The Iraqi oil belongs to Iraq, and finally, after deposing Saddam, its
> > people.
> > The sale or lease of oil rights brings money to the Iraqi government
> > and its people. It is Iraq's oil to sell
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Iraqi oil profits were supposed to be part of the method of
> financing this reconstruction. Any profit derived from oil
> sales for the forseeable future will go to those companies
> administering the oil production, and also to those other
> companies doing work in other sectors. Profits allegedly
> will return also to the US government to pay it back for the
> enormous expenditures involved.
>

You don't understand what's going on. Oil companies lease rights
and pay royalties. They bring in the equipment and pump the oil.
They sell the oil, for a profit, or keep itt and refine it, for
further profit. Iraq keeps their royalties, and the oil companies
keep their profits.

> In other words, they are not seeing a dime now, and will not
> for years to come, if ever. Who do you think will have the
> bulk of the sweetheart oil contracts in the new Iraq?
>

Not France

> The beauty of this scam is that the companies who are doing
> reconstruction work are basically accountable to no one,
> with open ended contracts, paid by the government. Oil
> companies will suckle at the public tit and the Iraqi oil tit.
>

I don't like the Halliburton contract one bit, It stinks
like a pile of dead fish. They are not the only company capable
of doing the job (the rationale). Bechtel, for one, could
have done it also.

> Nice "work" if you can get it.
>

Quite a bit above my usual place at the feeding trough.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 1st 03, 01:24 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:l7hob.14322$d87.11760@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> > And count up all the deaths from the Commies and the smaller tinhorn
> > dictators. Multi mlillions. Viet Nam was a wrong headed, disaster, but
it
> > "at least"
> > began as a much more noble enterprise than it ended.
>
> Vietnam was not a noble enterprise, not at the start, in the
> middle, nor the end.
>

We were only advisors at the beginning.
It was supposed to be a Viet Nam thing.
I suggest noble, in the sense of
idealism. However, please read what I wrote.
It was a comparison, form beginning to end.
It evolved, and certainly mutated.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 1st 03, 02:08 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:09:22 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:43:33 +0000, "Glans, I" >
> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Well I don't mean to reify those terms. I don't think it was a
> > > >> liberation either--it was an invasion largely for economic reasons
in
> > > >> my opinion. But I'm trying to draw a comparison here. One was
> > > >> reversing an occupation. The other was a coup d'etat.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Destroying your enemy...its one of the things you try to
> > > >do when you are fighting a war. That usually
> > > >means removing the defeated goveernment.
> > > >It happened time and again in WWII and it happened in Iraq I(b).
> > > >The problem was that it didn't happen in Iraq I(a).
> > > >It is a legitimate goal of war.
> > >
> > > The comparison was in terms of the number of casualties with respect
> > > to the invasion of Normandy in 1944, not the invasion of Germany in
> > > 1945.
> > >
> >
> > Good one!!!
> > We should have stopped at the border and not gone into
> > Germany to oust Hitler's regime! That would be regime
> > change, and we all know how rude that is.
>
> Iraq was not occupying any other countries at the time of the
> invasion, while Germany was. Iraq also did not invade any other
> countries to provoke this conflict, while Germany did. These are
> factual statements. You may not like the moral implications of them,
> but to suggest they have an unsavory moral implication doesn't make
> them false.
>
> Do you think these two conflicts are identical? If not, why not
> (beyond the fact that they were in different times and places)?

The problem was in Iraq War I(a), we didn't do the regime change.
We signed a cease fire that was incessantly and repeatedly violated by
Saddam. Incidently, thousands more died form his terror.
So we went backand fought Iraq War I(b), which finished where
we left off wwith Iraq War I(a). And, when I(a) was started, he 'was'
occupying another country. This is all one war, muddlehead.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Jacob Kramer

November 1st 03, 03:33 AM

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:08:37 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>The problem was in Iraq War I(a), we didn't do the regime change.
>We signed a cease fire that was incessantly and repeatedly violated by
>Saddam. Incidently, thousands more died form his terror.
>So we went backand fought Iraq War I(b), which finished where
>we left off wwith Iraq War I(a). And, when I(a) was started, he 'was'
>occupying another country. This is all one war, muddlehead.

Even if it were all one war, that wouldn't change what the situation
was at the beginning of this part of it. Iraq was not occupying
another country.

--

Jacob Kramer

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 1st 03, 04:18 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:09:50 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>

>
> I don't think the comparison is valid because the U.N. was in fact
> carrying out weapons inspections and much of the country was occupied.
>

That is incorrect, Iraq was not 'occupied'. The weapons inspections were
a sham, on the part of both sides. As it was, the round of inspections you
are talking
about only came about under threat of imminent war.

> The violations of the Versailles Treaty involved a very public--as in
> not an allegation that may or may not have been true--reoccupation of
> the Ruhr Valley and rearmament program. But the worst aspects of
> Appeasement were not the lax enforcement of the Versailles Treaty, but
> first the refusal to stand up to Germany in 1938 when it annexed
> Austria in 1938, and then, even worse, the outright pressuring by
> Britain and France of Czechoslovakia to accede to dismemberment by the
> Germans later in the year.
>

Iraq's non compliance was public enough to warrant 17 U.N. resloutions
in twelve years. And those didn't cover nearly everything.

> None of these are paralleled by the weapons inspections, which were in
> fact being vigorously pursued not only by the U.N. but also by the
> U.S., backed by military strikes at times.

In fact, they were not vigorously pursued. They were subject to posturing,
delays and sometimes refusals by teh Iraqi's

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 1st 03, 04:24 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:08:37 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>
> >The problem was in Iraq War I(a), we didn't do the regime change.
> >We signed a cease fire that was incessantly and repeatedly violated by
> >Saddam. Incidently, thousands more died form his terror.
> >So we went backand fought Iraq War I(b), which finished where
> >we left off wwith Iraq War I(a). And, when I(a) was started, he 'was'
> >occupying another country. This is all one war, muddlehead.
>
> Even if it were all one war, that wouldn't change what the situation
> was at the beginning of this part of it. Iraq was not occupying
> another country.
>

That makes no difference.
According to your "logic", they could violate
whatever conditions of the cease fire they wanted to,
as long as they didn't occupy another country.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Jacob Kramer

November 1st 03, 04:50 AM

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:24:18 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:08:37 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >The problem was in Iraq War I(a), we didn't do the regime change.
>> >We signed a cease fire that was incessantly and repeatedly violated by
>> >Saddam. Incidently, thousands more died form his terror.
>> >So we went backand fought Iraq War I(b), which finished where
>> >we left off wwith Iraq War I(a). And, when I(a) was started, he 'was'
>> >occupying another country. This is all one war, muddlehead.
>>
>> Even if it were all one war, that wouldn't change what the situation
>> was at the beginning of this part of it. Iraq was not occupying
>> another country.
>>
>
>That makes no difference.
>According to your "logic", they could violate
>whatever conditions of the cease fire they wanted to,
>as long as they didn't occupy another country.

I'm not saying they could have or couldn't have, I'm making an
empirical, not a moral, distinction between D-Day and 'Iraqi Freedom.'

--

Jacob Kramer

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 1st 03, 05:58 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:24:18 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:08:37 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >The problem was in Iraq War I(a), we didn't do the regime change.
> >> >We signed a cease fire that was incessantly and repeatedly violated by
> >> >Saddam. Incidently, thousands more died form his terror.
> >> >So we went backand fought Iraq War I(b), which finished where
> >> >we left off wwith Iraq War I(a). And, when I(a) was started, he 'was'
> >> >occupying another country. This is all one war, muddlehead.
> >>
> >> Even if it were all one war, that wouldn't change what the situation
> >> was at the beginning of this part of it. Iraq was not occupying
> >> another country.
> >>
> >
> >That makes no difference.
> >According to your "logic", they could violate
> >whatever conditions of the cease fire they wanted to,
> >as long as they didn't occupy another country.
>
> I'm not saying they could have or couldn't have, I'm making an
> empirical, not a moral, distinction between D-Day and 'Iraqi Freedom.'
>

On D-Day, we invaded France, occupied by Germany. We pushed the
German's back into Germany, and pursued them through Germany, were
victorious and instituted regime change.

In the Iraq war, we invaded Kuwait, occupied by Iraq. we pushed the Iraqi's
back into
Iraq, however, we stopped before completley destroying them and
instituting regime change. The regime signed a cease fire, and they were
allowed
to continue to rule Iraq. The cease fire agreement had anumber of provisions
that
were blatantly violated by the Iraqi's, so, after 12 years of violations
passed, we came
back and invaded Iraq, and destroyed the army and instituted regime change.

I say we were a lot more accomodating to Iraq thqn we were to Germany.

In your response back to me, feel free to rewrite history
as much as you want.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Jacob Kramer

November 1st 03, 06:34 AM

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 00:58:08 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> wrote:

>
>"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:24:18 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:08:37 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The problem was in Iraq War I(a), we didn't do the regime change.
>> >> >We signed a cease fire that was incessantly and repeatedly violated by
>> >> >Saddam. Incidently, thousands more died form his terror.
>> >> >So we went backand fought Iraq War I(b), which finished where
>> >> >we left off wwith Iraq War I(a). And, when I(a) was started, he 'was'
>> >> >occupying another country. This is all one war, muddlehead.
>> >>
>> >> Even if it were all one war, that wouldn't change what the situation
>> >> was at the beginning of this part of it. Iraq was not occupying
>> >> another country.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That makes no difference.
>> >According to your "logic", they could violate
>> >whatever conditions of the cease fire they wanted to,
>> >as long as they didn't occupy another country.
>>
>> I'm not saying they could have or couldn't have, I'm making an
>> empirical, not a moral, distinction between D-Day and 'Iraqi Freedom.'
>>
>
>On D-Day, we invaded France, occupied by Germany. We pushed the
>German's back into Germany, and pursued them through Germany, were
>victorious and instituted regime change.
>
>In the Iraq war, we invaded Kuwait, occupied by Iraq. we pushed the Iraqi's
>back into
>Iraq, however, we stopped before completley destroying them and
> instituting regime change. The regime signed a cease fire, and they were
>allowed
>to continue to rule Iraq. The cease fire agreement had anumber of provisions
>that
>were blatantly violated by the Iraqi's, so, after 12 years of violations
>passed, we came
>back and invaded Iraq, and destroyed the army and instituted regime change.
>
>I say we were a lot more accomodating to Iraq thqn we were to Germany.
>
>In your response back to me, feel free to rewrite history
>as much as you want.

We're going around in circles here because you are talking about
someting different than I am. I'm comparing D-Day and Iraqi Freedom,
and you are comparing D-Day and Desert Storm plus Iraqi Freedom. I
could discuss the validity of your comparison, but it's just not what
is on the table. Arny drew the former comparison, not the comparison
you're trying to make.

--

Jacob Kramer

Arny Krueger

November 1st 03, 11:21 AM

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:24:18 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:08:37 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem was in Iraq War I(a), we didn't do the regime change.
>>>> We signed a cease fire that was incessantly and repeatedly
>>>> violated by Saddam. Incidently, thousands more died form his
>>>> terror. So we went backand fought Iraq War I(b), which finished
>>>> where we left off wwith Iraq War I(a). And, when I(a) was started,
>>>> he 'was' occupying another country. This is all one war,
>>>> muddlehead.
>>>
>>> Even if it were all one war, that wouldn't change what the situation
>>> was at the beginning of this part of it. Iraq was not occupying
>>> another country.
>>>
>>
>> That makes no difference.
>> According to your "logic", they could violate
>> whatever conditions of the cease fire they wanted to,
>> as long as they didn't occupy another country.
>
> I'm not saying they could have or couldn't have, I'm making an
> empirical, not a moral, distinction between D-Day and 'Iraqi Freedom.'

Actually Kramer, you've been making a Schoepenhauer type 1.0 argument for
quite a while. The only comparison I drew between D-Day and the second
battle of Iraq was numbers of casualties.

Nexus 6

November 1st 03, 07:42 PM

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:l7hob.14322$d87.11760@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>And count up all the deaths from the Commies and the smaller tinhorn
>>>dictators. Multi mlillions. Viet Nam was a wrong headed, disaster, but
>
> it
>
>>>"at least"
>>>began as a much more noble enterprise than it ended.
>>
>>Vietnam was not a noble enterprise, not at the start, in the
>>middle, nor the end.
>>
>>The US goto involved to prop up a bogus French colonial
>>claim after the second world war. When they got in trouble,
>>we decided we could make it "safe for democracy," and 58,000
>>Americans and "at least" 2 million Vietnamese lost their lives.
>>
>>Nexus 6
>>
>
> How many did the U.S. kill and how many did the VC kill?

No one knows for sure - indiscriminate carpet bombing,
Phoenix programs, and the like have a way of obscuring
statistics.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

November 1st 03, 07:44 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:cpbob.14293$d87.12501@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>>>news:oA3ob.14147$d87.11815@okepread05...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>you've got to be kidding.
>>>>>The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
>>>>
>>>>Who drives their agenda?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Tinpot dictators, Jew hating Moslems, and, alas, France.
>>
>>What about the US?
>>
>
>
> You've got to be kidding. Otherwise you are simply delusional.

It is a serious question, asked because the US has often
directed and pushed the UN agenda for its own purposes. It
has also blocked various proposals and resolutions, again,
for its own puposes. That permamnent seat on the Security
Council has come in vary handy at times.

Does this mean I think the US "runs" the UN? Not at all -
the opposition to Iraq proved that.

But it is a legitimate question, and notr nearly as
delusional as "Tinpot dictators, Jew hating Moslems, and,
alas, France."

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

November 1st 03, 07:46 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:c1hob.14320$d87.12379@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>>>news:Imbob.14291$d87.4813@okepread05...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>>>>>news:ln3ob.14141$d87.91@okepread05...
>>>>
>>>>>>>Even though he criticizes Bush, if he were
>>>>>>>in the "chair', I think he would be somewhat similar, in that he
>>>>>>>has that streak in him, like bush. He just doesn't refuses to
>>>>>>>take **** from nobody.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Could be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I doubt Dean would take **** from anybody - that man has a
>>>>>>sharp tongue and a somewhat short fuse. Neither is
>>>>>>necessarily a bad thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then he is hypocrite about our war on terror.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all.
>>>>
>>>>Invading Iraq bears no relation to the war against terrorism.
>>>>
>>>>Dean supported the Afghanistan invasion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Once started, it became part and parcel. To cut and run
>>>would be disasterous on our war on terror.
>>>It would validate what Oasma has been saying about the U.S.,
>>>that we are weak and divided.
>>
>>"Once started."
>>
>>It never should have been, and Dean has been right about it.
>>
>
> But it is.
> The Democratic candidates had better face that reality.
> Whether liberal or conservative, the public wants a President
> who looks forwards, not backwards.

Dean is looking forward. Iraq, as messy and illegal as it
was, is now current reality. He recognizes that.

Either way, he is still right about it.

Bush was not.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

November 1st 03, 07:47 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:r5hob.14321$d87.2744@okepread05...

>>In other words, they are not seeing a dime now, and will not
>>for years to come, if ever. Who do you think will have the
>>bulk of the sweetheart oil contracts in the new Iraq?
>>
>
>
> Not France

No ****.

>
>
>
>>The beauty of this scam is that the companies who are doing
>>reconstruction work are basically accountable to no one,
>>with open ended contracts, paid by the government. Oil
>>companies will suckle at the public tit and the Iraqi oil tit.
>>
>
>
> I don't like the Halliburton contract one bit, It stinks
> like a pile of dead fish. They are not the only company capable
> of doing the job (the rationale). Bechtel, for one, could
> have done it also.

Bechtel also was given a sweetheart, open ended deal by the
USG, without theusual open bidding process.

>
>
>>Nice "work" if you can get it.
>>
>
>
> Quite a bit above my usual place at the feeding trough.

Way above mine.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

November 1st 03, 07:49 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:l7hob.14322$d87.11760@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>And count up all the deaths from the Commies and the smaller tinhorn
>>>dictators. Multi mlillions. Viet Nam was a wrong headed, disaster, but
>
> it
>
>>>"at least"
>>>began as a much more noble enterprise than it ended.
>>
>>Vietnam was not a noble enterprise, not at the start, in the
>>middle, nor the end.
>>
>
>
> We were only advisors at the beginning.

We supplied military hardware to the French before it all
blew up in their faces.

> It was supposed to be a Viet Nam thing.
> I suggest noble, in the sense of
> idealism. However, please read what I wrote.
> It was a comparison, form beginning to end.
> It evolved, and certainly mutated.

I take your point, but disagree. In the beginning, we were
there to reverse the outcome of the fight aggainst the
French, for the sole purpose of enforcing their bogus
colonial claim to the country.

Nexus 6

ScottW

November 1st 03, 07:54 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:i5Uob.20110$d87.3698@okepread05...

> >>What about the US?
> >>
> >
> >
> > You've got to be kidding. Otherwise you are simply delusional.
>
> It is a serious question, asked because the US has often
> directed and pushed the UN agenda for its own purposes. It
> has also blocked various proposals and resolutions, again,
> for its own puposes. That permamnent seat on the Security
> Council has come in vary handy at times.

Sure, for both sides of the agenda. That is exactly why the
veto was put into the security council members options.

>
> Does this mean I think the US "runs" the UN? Not at all -
> the opposition to Iraq proved that.

What it does mean is that the UN is less a tool for action
and more a tool for swaying public opinion.
The UN as a cooperative force for peace and security
has become impotent in it's current divided state.

The question has to be raised, is this good for the smaller
nations in the UN that need it, as opposed to the US which
is capable of pursuing it's agenda without UN support?

ScottW

Nexus 6

November 1st 03, 08:39 PM

ScottW wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:i5Uob.20110$d87.3698@okepread05...
>
>
>>>>What about the US?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You've got to be kidding. Otherwise you are simply delusional.
>>
>>It is a serious question, asked because the US has often
>>directed and pushed the UN agenda for its own purposes. It
>>has also blocked various proposals and resolutions, again,
>>for its own puposes. That permamnent seat on the Security
>>Council has come in vary handy at times.
>
>
> Sure, for both sides of the agenda. That is exactly why the
> veto was put into the security council members options.

I understand its purpose - the larger nations would have
final say, so to speak.

>
>
>>Does this mean I think the US "runs" the UN? Not at all -
>>the opposition to Iraq proved that.
>
>
> What it does mean is that the UN is less a tool for action
> and more a tool for swaying public opinion.
> The UN as a cooperative force for peace and security
> has become impotent in it's current divided state.

Part of US strategy regarding the UN is to keep it wobbling
back and forth - the better to try and impose an agenda of
our own when we feel the need.

Notice how the US leaned all over the UN to get its members
to provide some troops and support in Iraq, while keeping
them under US authority.

No other nation member could ever pull that off.

>
> The question has to be raised, is this good for the smaller
> nations in the UN that need it, as opposed to the US which
> is capable of pursuing it's agenda without UN support?

I don't think the UN really serves smaller nations well, but
it is all the voise they have in the international arena.

As for the US going it alone - it often cannot.

Current circumstances not excepted.

Nexus 6

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 1st 03, 09:00 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:i5Uob.20110$d87.3698@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:cpbob.14293$d87.12501@okepread05...
> >
> >>
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> >>>news:oA3ob.14147$d87.11815@okepread05...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>you've got to be kidding.
> >>>>>The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
> >>>>
> >>>>Who drives their agenda?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Tinpot dictators, Jew hating Moslems, and, alas, France.
> >>
> >>What about the US?
> >>
> >
> >
> > You've got to be kidding. Otherwise you are simply delusional.
>
> It is a serious question, asked because the US has often
> directed and pushed the UN agenda for its own purposes. It
> has also blocked various proposals and resolutions, again,
> for its own puposes. That permamnent seat on the Security
> Council has come in vary handy at times.
>
> Does this mean I think the US "runs" the UN? Not at all -
> the opposition to Iraq proved that.
>
> But it is a legitimate question, and notr nearly as
> delusional as "Tinpot dictators, Jew hating Moslems, and,
> alas, France."

One country/one vote, each has an equal voice. You lauded it yourself.
Count up the Arab countries, the rest of the Moslem dominated countries,
throw the few dictators that already aren't coounted in the above, and
France, and that's what drives the agenda.
ri

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

November 1st 03, 09:17 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> One country/one vote, each has an equal voice. You lauded it yourself.
> Count up the Arab countries, the rest of the Moslem dominated countries,
> throw the few dictators that already aren't coounted in the above, and
> France, and that's what drives the agenda.

Well, the Security Council veto is a counterweight of sorts,
a fairly powerful one at that.

Also, in military escapades, it is often our venture to
begin with.

Nexus 6

George M. Middius

November 1st 03, 09:42 PM

Nexus 6 said:

> As for the US going it alone - it often cannot.

Now if we could draft Chinese soldiers.....

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 1st 03, 10:08 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:aUUob.20387$d87.17561@okepread05...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:i5Uob.20110$d87.3698@okepread05...
> >
> >
> >>>>What about the US?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You've got to be kidding. Otherwise you are simply delusional.
> >>
> >>It is a serious question, asked because the US has often
> >>directed and pushed the UN agenda for its own purposes. It
> >>has also blocked various proposals and resolutions, again,
> >>for its own puposes. That permamnent seat on the Security
> >>Council has come in vary handy at times.
> >
> >
> > Sure, for both sides of the agenda. That is exactly why the
> > veto was put into the security council members options.
>
> I understand its purpose - the larger nations would have
> final say, so to speak.
>
> >
> >
> >>Does this mean I think the US "runs" the UN? Not at all -
> >>the opposition to Iraq proved that.
> >
> >
> > What it does mean is that the UN is less a tool for action
> > and more a tool for swaying public opinion.
> > The UN as a cooperative force for peace and security
> > has become impotent in it's current divided state.
>
> Part of US strategy regarding the UN is to keep it wobbling
> back and forth - the better to try and impose an agenda of
> our own when we feel the need.
>
> Notice how the US leaned all over the UN to get its members
> to provide some troops and support in Iraq, while keeping
> them under US authority.
>
> No other nation member could ever pull that off.
>

The support goes into a separate U.N. controlled fund. It was one of the
conditions.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

November 1st 03, 10:32 PM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:aUUob.20387$d87.17561@okepread05...

>>Part of US strategy regarding the UN is to keep it wobbling
>>back and forth - the better to try and impose an agenda of
>>our own when we feel the need.
>>
>>Notice how the US leaned all over the UN to get its members
>>to provide some troops and support in Iraq, while keeping
>>them under US authority.
>>
>>No other nation member could ever pull that off.
>>
>
>
> The support goes into a separate U.N. controlled fund. It was one of the
> conditions.

True.

Nobody trusted the US controlled Iraqi fund.

Nexus 6

ScottW

November 1st 03, 11:43 PM

"Glans, I" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >>The rules have changed, and we've
> >> seen how the US copes with terrorism - impotency, panic, fear. Let's
> >> see if you've got mouth when your cosy little world melts away.
> >
> > So the terrorist control your mouth already.
>
> No, I'm talking about observable reality. Sorry pal, organized
> terrorism is no longer a theoretical threat for the US. Unless you are
> interested in resolving problems through dialog and co-operation, you
> might as well get used to it.

Please provide an example of successful dialogue and cooperation which
eliminated terrorism as a threat.

In the case of Islamic militant terrorism, with whom should we dialogue?

ScottW

George M. Middius

November 1st 03, 11:59 PM

Glans, I said:

> >I believe that P.D., despite
> >his protestations, truly despises the U.S. government.
>
> Not just the government..

What else? I suppose your culture is intrinsically superior, what with
every child being programmed to worship the bleedin' royals.

ScottW

November 2nd 03, 12:01 AM

"Glans, I" > wrote in message
...
> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> >I believe that P.D., despite
> >his protestations, truly despises the U.S. government.
>
> Not just the government..

What else then?

ScottW

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 2nd 03, 01:10 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:csVob.20573$d87.5855@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
>
> > One country/one vote, each has an equal voice. You lauded it yourself.
> > Count up the Arab countries, the rest of the Moslem dominated countries,
> > throw the few dictators that already aren't coounted in the above, and
> > France, and that's what drives the agenda.
>
>
> Well, the Security Council veto is a counterweight of sorts,
> a fairly powerful one at that.
>

Four others have vetos

> Also, in military escapades, it is often our venture to
> begin with.
>

It's called responsibility and leadership.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 2nd 03, 04:59 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:9yWob.20674$d87.11145@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:aUUob.20387$d87.17561@okepread05...
>
> >>Part of US strategy regarding the UN is to keep it wobbling
> >>back and forth - the better to try and impose an agenda of
> >>our own when we feel the need.
> >>
> >>Notice how the US leaned all over the UN to get its members
> >>to provide some troops and support in Iraq, while keeping
> >>them under US authority.
> >>
> >>No other nation member could ever pull that off.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The support goes into a separate U.N. controlled fund. It was one of the
> > conditions.
>
> True.
>
> Nobody trusted the US controlled Iraqi fund.
>

Just as we wouldn't trust a UN controlled fund.
Haven't you heard about the massive corruption in UN
aid programs??

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nexus 6

November 2nd 03, 06:52 AM

Glans, I wrote:

> Nexus 6 > wrote:
>
>
>>>I'll be wearing a union jack T-shirt when the winter chill comes,
>>>that's all one needs. My next holiday outing will be to Iceland, btw.
>>
>>How manly of you!
>>
>>Will that union jack t-shirt be soaked in gas and up in flames?
>
>
> How did you guess? I wouldn't be seen dead outside on a frosty morning
> unless I'm being licked by flames.

Mmmmm...

"licked by flames."

That sounds right sexy.

First frosty morning we have here I'll give it a try.

Being a good little Libuurrrruulll Commie Pinko *******, my
T-shirt will have our flag on it.

Call it "international cooperation!"

Woohoo!

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

November 2nd 03, 06:56 AM

Glans, I wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote:

>> Please provide an example of successful dialogue and cooperation which
>>eliminated terrorism as a threat.
>
>
> It's been a few years since the IRA planted a device in my
> neighbourhood.

A dangerous precedent was set there as well.

The IRA successfully bombed their way to the negotiating
table, something the US has always claimed was both
impossible and unacceptable.

"Armalite in one hand, ballot in the other."

That sort of strategy terrifies established governments for
reasons quite obvious.

And yet, what the British intelligence estimates for NI used
to call the "acceptable level of violence" has come way
down. It isn't over yet, but they are closer than they have
ever been since Partition.

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

November 2nd 03, 06:57 AM

Glans, I wrote:

> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
>>>>I believe that P.D., despite
>>>>his protestations, truly despises the U.S. government.
>>>
>>>Not just the government..
>>
>>What else?
>
>
> Child beauty pageants.
>
>
>>I suppose your culture is intrinsically superior
>
>
> At the macro level, in recent times, I would have to agree.

Yeah, look at all of the TV we've been stealing. :)

Nexus 6

Nexus 6

November 2nd 03, 06:58 AM

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:9yWob.20674$d87.11145@okepread05...
>
>>
>>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
>>>news:aUUob.20387$d87.17561@okepread05...
>>
>>>>Part of US strategy regarding the UN is to keep it wobbling
>>>>back and forth - the better to try and impose an agenda of
>>>>our own when we feel the need.
>>>>
>>>>Notice how the US leaned all over the UN to get its members
>>>>to provide some troops and support in Iraq, while keeping
>>>>them under US authority.
>>>>
>>>>No other nation member could ever pull that off.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The support goes into a separate U.N. controlled fund. It was one of the
>>>conditions.
>>
>>True.
>>
>>Nobody trusted the US controlled Iraqi fund.
>>
>
>
> Just as we wouldn't trust a UN controlled fund.
> Haven't you heard about the massive corruption in UN
> aid programs??

Haven't you heard about the massive corruption in the Iraqi
reconstruction contracts?

Ping! Pong!

Nexus 6

Michael Mckelvy

November 2nd 03, 04:55 PM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:X2Uob.20097$d87.11346@okepread05...
>
>
> Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:l7hob.14322$d87.11760@okepread05...
> >
> >>
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>And count up all the deaths from the Commies and the smaller tinhorn
> >>>dictators. Multi mlillions. Viet Nam was a wrong headed, disaster, but
> >
> > it
> >
> >>>"at least"
> >>>began as a much more noble enterprise than it ended.
> >>
> >>Vietnam was not a noble enterprise, not at the start, in the
> >>middle, nor the end.
> >>
> >>The US goto involved to prop up a bogus French colonial
> >>claim after the second world war. When they got in trouble,
> >>we decided we could make it "safe for democracy," and 58,000
> >>Americans and "at least" 2 million Vietnamese lost their lives.
> >>
> >>Nexus 6
> >>
> >
> > How many did the U.S. kill and how many did the VC kill?
>
> No one knows for sure - indiscriminate carpet bombing,
> Phoenix programs, and the like have a way of obscuring
> statistics.
>
> Nexus 6
>
I doubt the VC kept records of the people theylined up and shot for the
crime of having dome money in the bank either.

I do agree that the VN war was wrong, since there was no side to be in favor
of. Both the north and south had governents to be ashamed of.

Michael Mckelvy

November 2nd 03, 04:56 PM

"Glans, I" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >> > you've got to be kidding.
> >> > The U.N. is agenda driven. It is not impartial.
> >>
> >> Who drives their agenda?
> >
> >Tinpot dictators, Jew hating Moslems, and, alas, France.
>
> C'mon Art, you can't be serious!
>
>
It doesn't matter if you think he's serious, he's accurate.

> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Michael Mckelvy

November 2nd 03, 04:58 PM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:9yWob.20674$d87.11145@okepread05...
> >
> >
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >
> > > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > > news:aUUob.20387$d87.17561@okepread05...
> >
> > >>Part of US strategy regarding the UN is to keep it wobbling
> > >>back and forth - the better to try and impose an agenda of
> > >>our own when we feel the need.
> > >>
> > >>Notice how the US leaned all over the UN to get its members
> > >>to provide some troops and support in Iraq, while keeping
> > >>them under US authority.
> > >>
> > >>No other nation member could ever pull that off.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > The support goes into a separate U.N. controlled fund. It was one of
the
> > > conditions.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > Nobody trusted the US controlled Iraqi fund.
> >
>
> Just as we wouldn't trust a UN controlled fund.
> Haven't you heard about the massive corruption in UN
> aid programs??
>
>

How muich did Kofi Anon personally benefit form the oil for palaces program?
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 3rd 03, 01:26 AM

"Glans, I" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:
>
> >Do you think it is ok for Signal to address his points by posing
questions,
> >while it is not ok for me to do so?
>
> Sometimes I don't have an opinion on the answer, so a question is
> appropriate.
>
> Sometimes questions provoke thoughts.
>

My favorite quote from the 60's is "Question Authority"
That includes today's liberal elite, who, in the 60's,
were the one's questioning authority.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 3rd 03, 01:29 AM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:vyXob.50969$gi2.10042@fed1read01...
>
> "Glans, I" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No, I'm talking about observable reality. Sorry pal, organized
> > terrorism is no longer a theoretical threat for the US. Unless you are
> > interested in resolving problems through dialog and co-operation, you
> > might as well get used to it.
>
> Please provide an example of successful dialogue and cooperation which
> eliminated terrorism as a threat.
>
> In the case of Islamic militant terrorism, with whom should we dialogue?
>

There is nothing for us to say, other than to appease them or tell them
to go **** themselves.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 3rd 03, 01:31 AM

"Glans, I" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> >>The rules have changed, and we've
> >> >> seen how the US copes with terrorism - impotency, panic, fear. Let's
> >> >> see if you've got mouth when your cosy little world melts away.
> >> >
> >> > So the terrorist control your mouth already.
> >>
> >> No, I'm talking about observable reality. Sorry pal, organized
> >> terrorism is no longer a theoretical threat for the US. Unless you are
> >> interested in resolving problems through dialog and co-operation, you
> >> might as well get used to it.
> >
> > Please provide an example of successful dialogue and cooperation which
> >eliminated terrorism as a threat.
>
> It's been a few years since the IRA planted a device in my
> neighbourhood.
>
> >In the case of Islamic militant terrorism, with whom should we dialogue?
>
> Anybody and everybody.
>

I suggest we invite Al Queda to join the U.N. as a member state.
We might as well give them a permanent seat on the Security Council,
with a veto.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 3rd 03, 02:50 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:BY1pb.21280$d87.1641@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:9yWob.20674$d87.11145@okepread05...
> >
> >>
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> >>>news:aUUob.20387$d87.17561@okepread05...
> >>
> >>>>Part of US strategy regarding the UN is to keep it wobbling
> >>>>back and forth - the better to try and impose an agenda of
> >>>>our own when we feel the need.
> >>>>
> >>>>Notice how the US leaned all over the UN to get its members
> >>>>to provide some troops and support in Iraq, while keeping
> >>>>them under US authority.
> >>>>
> >>>>No other nation member could ever pull that off.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The support goes into a separate U.N. controlled fund. It was one of
the
> >>>conditions.
> >>
> >>True.
> >>
> >>Nobody trusted the US controlled Iraqi fund.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Just as we wouldn't trust a UN controlled fund.
> > Haven't you heard about the massive corruption in UN
> > aid programs??
>
> Haven't you heard about the massive corruption in the Iraqi
> reconstruction contracts?
>

The corruption is in the selection process, and quite possibly
in the price of the contract paid by the government. So far,
there is no evidence of corruption in the execution of the contract
In the UN, the corruption was in the execution of the work, massive theft
and misappropriation. Money intended for aid was stolen, and
never reached the recipients. That isn't the case with the U.S./Halliburton
contract, and almost certaiinly will not be the case. THAT is fraud, and
will be prosecuted. What happened in the selection process was
very bad policy, but not criminal acts.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael Mckelvy

November 3rd 03, 11:10 PM

Michael Mckelvy

November 7th 03, 12:21 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
> >
> >>I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
> >>anywhere else in the Muslim world.
> >
> >
> > The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000
Iraquis
> > to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the US as their
> > oppressor.
>
> I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
> Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
> Muslim world.
>

Then they are fools. They should have given us credit for Kuwait, and
Bosnia, not to mention the aid we've given to the ****ing PLO!

> > There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
> > have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in the
> > street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to become dead
meat
> > in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of fundamentalist
> > bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand with the US Military.
> >
>
> I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.
>
>
>
>

Michael Mckelvy

November 7th 03, 12:22 AM

"Glans, I" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> >>The rules have changed, and we've
> >> >> seen how the US copes with terrorism - impotency, panic, fear. Let's
> >> >> see if you've got mouth when your cosy little world melts away.
> >> >
> >> > So the terrorist control your mouth already.
> >>
> >> No, I'm talking about observable reality. Sorry pal, organized
> >> terrorism is no longer a theoretical threat for the US. Unless you are
> >> interested in resolving problems through dialog and co-operation, you
> >> might as well get used to it.
> >
> > Please provide an example of successful dialogue and cooperation which
> >eliminated terrorism as a threat.
>
> It's been a few years since the IRA planted a device in my
> neighbourhood.
>
> >In the case of Islamic militant terrorism, with whom should we dialogue?
>
> Anybody and everybody.
>
>

They don't want dialog they want to kill infidels.
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Michael Mckelvy

November 7th 03, 12:27 AM

"Nexus 6" > wrote in message
news:O9Uob.20136$d87.8746@okepread05...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > news:l7hob.14322$d87.11760@okepread05...
> >
> >>
> >>Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>And count up all the deaths from the Commies and the smaller tinhorn
> >>>dictators. Multi mlillions. Viet Nam was a wrong headed, disaster, but
> >
> > it
> >
> >>>"at least"
> >>>began as a much more noble enterprise than it ended.
> >>
> >>Vietnam was not a noble enterprise, not at the start, in the
> >>middle, nor the end.
> >>
> >
> >
> > We were only advisors at the beginning.
>
> We supplied military hardware to the French before it all
> blew up in their faces.
>
> > It was supposed to be a Viet Nam thing.
> > I suggest noble, in the sense of
> > idealism. However, please read what I wrote.
> > It was a comparison, form beginning to end.
> > It evolved, and certainly mutated.
>
> I take your point, but disagree. In the beginning, we were
> there to reverse the outcome of the fight aggainst the
> French, for the sole purpose of enforcing their bogus
> colonial claim to the country.
>
> Nexus 6
>
No we were trying to keep another contry from going Communist and being
worse off.

The French got their ass whipped and the South got a government as evil as
the commies just in a different way.

Sandman

November 7th 03, 06:51 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
>
> "trotsky" wrote:

> >"George M. Middius" wrote:

> >> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of
> >> bloodshed in Iraq reflected the desperation of
> >>terrorists who cannot stop the creation of a free
> >>country."
> >> The enemy is bound to get tired of slaughtering us
> >>soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
> >>short order.

> > At some point in our existence we are
> >going to reach the point where zero casualities is the
> >only think acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old > >days dying
in battle was supposed to be a thing of
> >honor, now it's only a waste of life.

> There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, >sometimes it is
necessary, to prevent a greater waste of > life or to preserve liberty.

Yeah, it's one, two three,
What're we fightin' for?
Don't ask 'em, they don't give a damn
This is their new Vietnam.

And it's five six seven
Neo-cons are spewin' hate
They don't have time
To wonder why
Lotsa' people are gonna die.

Yeah, it's one, two, three,
What're we doin' there?
It's a gala neo-con feast
Colonializin' the Middle East

Woo-hoo, it's five, six, seven,
No use in feelin' sad
"The road is through Baghdad"!
The "imminent threat" was empty turmoil
It was always all about the oil!

Hee-haw, one, two, three
Four-teen more people dead
That's just more "yesterday's news"
No point in singin' the blues

Yowzaa, five, six, seven,
Let's finally get this straight
They lied and sealed their fate
No nukes, no chems, no bios lit
Just endless Bushie bull****!

Sockpuppet Yustabe

November 7th 03, 01:32 PM

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >
> > "trotsky" wrote:
>
> > >"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> > >> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of
> > >> bloodshed in Iraq reflected the desperation of
> > >>terrorists who cannot stop the creation of a free
> > >>country."
> > >> The enemy is bound to get tired of slaughtering us
> > >>soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
> > >>short order.
>
> > > At some point in our existence we are
> > >going to reach the point where zero casualities is the
> > >only think acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old > >days dying
> in battle was supposed to be a thing of
> > >honor, now it's only a waste of life.
>
> > There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, >sometimes it
is
> necessary, to prevent a greater waste of > life or to preserve liberty.
>
> Yeah, it's one, two three,
> What're we fightin' for?
> Don't ask 'em, they don't give a damn
> This is their new Vietnam.
>
> And it's five six seven
> Neo-cons are spewin' hate
> They don't have time
> To wonder why
> Lotsa' people are gonna die.
>
> Yeah, it's one, two, three,
> What're we doin' there?
> It's a gala neo-con feast
> Colonializin' the Middle East
>
> Woo-hoo, it's five, six, seven,
> No use in feelin' sad
> "The road is through Baghdad"!
> The "imminent threat" was empty turmoil
> It was always all about the oil!
>
> Hee-haw, one, two, three
> Four-teen more people dead
> That's just more "yesterday's news"
> No point in singin' the blues
>
> Yowzaa, five, six, seven,
> Let's finally get this straight
> They lied and sealed their fate
> No nukes, no chems, no bios lit
> Just endless Bushie bull****!
>
>

Just remember, your man Howie needs us southern rednecks with
the confererate flag decals on our windshields.
Without us, h'e cooked like a Yankee pot roast
with the cover left off.
Yee Haw!!!!!

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael Mckelvy

November 8th 03, 12:17 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> > >
> > > "trotsky" wrote:
> >
> > > >"George M. Middius" wrote:
> >
> > > >> "President Bush said today that the latest spate of
> > > >> bloodshed in Iraq reflected the desperation of
> > > >>terrorists who cannot stop the creation of a free
> > > >>country."
> > > >> The enemy is bound to get tired of slaughtering us
> > > >>soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
> > > >>short order.
> >
> > > > At some point in our existence we are
> > > >going to reach the point where zero casualities is the
> > > >only think acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old > >days
dying
> > in battle was supposed to be a thing of
> > > >honor, now it's only a waste of life.
> >
> > > There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, >sometimes
it
> is
> > necessary, to prevent a greater waste of > life or to preserve liberty.
> >
> > Yeah, it's one, two three,
> > What're we fightin' for?
> > Don't ask 'em, they don't give a damn
> > This is their new Vietnam.
> >
> > And it's five six seven
> > Neo-cons are spewin' hate
> > They don't have time
> > To wonder why
> > Lotsa' people are gonna die.
> >
> > Yeah, it's one, two, three,
> > What're we doin' there?
> > It's a gala neo-con feast
> > Colonializin' the Middle East
> >
> > Woo-hoo, it's five, six, seven,
> > No use in feelin' sad
> > "The road is through Baghdad"!
> > The "imminent threat" was empty turmoil
> > It was always all about the oil!
> >
> > Hee-haw, one, two, three
> > Four-teen more people dead
> > That's just more "yesterday's news"
> > No point in singin' the blues
> >
> > Yowzaa, five, six, seven,
> > Let's finally get this straight
> > They lied and sealed their fate
> > No nukes, no chems, no bios lit
> > Just endless Bushie bull****!
> >
> >
>
> Just remember, your man Howie needs us southern rednecks with
> the confererate flag decals on our windshields.
> Without us, h'e cooked like a Yankee pot roast
> with the cover left off.
> Yee Haw!!!!!
>
>
Then he's cooked already.

>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

November 10th 03, 12:26 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
> >>> I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
> >>> anywhere else in the Muslim world.
>
> >> The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000
> >> Iraqis to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the
> >> US as their oppressor.
>
> > I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
>
> Good.
>
> > Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
> > Muslim world.
>
> Frankly, as far as the radicals go, I don't we could go any lower. As far
as
> the moderates go, I think they are going to feel more empathy for us, the
> worse the radicals beat them up.
>
> >> There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
> >> have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in
> >> the street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to
> >> become dead meat in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are
> >> full of fundamentalist bravado and have come to Iraq to go
> >> hand-to-hand with the US Military.
>
> > I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.
>
> Thanks. However, I wasn't really being optimistic, because I didn't say
what
> I think the outcome will be. I don't have a clear idea of what the outcome
> will be.
>
>
It will likely get worse before it gets better. The best part of all of
this is that we are killing the terrorists over there rather than having
them get here.

It's remarkable how the left likes to let things get to the point of war or
actually start them, then complain about how the right is messing it up.

Michael Mckelvy

November 10th 03, 12:31 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:ln3ob.14141$d87.91@okepread05...
> >
> >
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >
> > > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > > news:HvUnb.13092$d87.9756@okepread05...
> > >
> > >
> > >>Sharpton has proven himself the life of the debates. :)
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed. For all his faults, he is the most intelligent person up
there.
> > > If you can put aside his previous misbehavior and current bombast,
> > > and listen tohis more serious discussions, you will find out that
> > > he has a lot to say, and that it will stimulate you to think. he is
much
> > > better than the usual liberal talking points and dogma.
> >
> > My memory goes back far enough to recall Sharpton as a rank
> > opportunist, looking to make a name for himself any way he
> > could.
> >
>
> Yep.
>
> > In the debates, regardless of his past, he has been
> > outstanding, sharp witted, and funny. I'm not sure I agree
> > he is the "most intelligent" of the candidates.
> >
>
> That part I got from a number of appearances on talk new shows.
>
> > >
> > > Even though he criticizes Bush, if he were
> > > in the "chair', I think he would be somewhat similar, in that he
> > > has that streak in him, like bush. He just doesn't refuses to
> > > take **** from nobody.
> >
Like that Texas toilet paper they had to take off the market. Wouldn't take
**** off nobody.

> > Could be.
> >
> > I doubt Dean would take **** from anybody - that man has a
> > sharp tongue and a somewhat short fuse. Neither is
> > necessarily a bad thing.
> >
>
> Then he is hypocrite about our war on terror.
>
Clearly, if a Democrat should win the election, whoever it is will not be
able to leave Iraq until it far more stable and if they stop our current
efforts started by Bush, we can look forward to more 9/11's.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Michael Mckelvy

November 10th 03, 12:33 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> news:Imbob.14291$d87.4813@okepread05...
> >
> >
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
> >
> > > "Nexus 6" > wrote in message
> > > news:ln3ob.14141$d87.91@okepread05...
> >
> > >>>Even though he criticizes Bush, if he were
> > >>>in the "chair', I think he would be somewhat similar, in that he
> > >>>has that streak in him, like bush. He just doesn't refuses to
> > >>>take **** from nobody.
> > >>
> > >>Could be.
> > >>
> > >>I doubt Dean would take **** from anybody - that man has a
> > >>sharp tongue and a somewhat short fuse. Neither is
> > >>necessarily a bad thing.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Then he is hypocrite about our war on terror.
> >
> > Not at all.
> >
> > Invading Iraq bears no relation to the war against terrorism.
> >
> > Dean supported the Afghanistan invasion.
> >
>
>
> Once started, it became part and parcel. To cut and run
> would be disasterous on our war on terror.
> It would validate what Oasma has been saying about the U.S.,
> that we are weak and divided.
>
>
It's what they keep hoping for in Iraq. The left is seeminly working hand
in hand with the other side to get us out before the job is done. If that
happens we wind up looking much worse than if we stay.

> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---